Sunday, April 30, 2017

SP/GINT-TED Talks-Serena Williams and Gayle King: On tennis, love and motherhood

The following information is used for educational purposes only.




Filmed April 2017 at TED2017

Serena Williams and Gayle King: On tennis, love and motherhood



Twenty-three Grand Slam titles later, tennis superstar Serena Williams sits down with journalist Gayle King to share a warm, mischievous conversation about her life, love, wins and losses — starting with the story of how she accidentally shared her pregnancy news with the world.

























































Transcript:


Gayle King: Have a seat, Serena Williams, or should we say, have a seat, mom.
(Cheers)
So no doubt, you guys are like me. You saw the release of Serena in that great yellow bathing suit last week and when I saw it, all I could think of was, "Gosh, why couldn't she have waited til we sat onstage for TED?" I was very selfish, I know. So I asked you about that picture, and you said nobody was supposed to see that picture. What do you mean?
Serena Williams: Well, actually, it was an accident. I was on vacation, just taking some time for myself, and I have this thing where I've been checking my status and taking pictures every week to see how far along I'm going —
GK: And sharing it with friends, maybe?
SW: No, actually I have just been saving it, and I didn't really tell a lot of people, to be quite honest, and I'd been saving it, and you know how social media is, you press the wrong button and —
(Laughter)
GK: And there it was.
SW: So 30 minutes later — my phone doesn't ring that much — and 30 minutes later, I missed like four calls, and I'm like, that's weird, and then I picked it up and I was like, oh no. But it was a good moment. I was gonna wait literally just five or six more days — that's OK.
GK: I know, because it was weird, Serena, because it only said 20 weeks, so it's not like there was a whole lot of information on it.
SW: Exactly, so that's what I've been doing all this time. I've been just tracking it. 18, 19 — every week I'd just take a picture and save it, and I've been so good about it, and this was the one time that I slipped.
GK: There you go. Well, congratulations.
SW: Yes, thank you.
GK: It really is OK. When you heard the news, were you excited? Were you afraid? Were you worried? That you were pregnant, I mean.
1:55
SW: So I heard it two days before the beginning of the Australian Open, which is one of the biggest grand slams.
GK: You found out two days before?
SW: Yeah, so it was two days before, and I knew. I was nervous. I wasn't quite sure what to think, but I just knew that at that moment it was really important for me to just focus right there at the Australian Open, and I was definitely not sure what to do. I was like, can I play? I know it's very dangerous, maybe, sometimes in the first 12 weeks or so, so I had a lot of questions.
GK: But not only did you play, Ms. Williams, you won.
(Cheers)
SW: Yeah. May I just say, 23 grand slams to you.
SW: Thank you.
(Applause)
GK: While pregnant!
SW: Well, I was looking for another handicap, so ... no.
GK: Did you play differently that game, knowing you were pregnant?
SW: I did. It wasn't very easy. You hear all these stories about people when they're pregnant, they get sick and they get tired.
GK: Have you had morning sickness?
SW: No, I've been so fortunate and so I haven't. But they get really tired and they get really stressed out, and I had to really take all that energy, put it in a paper bag, so to say, and throw it away, because I really felt like I didn't have time to deal with any extra emotions, any extra anything, because pregnant or not, no one knew, and I was supposed to win that tournament as I am every tournament that I show up. I am expected to win, and if I don't win, it's actually much bigger news.
GK: Yeah, when you don't win, that's a big story.
SW: Yes, so for me, I had to really take anything negative and any emotions that I was feeling at that point and kind of just bottle them up and really figure out what the next step for me to do was.
GK: You have a lot of support. You have a lot of love. Even when I was coming here, people stopped me at the airport. I was saying to the flight attendant, the pilot, "Guess where I'm going?" They said, "Oh my God, we're so glad she's pregnant." But then you always have these cranky Yankees. On the way over here, somebody was telling me about Ilie Nastase, who said some very unkind, inappropriate, dare I say racial things. You have responded to him. I'm not even going to dignify what he said, but you responded. Why did you respond?
SW: Well, I think there are very inappropriate comments, and not only that, I've been really supportive of my peers and the people that I've worked with. I've been a pro for almost 20 years, and so for me, it's really important to hold women up, and it's something that these young women, they'll come to the locker room, they'll want to take pictures with me, and for me, it's just like, I want to be able to be a good leader and a good example for them. So not only —
(Applause)
Not only did he have rude things to say about me and my peers, I felt it was important for us to stand up for each other and to stand up for myself. And at that point it was really important for me to say, like, I'm not afraid, I'm not going anywhere, but this is inappropriate, and there's time and there's a place for everything. And that really wasn't the time and the place.
GK: We cut the part where you said you're not going anywhere, because you'll be 36 in September. Baby's coming, 36. And your coach said age is always important, but in tennis it's very important, but he has no doubt that you're coming back. Have you thought, am I coming back? Will I take some time off? I know the women on the tour are saying, "How long does it take to have a baby? Two years will she be gone?" What are you thinking?
SW: Well, I'm always trying to defy the odds, you know, so for me everything is really mental. I definitely plan on coming back. I'm not done yet. I'm really inspired by my sister. She's a year older than me, and that's something that — if she's still playing, I know I can play.
(Laughter)
And there's so many — Roger Federer, he's a little bit older than me and he's still winning everything, so I'm like, I know I can do that too. So that's been so inspiring to me, especially recently, and I know that it's something I want to do. And my story is definitely not over yet. I was talking to my coach about it, and we were talking about how this is just a new part of my life, and my baby's going to be in the stands and hopefully cheering for me, not crying too much.
GK: No, you wrote a beautiful letter to your baby yesterday that you said — from the oldest mommy to the youngest one, to the oldest, to the youngest, I can't wait for you to get here. A lot of people feel that. I saw you about a year ago, because I think about your life, Serena. You've had three life-changing things in a six-month time: pregnant, huge win, fell in love. And when I saw you last year, I was saying, "How's your love life? Da da da." You said, "I met a guy. He's a nerdy, kinda geeky guy. You won't know who he is." I said, "What's his name?"
SW: I remember talking to you about that, yes.
GK: And you said, "Alexis Ohanian." I said, "I know him!" He's awesome. But I would never put you with a nerdy geek, and you said, you neither.
SW: I'm going to be honest with you, I didn't either, but it's been the best thing for me.
GK: The best thing why? Does that look like a nerdy geek? Look at the shirt.
(Laughter)
No, he's a very nice guy.
SW: You can tell he's into technology.
GK: He's a very, very nice guy. I like him very much. So how did he succeed when others have failed? How was he the one that you knew, this is the one for me?
SW: Well, I'm not going to say that, but ...
(Laughter)
GK: Say it, Serena, say it!
SW: Well ...
(Laughter)
Yes.
(Applause)
GK: But you know what I mean.
SW: He is very loving and he's very kind, and my mom says he's very considerate, and when she said that to me, I was like, you know, he really is, and it's the little things that really make a huge difference in life.
GK: Like?
SW: Something simple. My fashion company, we have a show every year, so in our show last year, I was running around like crazy, because I do everything for the show, and everything for it, so I was running around like crazy, and he, it was a simple gesture of this shirt that he had, and he just wanted to make sure that I had the same one, and it was — it's a weird story. It was better in person, I promise.
GK: Was it a wonderful proposal? Or was it a Beyoncé song? "If you like it then you ought to put a ring on it"? Were you feeling pressure to get married? Did you know it was coming?
SW: Yeah, I actually never felt pressure to get married and I can't say I'm the marrying type of person. I really love my life. I love my freedom. I heard that kind of changes. But I love everything that I do, and I love my career, and I always felt like I didn't want anything to interfere with that. I've actually been so career-oriented and in fact, when he proposed, I was almost angry. Not almost. I was angry, because it was right in the middle of my training season, and I said, "I gotta win the Australian Open. I can't fly to Rome." Because he wanted to take me to Rome, and I said, "I can't. I gotta win." But that's how focused I was.
GK: This is a girl that says, "No, I can't go to Rome." OK.
SW: But I was really focused on reaching my goals and I knew at that point there was one player that I wanted to pass. I wanted to pass Steffi Graf's record, and that really meant a lot to me, and when I put my mind to something, I really am determined to reach it no matter what.
GK: You know, you said that for you — I've heard you say that winning is addictive to you.
SW: It is.
GK: What do you mean?
SW: I feel like winning for me is superaddictive. I feel like once you experience it, you always want to get that feeling again, and when I won my first championship, I was only 17 years old, but I never forgot that feeling, and I feel like every time I win one, I want to reach that feeling of your first championship. There's really no feeling in the world like that. And it's like, all these years of training and being a little kid and playing, and then winning is a wonderful experience. So for me I've always felt like I loved that feeling, and obviously I don't like the feeling of losing. I feel like —
GK: No, in fact, people close to you say you're a very bad loser.
SW: I'm not the best loser.
GK: That you're very, very, very bad. Listen, no athlete, no champion likes to lose. I get that. But they say when it comes to losing, you are very, very, very bad at it.
(Laughter)
SW: I'm number one at losing too, so you know, that's all I can say.
(Laughter)
(Applause)
GK: I'm always curious about the dynamic between you and Venus, because everybody that knows you and has followed the story knows that you two are very close, and you always bring your A game in whatever you do, but I often wonder, when you're playing her, do you bring your A- game because you want to do something for her or do you bring your A++ game because you want to crush her. Is it harder for you playing her or easier?
SW: Well, playing Venus is like playing myself, because we grew up playing each other, we grew up practicing together. And it was something that has been difficult, because she's my toughest opponent. She's tall, she's fast, she hits hard like me, she serves like me. It's really like playing a wall.
GK: She knows you.
SW: She knows where I'm hitting the ball before I hit it, so it's something that is not very easy, but it's really about, when I go out there, I really have to shut down my mind and I have to say to myself, "You know what? I'm just playing a great player, but today I have to be better. I don't care who it is, if it's my sister or it's my friend, today is the day I have to show up and I have to be better and I have to want it more than anyone else at this moment anywhere on this world."
GK: So never on the court do you fall back for Venus? Because, you know, it was always Venus and Serena.
SW: Yes.
GK: And now baby sister has surpassed older sister. Do you feel guilt about that? Do you feel joy in that? Is that a difficult position for you?
SW: I don't feel anything in there. In my life, it still and forever is always going to be Venus and Serena. She's really love of my life, she's my best friend, she's my soul mate. I mean — There's pictures of her pushing me, really low-quality pictures or else I would have shared them, of her pushing me in a stroller on a tennis court, and she always took care of me. I used to spend all of my allowance money on the ice cream truck and stuff, and she would take her money and give it to me at school and make sure I had something to eat and she would go without, and that's the kind of person she actually is since I've always known her. So we always have this incredible respect for each other and this incredible love, and I think it's important for people to realize you can be successful but you can still have a wonderful relationship. On the court we are mortal enemies, but the second we shake hands, we are best friends again. And if I lose, it might be a day later for me, but for Venus —
(Laughter)
GK: There's never a time on the court where you hit the ball and say, "That's for seventh grade when you did the blah blah blah"? You never have any moment like that?
SW: I feel like she should have those moments, because she's never done anything bad to me, but I'm the youngest. I'm the younger sister.
GK: Serena, she's never done anything bad to you? Really? I have three sisters. I can think of some stuff I've done bad.
SW: Unless she brainwashed me to forget them.
GK: No, but the love you have for her I know is very pure. I know that.
SW: Yes. GK: I know that.
SW: We were always brought up to be superclose, and we are incredibly close. Not only her. I have three other sisters as well, and we were always so close.
GK: So before a big match, the two of you don't get together and say, look, we're going to go out there and — there's nothing.
SW: Well, it's funny. Before the Australian Open, we were in the locker room together, and I always pick on her, so I pulled out my camera while she was changing. I started taking pictures of her, which is totally inappropriate, but she was so mad at me. She's like, "Serena, stop!" And I was just laughing at her. But that's the kind of relationship that we have, and like I said, the second we step on the court, it was like, we were definitely mortal enemies, but the second we stepped off, and moments before, we're just — It is what it is, because at the end of the day, she'll always be my sister. I'm not going to play Australia in — Well, who knows, I've been playing forever, but I don't think I'll be playing in 50 years, say? Let's be safe and say 50 years.
GK: I don't know, Serena. There's never been anybody like you. When you think about it, never been anybody who has intersected gender and race the way you have, the dominance that you have and the scrutiny that you have. And when you were growing up, did you say, "I want to be like that"? Because now little girls are looking at you saying, "I want to be like that." Who was the "I want to be like that" for you?
SW: Well, it's interesting, and I'm glad you brought that up. For me, when I grew up, I always wanted to be the best, and I said, if you want to be the best, you've got to emulate the best. So when I started to go on tour when I was really young, I would see Steffi Graf, I would see Monica Seles, and I would even see Pete Sampras, and I would see what they did, and I noticed that Steffi and Monica didn't really talk to a lot of the other players, and they kind of were on their own, and they were just so focused and I would see Pete Sampras, the technique that he did, and I was like, "I want to do that." So I did that, and I felt that to be the best, and if you want to be the best, you have to hang around people and you have to look at people that are the best, because you're not going to be the best if you're looking at someone that's not at the top level.
GK: People say nobody works as hard as you.
SW: I'm a very hard worker. GK: That's what I heard.
SW: People say, "Oh, she's talented, she's athletic." Actually, I wasn't. I was really small for my age. I grew up when I got older, and I had to work really hard, and I think one of the reasons why I fight so hard and I work so hard is because I was really, really, really small.
GK: Yeah. You are no longer small.
SW: No, I'm fully grown now. But I was small when I was really young for whatever reason. I think Venus maybe ate all the Wheaties.
GK: You know, the other thing people talk about is your body. Your body brings men and women to their knees. And I mean in a good way. A lot has been made about your body. It's a work of art, it's masculine, it's glorious, there's never been anything like it. Did you have body issues when you were growing up? Have you always been comfortable with your body?
SW: It's interesting, because when you're a teenage female growing up in the public eye, it is a lot of scrutiny that you face, and as any female that's a teenager, I definitely was not comfortable in my body. I didn't like it. I didn't understand why I had muscles. And I stopped lifting weights. I was like, I'm not going to do this. But then after I won the US Open, I realized that my body helped me reach goals that I wanted to reach, and I wanted to be happy with it, and I was so appreciative of it. I'm always healthy. I'm really fortunate and superblessed, and I felt like not only am I happy with my body, but I want other people and other young girls that have experienced what I've experienced to be happy with themselves. So whatever people say — masculine, whatever, too much, too little — I'm OK with it as long as I love myself.
(Applause)
GK: I know you learn a lot from winning, but what have you learned from losing?
SW: I hate to lose, but I think losing has brought me here today. The only reason I am who I am is because of my losses, and some of them are extremely painful, but I wouldn't take any of them away, because every time I lose, it takes a really long time for me to lose again because I learn so much from it. And I encourage everyone that I talk to — I'm like, listen, if you lose or if something happens — not in sports — in business or in school — learn from it. Don't live in the past, live in the present, and don't make the same mistakes in the future. That's something that I always try to live by.
GK: Now you're planning a wedding and I want to know, is it a destination wedding in the Catskills or Poconos or are you going to do it in Florida? What are you thinking? Big or small?
SW: We're thinking medium size. We don't want to do too big, but then we're like, OK, we can't say no to this person, this person. So we're thinking medium size and we're just thinking — My personality is a lot of fun. Hopefully you can see that today. I'm not too serious.
GK: And you like to dance. And the next chapter for Serena Williams is what?
SW: Oh, next for me. Obviously I'm going to have a baby and I'm going to stay fit and kind of come back and play tennis and keep working on my fashion line. That'll be really fun.
GK: Do you know if it's a boy or girl?
SW: I don't. I have a feeling of one or the other. It's a 50-50 chance, but I have a feeling.
GK: Gayle is a unisex name. Whatever you and Alexis decide, we are cheering you on!
SW: Thank you for that. GK: You're welcome. We are cheering you on, Serena Williams. SW: Thank you so much.
Thank you guys.
(Applause)


TECH/SCIEN/GINT-TED Talks-Siddhartha Roy: Science in service to the public good

The following information is used for educational purposes only.





Filmed November 2016 at TEDxVirginiaTech

Siddhartha Roy: Science in service to the public good



We give scientists and engineers great technical training, but we're not as good at teaching ethical decision-making or building character. Take, for example, the environmental crisis that recently unfolded in Flint, Michigan — and the professionals there who did nothing to fix it. Siddhartha Roy helped prove that Flint's water was contaminated, and he tells a story of science in service to the public good, calling on the next generation of scientists and engineers to dedicate their work to protecting people and the planet.

























































Transcript:





Fresh out of college, I went to work for a consulting firm. During orientation, the leaders dished out advice. Amongst them was one pithy counsel I will never forget. He told us, "Be easy to manage." Considering how naïve I really was at the time, I took his advice to heart. I told myself, "Yes, I will be the ultimate team player. I will do everything I'm told. I will be easy to manage." It wasn't until I arrived in graduate school and witnessed firsthand the criminal actions of scientists and engineers in the water crisis in Flint, Michigan that I realized how dangerous and yet surprisingly common this line of thinking really is.
Make no mistake: the Flint water crisis is one of the most egregious environmental injustices of our time. For over 18 months, 100,000 residents, including thousands of young children, were exposed to contaminated drinking water with high levels of lead. Lead is a potent neurotoxin which causes cognitive and developmental disabilities and is especially harmful to growing fetuses and young children. We've known about its dangers since the Roman Empire. Amongst a whole host of health issues, 12 people died by contracting Legionnaires' disease. Flint's water infrastructure — the complex network of underground pipes — has been severely damaged. And while the water quality is slowly improving and the pipes are being replaced now, more than two years later, the water is still not safe to drink.
So, people are still in shock. They ask themselves, "How could this have happened?" The short answer is: the crisis began when an emergency manager, appointed by Michigan's governor, decided to switch their water source to a local river to save money. But it continued for so long because scientists and engineers at government agencies in the state of Michigan and in the federal government did not follow federal regulations for treating the water right. What was more, they actively cheated on the law and orchestrated cover-ups. They ridiculed residents asking for help, while publicly insisting that the brown, smelly water coming out of the tap was safe to drink. The system at the local, state and federal levels completely failed to protect our most vulnerable, and an entire population was left to fend for itself.
Now, amidst this injustice, Flint residents were rallying together. Amongst them were some amazing women of Flint — mothers concerned about their kids — who came together forming many grassroots coalitions, and these groups started protesting and demanding change. The group also reached out to outside scientists for help, and a few responded. Amongst them was a guy named Miguel Del Toral, a water expert at the US EPA — the Environmental Protection Agency — who actually wrote this scientific memo and sent it to the state of Michigan and the federal government to bring their attention to this problem. He was characterized a "rogue employee," and silenced.
In collaboration with Flint residents, our research team here at Tech, of students and scientists led by professor Marc Edwards, conducted citywide testing to prove that Flint's water was indeed contaminated, even toxic in some homes. We substantiated what Flint had been screaming for months, and put it on the Internet for the world to see.
Now, when I was getting involved, when I said yes to this, I had no idea what I was getting into. But every second of this journey has been totally worth it. This was science in service to the public. This is what I came to graduate school for, and this is how I would rather spend my life. And so this coalition — this unlikely coalition of citizens, pastors, journalists and scientists — came together to uncover the truth using science, advocacy and activism.
A local pediatrician figured out that the instances of childhood lead poisoning had indeed doubled in Flint during the crisis. And the state of Michigan was forced to acknowledge the problem and take steps to correct it. This group and many others got Flint's kids protected.
A few months later, President Obama came in and declared a federal emergency, and now Flint is getting more than 600 million dollars in healthcare, nutrition, education and overhauling their water infrastructure. However, the arrogance and the callous disregard for public health shown by scientists and engineers at these government agencies is beyond belief. These unhealthy cultures that are festering in these groups, where the focus is on meeting regulations and checking boxes as opposed to protecting public health, is just appalling. Just consider this email that an EPA employee wrote, where she goes, "I'm not so sure Flint is a community we want to go out on a limb for." The dehumanization of an entire population could not be more obvious.
Now, contrast that to the first canon of engineering, which, in my opinion, should be the first law of humanity: "To hold paramount the health, safety and welfare of the public," above all else. This is the Hippocratic Oath we've rarely acknowledged, let alone embraced. And so when scientists and engineers, very much like medical doctors, screw up, people can get hurt — even die. If our professionals and even students fail to get that, society pays a huge price.
Buried deep in history lies a character I deeply admire — an engineer named Peter Palchinsky. He lived in the time of the Soviet Union. And Palchinsky repeatedly got in trouble for his radical honesty and willingness to point out major flaws in the Soviets' mindless pursuit of rapid industrialization. Everyone was expected to follow orders coming from the top. Anyone asking questions or offering feedback was unwelcome. The Soviets had created the largest army of engineers the world had ever seen, and yet most of them were mere cogs in a gigantic machine heading for doom. Palchinsky, on the other hand, implored engineers to look at the economic, political and social consequences of their actions; in other words, be more public-focused. His fearless voice of reason was seen as a threat to the political establishment, and Joseph Stalin had him executed in 1929.
Palchinsky's view on technocrats is very different from one that is still very popular, still very common — that of a dispassionate researcher working in his ivory tower lab, or a nerdy engineer working in his cubicle. Brilliant, no doubt, yet somehow cut off from the world, shows little emotion — kind of like Spock from "Star Trek," you know? This guy.
(Laughter)
Let's try and do the Spock salute. I don't think I'll succeed ... See, I can't be Spock. Thank goodness I can't be Spock.
(Laughter)
I was reminded of this distinction because a recent article came out in a very reputed scientific journal, which kind of characterized our Flint work as driven by "youthful idealism," and "Hollywood's dramatic sensibilities." It asks scientists to protect their research funding and institutions at all costs, no matter how just the cause. And if you think you have to get involved in something, even if it's an emergency, try finding an activist group or an NGO, and obtain the full support of the academic community — whatever that means — before you get involved. Not one mention of our moral and professional obligation of preventing harm to the public, or the fact that we have all this expertise, resources and, for some, even tenure to, you know, accomplish this task. I'm not saying every scientist should be an activist. There are real and sometimes very painful consequences of speaking up. But to denounce this idea, this possibility so completely so that you can protect research funding, simply screams of self-serving cowardice, and these are not the ideals we would want to pass to our students.
And so you may think, "OK, all this sounds great, but you'll never completely change organizational cultures, or imbibe mindsets in students and professionals to look at their work as a public good — science in service to the public." Maybe so. But could a big reason for that be that we are not training our students right? Because if you look closely, our education system today is focused more on creating what ex-Yale professor Bill Deresiewicz calls "excellent sheep" — young people who are smart and ambitious, and yet somehow risk-averse, timid, directionless and, sometimes, full of themselves.
Now, kids ... you know, we fell in love with science when we were kids, and yet we somehow spend most of our time during high school and college just jumping through hoops and doing things so that we can polish our résumé instead of sitting down and reflecting on what we want to do and who we want to be. And so, the markers of empathy in our college graduates have been dropping dramatically in the past two decades, while those of narcissism are on the rise.
There is also a growing culture of disengagement between engineering students and the public. We are trained to build bridges and solve complex problems but not how to think or live or be a citizen of this world. My undergraduate years were explicit job preparation, and I cannot tell you how suffocating and painful it was at times. And so, some people think the solution to great engineers, to great scientists, is more technical training. Maybe so. But where are the discussions on ethical decision-making, or building character, or discerning right from wrong?
Consider this project that I deeply love and admire. It's called, "Heroic Imagination Project." A brainchild of Dr. Phil Zimbardo, famous for the Stanford Prison Experiment, this program seeks to train school-going children around the world to look at themselves as heroes-in-waiting, or heroes-in-training. So, these young minds work over time to develop skills and virtues so that when the opportunity comes, no matter what that opportunity be, to stand up and do the right thing. In other words, anyone can be a hero.
Think about that idea for a second. Why don't we teach science and engineering like that — where heroism and public service are seen as key values, because indeed, it's often heroism that is not only the antidote to public indifference, but also to systemic evil like we saw in Flint.
And so, dream with me what a 21st-century scientist slash engineer could look like: individuals who are driven to master the sciences so that they can serve society, and are also aware of the tremendous power their knowledge and decisions have; folks who are developing their moral courage at all times, and who realize that conflict and controversy are not necessarily bad things if our ultimate loyalty is to the public and the planet.
These are the people who will stand up like we did in Flint — not to be saviors or heroes in the media, but altruistic and fundamentally good actors that you and I can trust. Imagine fostering such a public-focused mindset in classes, on service trips and during activities during college or even high school, so that these young minds will hold onto those ideals when they actually enter the real world, whether that be consulting, academia, policy making — or even becoming the president of a country.
Some of mankind's greatest challenges lie ahead of us; contaminated drinking water is just one example. We could definitely use more — nay, we desperately need more — compassionate upstanders and public-focused scientists and engineers who will strive to the do right thing, and not be easy to manage.
Thank you.
(Applause)

JOUR/POL/GINT-TED Talks-Stephanie Busari: How fake news does real harm

The following information is used for educational purposes only.



Filmed February 2017 at TEDLagos Ideas Search

Stephanie Busari: How fake news does real harm



On April 14, 2014, the terrorist organization Boko Haram kidnapped more than 200 schoolgirls from the town of Chibok, Nigeria. Around the world, the crime became epitomized by the slogan #BringBackOurGirls — but in Nigeria, government officials called the crime a hoax, confusing and delaying efforts to rescue the girls. In this powerful talk, journalist Stephanie Busari points to the Chibok tragedy to explain the deadly danger of fake news and what we can do to stop it.



























































Transcript:



I want to tell you a story about a girl. But I can't tell you her real name. So let's just call her Hadiza.
Hadiza is 20. She's shy, but she has a beautiful smile that lights up her face. But she's in constant pain. And she will likely be on medication for the rest of her life.
Do you want to know why? Hadiza is a Chibok girl, and on April 14, 2014, she was kidnapped by Boko Haram terrorists. She managed to escape, though, by jumping off the truck that was carrying the girls. But when she landed, she broke both her legs, and she had to crawl on her tummy to hide in the bushes. She told me she was terrified that Boko Haram would come back for her. She was one of 57 girls who would escape by jumping off trucks that day.
This story, quite rightly, caused ripples around the world. People like Michelle Obama, Malala and others lent their voices in protest, and at about the same time — I was living in London at the time — I was sent from London to Abuja to cover the World Economic Forum that Nigeria was hosting for the first time. But when we arrived, it was clear that there was only one story in town. We put the government under pressure. We asked tough questions about what they were doing to bring these girls back. Understandably, they weren't too happy with our line of questioning, and let's just say we received our fair share of "alternative facts."
(Laughter)
Influential Nigerians were telling us at the time that we were naïve, we didn't understand the political situation in Nigeria. But they also told us that the story of the Chibok girls was a hoax. Sadly, this hoax narrative has persisted, and there are still people in Nigeria today who believe that the Chibok girls were never kidnapped. Yet I was talking to people like these — devastated parents, who told us that on the day Boko Haram kidnapped their daughters, they ran into the Sambisa Forest after the trucks carrying their daughters. They were armed with machetes, but they were forced to turn back because Boko Haram had guns.
For two years, inevitably, the news agenda moved on, and for two years, we didn't hear much about the Chibok girls. Everyone presumed they were dead. But in April last year, I was able to obtain this video. This is a still from the video that Boko Haram filmed as a proof of life, and through a source, I obtained this video. But before I could publish it, I had to travel to the northeast of Nigeria to talk to the parents, to verify it. I didn't have to wait too long for confirmation. One of the mothers, when she watched the video, told me that if she could have reached into the laptop and pulled our her child from the laptop, she would have done so. For those of you who are parents, like myself, in the audience, you can only imagine the anguish that that mother felt.
This video would go on to kick-start negotiation talks with Boko Haram. And a Nigerian senator told me that because of this video they entered into those talks, because they had long presumed that the Chibok girls were dead. Twenty-one girls were freed in October last year. Sadly, nearly 200 of them still remain missing.
I must confess that I have not been a dispassionate observer covering this story. I am furious when I think about the wasted opportunities to rescue these girls. I am furious when I think about what the parents have told me, that if these were daughters of the rich and the powerful, they would have been found much earlier. And I am furious that the hoax narrative, I firmly believe, caused a delay; it was part of the reason for the delay in their return.
This illustrates to me the deadly danger of fake news. So what can we do about it? There are some very smart people, smart engineers at Google and Facebook, who are trying to use technology to stop the spread of fake news. But beyond that, I think everybody here — you and I — we have a role to play in that. We are the ones who share the content. We are the ones who share the stories online. In this day and age, we're all publishers, and we have responsibility.
In my job as a journalist, I check, I verify. I trust my gut, but I ask tough questions. Why is this person telling me this story? What do they have to gain by sharing this information? Do they have a hidden agenda? I really believe that we must all start to ask tougher questions of information that we discover online.
Research shows that some of us don't even read beyond headlines before we share stories. Who here has done that? I know I have. But what if we stopped taking information that we discover at face value? What if we stop to think about the consequence of the information that we pass on and its potential to incite violence or hatred? What if we stop to think about the real-life consequences of the information that we share?
Thank you very much for listening.
(Applause)















BRAIN/HEALTH/GINT-TED Talks-Lisa Genova: What you can do to prevent Alzheimer's

The following information is used for educational purposes only.






Filmed April 2017 at TED2017

Lisa Genova: What you can do to prevent Alzheimer's



Alzheimer's doesn't have to be your brain's destiny, says neuroscientist and author of "Still Alice," Lisa Genova. She shares the latest science investigating the disease — and some promising research on what each of us can do to build an Alzheimer's-resistant brain.
















































Transcript:

How many people here would like to live to be at least 80 years old? Yeah. I think we all have this hopeful expectation of living into old age. Let's project out into the future, to your future "you's," and let's imagine that we're all 85. Now, everyone look at two people. One of you probably has Alzheimer's disease.
(Laughter)
Alright, alright. And maybe you're thinking, "Well, it won't be me." Then, OK. You are a caregiver. So —
(Laughter)
so in some way, this terrifying disease is likely to affect us all.
Part of the fear around Alzheimer's stems from the sense that there's nothing we can do about it. Despite decades of research, we still have no disease-modifying treatment and no cure. So if we're lucky enough to live long enough, Alzheimer's appears to be our brain's destiny.
But maybe it doesn't have to be. What if I told you we could change these statistics, literally change our brain's destiny, without relying on a cure or advancements in medicine?
Let's begin by looking at what we currently understand about the neuroscience of Alzheimer's. Here's a picture of two neurons connecting. The point of connection, this space circled in red, is called the synapse. The synapse is where neurotransmitters are released. This is where signals are transmitted, where communication happens. This is where we think, feel, see, hear, desire ... and remember. And the synapse is where Alzheimer's happens.
Let's zoom in on the synapse and look at a cartoon representation of what's going on. During the business of communicating information, in addition to releasing neurotransmitters like glutamate into the synapse, neurons also release a small peptide called amyloid beta. Normally, amyloid beta is cleared away metabolized by microglia, the janitor cells of our brains. While the molecular causes of Alzheimer's are still debated, most neuroscientists believe that the disease begins when amyloid beta begins to accumulate. Too much is released, or not enough is cleared away, and the synapse begins to pile up with amyloid beta. And when this happens, it binds to itself, forming sticky aggregates called amyloid plaques.
How many people here are 40 years old or older? You're afraid to admit it now. This initial step into the disease, this presence of amyloid plaques accumulating, can already be found in your brains. The only way we could be sure of this would be through a PET scan, because at this point, you are blissfully unaware. You're not showing any impairments in memory, language, or cognition ... yet. We think it takes at least 15 to 20 years of amyloid plaque accumulation before it reaches a tipping point, then triggering a molecular cascade that causes the clinical symptoms of the disease. Prior to the tipping point, your lapses in memory might include things like, "Why did I come in this room?" or "Oh ... what's his name?" or "Where did I put my keys?"
Now, before you all start freaking out again, because I know half of you did at least one of those in the last 24 hours — these are all normal kinds of forgetting. In fact, I would argue that these examples might not even involve your memory, because you didn't pay attention to where you put your keys in the first place. After the tipping point, the glitches in memory, language and cognition are different. Instead of eventually finding your keys in your coat pocket or on the table by the door, you find them in the refrigerator, or you find them and you think, "What are these for?"
So what happens when amyloid plaques accumulate to this tipping point? Our microglia janitor cells become hyper-activated, releasing chemicals that cause inflammation and cellular damage. We think they might actually start clearing away the synapses themselves. A crucial neural transport protein called "tau" becomes hyperphosphorylated and twists itself into something called "tangles," which choke off the neurons from the inside. By mid-stage Alzheimer's, we have massive inflammation and tangles and all-out war at the synapse and cell death.
So if you were a scientist trying to cure this disease, at what point would you ideally want to intervene? Many scientists are betting big on the simplest solution: keep amyloid plaques from reaching that tipping point, which means that drug discovery is largely focused on developing a compound that will prevent, eliminate, or reduce amyloid plaque accumulation. So the cure for Alzheimer's will likely be a preventative medicine. We're going to have to take this pill before we reach that tipping point, before the cascade is triggered, before we start leaving our keys in the refrigerator. We think this is why, to date, these kinds of drugs have failed in clinical trials — not because the science wasn't sound, but because the people in these trials were already symptomatic. It was too late. Think of amyloid plaques as a lit match. At the tipping point, the match sets fire to the forest. Once the forest is ablaze, it doesn't do any good to blow out the match. You have to blow out the match before the forest catches fire.
Even before scientists sort this out, this information is actually really good news for us, because it turns out that the way we live can influence the accumulation of amyloid plaques. And so there are things we can do to keep us from reaching that tipping point.
Let's picture your risk of Alzheimer's as a see-saw scale. We're going to pile risk factors on one arm, and when that arm hits the floor, you are symptomatic and diagnosed with Alzheimer's. Let's imagine you're 50 years old. You're not a spring chicken anymore, so you've accumulated some amyloid plaques with age. Your scale is tipped a little bit.
Now let's look at your DNA. We've all inherited our genes from our moms and our dads. Some of these genes will increase our risk and some will decrease it. If you're like Alice in "Still Alice," you've inherited a rare genetic mutation that cranks out amyloid beta, and this alone will tip your scale arm to the ground. But for most of us, the genes we inherit will only tip the arm a bit. For example, APOE4 is a gene variant that increases amyloid, but you can inherit a copy of APOE4 from mom and dad and still never get Alzheimer's, which means that for most of us, our DNA alone does not determine whether we get Alzheimer's. So what does? We can't do anything about getting older or the genes we've inherited. So far, we haven't changed our brain's destiny.
What about sleep? In slow-wave deep sleep, our glial cells rinse cerebral spinal fluid throughout our brains, clearing away metabolic waste that accumulated in our synapses while we were awake. Deep sleep is like a power cleanse for the brain. But what happens if you shortchange yourself on sleep? Many scientists believe that poor sleep hygiene might actually be a predictor of Alzheimer's. A single night of sleep deprivation leads to an increase in amyloid beta. And amyloid accumulation has been shown to disrupt sleep, which in turn causes more amyloid to accumulate. And so now we have this positive feedback loop that's going to accelerate the tipping of that scale.
What else? Cardiovascular health. High blood pressure, diabetes, obesity, smoking, high cholesterol, have all been shown to increase our risk of developing Alzheimer's. Some autopsy studies have shown that as many as 80 percent of people with Alzheimer's also had cardiovascular disease. Aerobic exercise has been shown in many studies to decrease amyloid beta in animal models of the disease. So a heart-healthy Mediterranean lifestyle and diet can help to counter the tipping of this scale.
So there are many things we can do to prevent or delay the onset of Alzheimer's. But let's say you haven't done any of them. Let's say you're 65; there's Alzheimer's in your family, so you've likely inherited a gene or two that tips your scale arm a bit; you've been burning the candle at both ends for years; you love bacon; and you don't run unless someone's chasing you.
(Laughter)
Let's imagine that your amyloid plaques have reached that tipping point. Your scale arm has crashed to the floor. You've tripped the cascade, setting fire to the forest, causing inflammation, tangles, and cell death. You should be symptomatic for Alzheimer's. You should be having trouble finding words and keys and remembering what I said at the beginning of this talk. But you might not be.
There's one more thing you can do to protect yourself from experiencing the symptoms of Alzheimer's, even if you have the full-blown disease pathology ablaze in your brain. It has to do with neural plasticity and cognitive reserve. Remember, the experience of having Alzheimer's is ultimately a result of losing synapses. The average brain has over a hundred trillion synapses, which is fantastic; we've got a lot to work with. And this isn't a static number. We gain and lose synapses all the time, through a process called neural plasticity. Every time we learn something new, we are creating and strengthening new neural connections, new synapses.
In the Nun Study, 678 nuns, all over the age of 75 when the study began, were followed for more than two decades. They were regularly given physical checkups and cognitive tests, and when they died, their brains were all donated for autopsy. In some of these brains, scientists discovered something surprising. Despite the presence of plaques and tangles and brain shrinkage — what appeared to be unquestionable Alzheimer's — the nuns who had belonged to these brains showed no signs of having the disease while they were alive.
How can this be? We think it's because these nuns had a high level of cognitive reserve, which is a way of saying that they had more functional synapses. People who have more years of formal education, who have a high degree of literacy, who engage regularly in mentally stimulating activities, all have more cognitive reserve. They have an abundance and a redundancy in neural connections. So even if they have a disease like Alzheimer's compromising some of their synapses, they've got many extra backup connections, and this buffers them from noticing that anything is amiss.
Let's imagine a simplified example. Let's say you only know one thing about a subject. Let's say it's about me. You know that Lisa Genova wrote "Still Alice," and that's the only thing you know about me. You have that single neural connection, that one synapse. Now imagine you have Alzheimer's. You have plaques and tangles and inflammation and microglia devouring that synapse. Now when someone asks you, "Hey, who wrote 'Still Alice?'" you can't remember, because that synapse is either failing or gone. You've forgotten me forever.
But what if you had learned more about me? Let's say you learned four things about me. Now imagine you have Alzheimer's, and three of those synapses are damaged or destroyed. You still have a way to detour the wreckage. You can still remember my name. So we can be resilient to the presence of Alzheimer's pathology through the recruitment of yet-undamaged pathways. And we create these pathways, this cognitive reserve, by learning new things. Ideally, we want these new things to be as rich in meaning as possible, recruiting sight and sound and associations and emotion.
So this really doesn't mean doing crossword puzzles. You don't want to simply retrieve information you've already learned, because this is like traveling down old, familiar streets, cruising neighborhoods you already know. You want to pave new neural roads. Building an Alzheimer's-resistant brain means learning to speak Italian, meeting new friends, reading a book, or listening to a great TED Talk.
And if, despite all of this, you are someday diagnosed with Alzheimer's, there are three lessons I've learned from my grandmother and the dozens of people I've come to know living with this disease. Diagnosis doesn't mean you're dying tomorrow. Keep living. You won't lose your emotional memory. You'll still be able to understand love and joy. You might not remember what I said five minutes ago, but you'll remember how I made you feel. And you are more than what you can remember.
Thank you.
(Applause)

Saturday, April 29, 2017

GINT-29 de Abril: Por qué el 29 de abril se celebra el Día del Animal

The following information is used for educational purposes only.


Por qué el 29 de abril se celebra el Día del Animal


El propósito central de esta fecha es recordar la importancia de las otras especies animales con quienes compartimos el planeta.



Todos los años el 29 de abril se festeja, en Argentina, el "Día del Animal". Sin embargo, pocos saben por qué es este día el elegido para celebrarlo.


El Día del Animal comenzó a celebrarse, al menos en nuestro país, en 1908 . En aquel entonces, por inspiración de Clemente Onelli, entonces director del Jardín Zoológico, y del doctor Ignacio Lucas Albarracín , Presidente de la Sociedad Protectora de Animales , se festejaba cada 2 de abril, según informa el Ministerio Educación en sus efemérides.




































Albarración propulsó la Ley Nacional de Protección de los Animales.

Foto: iStock

El doctor Albarracín, además de ser uno de los fundadores de la Sociedad Argentina Protectora de Animales, es el que propuso y propulsó la Ley Nacional de Protección de Animales (N° 2786) en la que quedaba establecido, por primera vez en la historia argentina, la obligatoriedad de brindar protección a los animales, de manera de impedir su maltrato y su caza .



































Dr. Ignacio Lucas Albarracín fue abogado y creador del Día del animal.

Foto: Wikicommons


El 29 de abril de 1926 , Albarracín falleció, a los 75, de un paro cardíaco. Es por eso que, en su homenaje, el Día del Animal comenzó a celebrarse con la fecha que actualmente conocemos.

A diferencia de nuestro país, en el resto del mundo se celebra cada 4 de octubre. El propósito central de esta fecha es recordar la importancia de las otras especies animales con quienes compartimos el planeta, quienes las más de las veces son víctimas de nuestro egoísmo,sadismo y crueldad.






Fuente:https://www.terra.com.ar/noticias/sociedad/por-que-el-29-de-abril-se-celebra-el-dia-del-animal,800dd3548555e310VgnVCM5000009ccceb0aRCRD.html













































































































































































































Fuente: Google Images





















MUS/GINT-5 canciones en español que hicieron historia

The following information is used for educational purposes only.



5 canciones en español que hicieron historia


Mientras Despacito se convierte en el primer tema en español en liderar el ranking global de Spotify, recordamos otros hitos de la música latina

29 DE ABRIL DE 2017
























Enrique Iglesias, uno de los cantantes que pisa fuerte alrededor del mundo.


Aunque todavía falta mucho para lograr paridad con el mercado anglo, cada vez es más común escuchar canciones en español en todo el globo. Desde banda de sonido de películas y videojuegos hasta colaboraciones en más de un idioma, el catálogo de éxitos en la lengua de Cervantes crece. Aquí, un puñado de títulos que se ganaron un lugar en las páginas de la historia...

"Macarena" - Los del Río

































Imposible no pensar en este hit y comenzar a tararearlo de manera obsesiva. Aunque ni su letra ni su melodía vayan a quedar en los libros de historia, el increíble furor que causó esta canción no tiene parangón. El tema original se lanzó en 1993 en España, pero fue un remix dos años después el que lo colocó en las radios de todo el mundo y, créase o no, jugó un rol importante en la campaña presidencial por la re-eleción de Bill Clinton. El sencillo vendió en todo el mundo 14 millones de copias y se lo considera el mayor éxito global de la década del 90.

"Me olvidé de vivir" - Julio Iglesias


































Sin nunca sacarse la mano del estómago y sin dejarse fotografiar del "lado feo" de su cara, Julio Iglesias logró en su extensa carrera vender más de 300 millones de placas, lo que le valió un premio récord Guiness al "artista latino que más discos ha vendido en el mundo". Con más de 80 títulos en su haber, el español tiene el privilegio, además, de ser uno de los cantantes más populares en China.

"Bailando" - Enrique Iglesias





































De tal palo... tal astilla.Enrique Iglesias también hace historia con su música. "Bailando", el tema en el que canta junto con el grupo cubano Gente de Zona y Descemer Bueno, se convirtió en la canción que más tiempo pasó en el primer puesto del ranking latino de Billboard. No sólo eso, sino que en pocos semanas logró la certificación de disco de platino en los Estados Unidos, al vender un millón de copias, y se convirtió en la décima canción más popular a nivel mundial de 2014.


"Bésame mucho" - Consuelito Velázquez








































Los especialistas señalan a esta composición escrita en 1940 por la pianista mexicana Consuelito Velázquez como el tema cantado en español con más covers de la historia. Este bolero perfecto fue versionado, entre otros, por Charles Aznavour, Andrea Bocelli, Caetano Veloso, Louis Armstrong, Mina y Los Beatles.

"Despacito" - Luis Fonsi feat. Daddy Yankee y Justin Bieber































El éxito del último tema de Luis Fonsi y Daddy Yankee era grande, pero la incorporación de Justin Bieber logró que incluyo crezca más. Hoy es la primera canción con letra en español en llegar a la posición máxima de la lista global de canciones más escuchadas de la plataforma de streaming Spotify.

"Luis Fonsi suena con este tema en países como los Estados Unidos, Suecia y Noruega, en total, la canción está en el Top 20 de, al menos, 14 países no hispanohablantes. Estamos muy emocionados porque esto refuerza nuestro objetivo de ser una plataforma para impulsar a los artistas más allá de su alcance tradicional", aseguró Mia Nygren de Spotify sobre esta nueva canción que hace historia.





















Fuente: www.lanacion.com.ar/www.youtube.com

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

GINT-TED Talks-El Papa participó en una charla TED y llamó a poner en marcha una "revolución de la ternura"

The following information is used for educational purposes only.





El Papa participó en una charla TED y llamó a poner en marcha una "revolución de la ternura"


"En la Argentina se decía que el poder es como el gin tomado en ayunas: te hace girar la cabeza, te hace emborrachar", dijo

Elisabetta Piqué


26 DE ABRIL DE 2017









Why the only future worth building includes everyone | Pope Francis


TED

Published on Apr 25, 2017



A single individual is enough for hope to exist, and that individual can be you, says His Holiness Pope Francis in this searing TED Talk delivered directly from Vatican City. In a hopeful message to people of all faiths, to those who have power as well as those who don't, the spiritual leader provides illuminating commentary on the world as we currently find it and calls for equality, solidarity and tenderness to prevail. "Let us help each other, all together, to remember that the 'other' is not a statistic, or a number," he says. "We all need each other."





ROMA.- Francisco se convirtió hoy en el primer Papa que participa en una charla TED. Lo hizo a través de un videomensaje de 18 minutos que fue transmitido en un encuentro en Vancouver, Canadá, en el que llamó a los presentes a poner en marcha una "revolución de la ternura", a no encerrarse en uno mismo, sino a tener en cuenta a los otros, "que no son estadísticas o números", a través de una solidaridad concreta.

"La ternura es el camino que han recorrido los hombres y las mujeres más valientes y fuertes, no es debilidad, sino fortaleza. Es el camino de la solidaridad y de la humildad", aseguró el Papa.


En un discurso inspirador, subtitulado en más de 20 idiomas, Francisco recordó la parábola del Buen Samaritano y a la Madre Teresa de Calcuta, hoy santa.Y destacó la importancia de la humildad, especialmente en las personas poderosas. "Permítanme decirlo claramente: cuánto más poder tenés, cuánto más tus acciones tienen impacto en la gente, tanto más eres llamado a ser humilde. Porque, en caso contrario, el poder te arruina y tú arruinarás a los demás", afirmó, hablando en italiano.

"En la Argentina se decía que el poder es como el gin tomado en ayunas: te hace girar la cabeza, te hace emborrachar, te hace perder el equilibrio y te lleva a hacer daño a ti mismo y a los demás si no lo juntás a la humildad y a la ternura", agregó, añadiendo como siempre un toque personal. "Con la humildad y el amor concreto, en cambio, el poder -el más alto, el más fuerte-, se convierte en servicio y difunde el bien", aseguró.



"El futuro de la humanidad no sólo está en manos de los políticos, de los grandes líderes, de las grandes empresas. Sí, su responsabilidad es enorme. Pero el futuro está sobre todo en las manos de las personas que reconocen al otro como un «tú» y a si mismos como parte de un «nosotros». Necesitamos los unos a los otros", afirmó.


En su participación en la charla TED, algo sin precedente, el Papa volvió a manifestar su preocupación por los migrantes y los descartados. "Yo también podría haber estado entre los descartados de hoy", dijo, al recordar que él también nació en una familia de migrantes. "Mi papá, mis abuelos, como muchos otros italianos, partieron para la Argentina y han conocido la suerte de los que se quedan sin nada", evocó. E insistió en la urgencia de reconocer al otro en un mundo cada vez más indiferente a las grandes tragedias.

"Me gustaría ante todo que este encuentro nos ayudara a recordar que todos necesitamos los unos de los otros, que nadie de nosotros es una isla, un yo autónomo e independiente de los otros, que podemos construir el futuro solo juntos, sin excluir a nadie", dijo.

Reiteró, por otro lado, la urgente necesidad de justicia social en el mundo.

"¡Qué lindo sería si al crecimiento de las innovaciones científicas y tecnológicas correspondiera también una siempre mayor equidad e inclusión social!", exclamó. "¡Qué lindo sería si, mientras descubrimos nuevos planetas lejanos, redescubriéramos la necesidad del hermano y la hermana que orbitan alrededor mío!", agregó. "Sólo la educación a la hermandad, a una solidaridad concreta, puede superar la «cultura del descarte», que no tiene que ver sólo con la comida y los bienes, sino, ante todo, las personas que son marginadas por sistemas tecno-económicos donde al centro ya no está el hombre, sino los productos del hombre", dijo.

Consciente de que estaba hablando en una charla TED, el Papa destacó que para ser activos en el bien hace falta memoria, coraje y creatividad. "Me dijeron que en el TED se reúne mucha gente creativa. Sí, el amor pide una respuesta creativa , concreta, ingeniosa. No bastan los buenos propósitos y las fórmulas de rito, que sirven sólo para tranquilizar las conciencias. Juntos, ayudémonos a recordar que los otros no son estadísticas o números: el otro tienen un rostro, el «tú» es siempre un rostro concreto, un hermano a quien cuidar", pidió.

Francisco aseguró que la parábola del Buen Samaritano -que Jesús contó para hacer comprender la diferencia entre quien no se incomoda y quien se hace cargo del otro- "es la historia de la humanidad de hoy".

"En el camino de los pueblos hay heridas provocadas por el hecho de que al centro está el dinero, están las cosas, no las personas. Y está la costumbre de quien se considera «de bien», de no hacerse cargo de los demás, dejando a tantos seres humanos, pueblos enteros, atrás, en el suelo, por la calle", lamentó. "Pero también está quien da vida a un mundo nuevo, haciéndose cargo de los demás, también de su propio bolsillo", recordó, poniendo como ejemplo a la Madre Teresa de Calcuta y terminando con un llamamiento a poner en marcha una "revolución de la ternura".

















Fuente: www.lanacion.com.ar/www.youtube.com

Sunday, April 23, 2017

GINT-It’s time to see things differently… to improve your life

The following information is used for educational purposes only.



It’s time to see things differently… to improve your life

Our brains evolved to make sense of uncertainties, so there’s no need to fear doubt





Keanu Reeves and Carrie-Anne Moss in The Matrix, 1999.
Down the rabbit hole: Keanu Reeves as Neo and Carrie-Anne Moss as Trinity in The Matrix. Photograph: Alamy Stock Photo

Beau Lotto

Sunday 23 April 2017



When you open your eyes, do you see the world as it really is? Humans have been asking themselves this for thousands of years. From the shadows on the wall of Plato’s cave in The Republic to Morpheus offering Neo the red or the blue pill in The Matrix, the notion that what we see might not be what is truly there has troubled and tantalised us.

In the 18th century, the philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that we can never have access to the Ding an sich, the unfiltered “thing in itself ” of objective reality. Great minds have taken up this perplexing question again and again. They all had theories, but now neuroscience has an answer.

The answer is that we don’t see reality. The world exists. It’s just that we don’t see it. We do not experience the world as it is because our brain didn’t evolve to do so.

In terms of the sheer number of neural connections, just 10% of the information our brains use to see comes from our eyes. Perception derives not just from our five senses, but from our brain’s seemingly infinitely sophisticated network that makes sense of all the incoming information. But why does any of this matter? Why might we need to deviate from the way we perceive?

We do not experience the world as it is because our brains didn’t evolve to do so


Perception matters because it underpins everything we think, know and believe. Our sense of self, our most essential way of understanding existence, begins and ends with perception. The death that we all fear is less the death of the body and more the death of perception. Yet most of us don’t know how or why our brain evolved to perceive the way it does.

Our brain is an embodiment of our ancestors’ perceptual reflexes, shaped by natural selection, combined with our reflexes and those of our culture. So, if the brain is a manifestation of our history, how can we step outside the past to live and create differently in the future? Because humans have the wild and generative gift of being able to see their lives and affect them just by reflecting on the process of perception itself. We can see ourselves see.

But stepping back and questioning how we see means embracing uncertainty. All brains are deathly afraid of uncertainty, for good reason. “Not knowing” is an evolutionarily bad idea. If our ancestors paused because they weren’t sure if the dark shape in front of them was a shadow or a predator, it was already too late. We evolved to predict. Why are all horror films shot in the dark? Think of the feeling you have when walking through a familiar forest at night, compared to during the day. At night, you can’t see what’s around you. You’re uncertain. It’s frightening, much like the constant “firsts” in life – the first day of school, first dates, the first time giving a speech. We don’t know what’s going to happen, so these situations cause our bodies and our minds to react.

Uncertainty is the problem that our brains evolved to solve. Life is inherently uncertain because the world and the things in it are always changing. An increasingly connected world is also inherently more unpredictable. In this context, doubt is often disparaged in our culture because it is associated with indecision, a lack of confidence and weakness. I argue the opposite.

We need to embrace the perceptual power of doubt and the humility that comes with understanding our own brains. It’s about why we see what we do, and how recognising that we don’t have access to reality leads us to get more things right. What is the next greatest innovation? It’s not a technology, it’s a way of seeing.
















Source:https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/apr/23/deviate-the-science-of-seeing-differently-beau-lotto/Recommended by L.B..Thanks!

Saturday, April 22, 2017

POL/SOC/GINT-Es necesario achicar la estructura estatal

The following information is used for educational purposes only.


Es necesario achicar la estructura estatal


La actividad privada es la que sostiene a un alto costo un Estado elefantiásico que, para colmo, el actual gobierno ha agrandado aún más

22 DE ABRIL DE 2017



El Gobierno firmó, días atrás, un convenio con 12 gobernadores para avanzar en la modernización del Estado con el objetivo de avanzar en la desburocratización, la transparencia, la planificación y la jerarquización del empleo público. Durante el acto, el presidente Mauricio Macri sostuvo la necesidad de "dejar de lado la intervención nociva que tuvo la política de convertir el Estado en un aguantadero" y consideró: "El Estado no es de aquellos a los que nos toca gobernar, sino que es de los ciudadanos."

Según datos del Gobierno, la actual gestión redujo en 15 mil el número de empleados desde diciembre de 2015, pero el dato no coincide con un informe del Ministerio de Trabajo que consigna que el sector público nacional (SPN) disminuyó sólo en 1436 empleos. Al concluir el ciclo kirchnerista, en el SPN había 742.113 empleados públicos, y al cabo del primer año de Macri se contabilizaban 740.677 agentes. La baja, por lo tanto, fue tan sólo del 0,2%.


Paradójicamente, una de las principales dificultades para emprender el achicamiento de la sobredimensionada planta estatal y el prometido recorte del gasto público radica, precisamente, en que desde el arribo al poder de la alianza Cambiemos, la estructura del Estado ha aumentado en un 25%, como informó LA NACION.

En efecto, según el relevamiento realizado por la Fundación Libertad y Progreso, hoy hay 21 ministerios, 87 secretarías de Estado, 207 subsecretarías de Estado y 687 direcciones nacionales y generales. Además, existen 122 institutos y organismos, sin tener en cuenta las universidades y academias. En total, hay 1124 unidades administrativas.


Con ese crecimiento abrupto y desmesurado, la organización actual del gabinete nacional es la más frondosa en la historia del país, como ya hemos consignado en estas columnas. La Constitución de 1853 fijó en cinco la cantidad de ministros del Poder Ejecutivo. Hasta 1898, el presidente de la Nación contó en su gabinete con los ministros del Interior, de Relaciones Exteriores, de Hacienda, de Justicia, Culto e Instrucción Pública y de Guerra.

Con la reapertura democrática de 1983 y el gobierno de Raúl Alfonsín, el número de ministerios era de ocho. Tras la reforma constitucional de 1994, se remitió la definición del número de ministerios a una ley especial, y a partir de entonces cada gobierno ha modificado tanto el número como la composición ministerial, pero con ninguno había alcanzado la desmesurada estructura que luce en la actualidad, con el consiguiente incremento del gasto. Cuando Cristina Kirchner asumió en 2007, esa estructura contaba con sólo diez ministerios. Cuando abandonó el poder en 2015, existían 16 carteras, a las que Macri sumó cinco más hasta el presente. Hay que tener en cuenta que cada nueva área requiere de una secretaría legal y técnica, tesorería, auditoría, relaciones públicas, prensa, mesa de entradas, automóviles y choferes, además de edificios y teléfonos celulares.


La incidencia de este engrosamiento del aparato estatal en el gasto recoge opiniones encontradas. En el Ministerio de Hacienda consideran que el Gobierno podrá cumplir el corriente año la meta fiscal del 4,2% del PBI. En cambio, no pocos economistas, como el ex secretario de Finanzas Guillermo Nielsen creen que el rojo fiscal será superior.

Según FIEL, en 2003 el sector público nacional contaba con 460.000 empleados y en 2016 llegó a 739.000, con un crecimiento del 61%. Si a este cálculo se le incorporan provincias y municipios, en 2003 la planta sumaba 2.210.000 empleados, mientras que el año pasado eran 3.579.000. cifra que, según estimaciones de FIEL, al terminar el corriente año rondaría los 3,8 millones de empleados públicos.

Como es fácil apreciar, de continuar esta tendencia se estará replicando en el nivel nacional la triste realidad laboral de varias provincias donde el empleo estatal es prácticamente el único y no responde a reales necesidades, sino que obra como una suerte de plan asistencial permanente.

Se ha intentado explicar parte de la bulimia burocrática del actual gobierno a partir del deseo de Macri de que no hubiera una suerte de superministro que opaque su figura, especialmente en el área económica donde conviven cinco o seis carteras, y para reservarse el papel protagónico y el dominio de las decisiones. Si así fuera, se estaría supeditando el gasto público a un capricho o un temor personal sin mayor sustento, pues los ministros son asesores del Presidente, que es quien resuelve.

La promesa de achicar el gasto público no debe quedar en la nada. Es injusto que el sector privado sea el que financie una estructura estatal elefantiásica, desorbitada y en constante crecimiento. A estas alturas, no sólo es preciso reducir el número de ministerios y sus dependencias, sino que también se torna indispensable llevar a cabo una amplia reforma administrativa que redunde en una mayor eficiencia del Gobierno y en la reducción del gasto público.










Fuente:www.lanacion.com.ar

ENV/GINT-22 de Abril: Día de la Tierra: ¿Por qué se celebra hoy?/Día de la Tierra: 7 especies en "peligro crítico" de extinción

The following information is used for educational purposes only.





Día de la Tierra: ¿Por qué se celebra hoy?


Su promotor fue el senador estadounidense Gaylord Nelson

22 DE ABRIL DE 2017































¿Por qué se celebra hoy el Día de la Tierra?. Foto: Archivo


En muchos países, hoy 22 de abril se festeja el Día de la Tierra. ¿Por qué se celebra?


El día sirve para crear conciencia sobre los problemas de superpoblación, contaminación, conservación de la biodiversidad, y otras preocupaciones ambientales.

Según el sitio oficial de las Naciones Unidas, con la celebración se admite "la responsabilidad colectiva de fomentar la armonía con la naturaleza y la Madre Tierra, para alcanzar el equilibrio justo entre las necesidades económicas, sociales y medioambientales de las generaciones presentes y futuras".

El primer Día de la Tierra


El primer Día de la Tierra se celebró el 22 de abril de 1970. El promotor fue el senador demócrata estadounidense y activista Gaylord Nelson. Con el festejo, Nelson buscaba hacer presión para crear una agencia ambiental a nivel federal en Estados Unidos. Lo logró.

Del evento participaron dos mil universidades y diez mil escuelas. Gracias a la manifestación, el gobierno de Estados Unidos creó la Agencia de Protección Ambiental (Environmental Protection Agency), y sancionó una serie de leyes destinadas a la protección del medio ambiente.

¿Por qué el 22 de abril?


¿Y por qué el 22 de abril? Nelson eligió esta fecha porque pensaba que era la mejor para garantizar la asistencia de estudiantes universitarios y maestros, que eran quienes mayoritariamente apoyaban la causa. El 22 de abril no coincidía ni con exámenes ni con vacaciones, no se superponía ni con Pascua, ni con Pésaj, ni con otras celebraciones.

Como se ve, Nelson tomó sus recaudos para elegir la fecha. Pero se le pasó algo: el 22 de abril de 1970 fue el centésimo aniversario del natalicio de Lenin. El Día de la Tierra se celebró sin que sus organizadores sepan la coincidencia. Sin embargo, después, detractores de la causa ambientalista argumentaron que el ecologismo era un "engaño comunista", según indicó en su momento la revista Time.






Día de la Tierra: 7 especies en "peligro crítico" de extinción


Una lista con animales que están al borde de la desaparición

21 DE ABRIL DE 2017




Hoy se celebra el Día de la Tierra. El festejo tiene como propósito generar conciencia sobre los problemas que afectan la vida en el planeta, y uno de ellos es la conservación de especies.

Hay alrededor de 2500 especies animales en peligro de extinción, según la Unión Internacional para la Conservación de Especies. A continuación, siete especies animales en "peligro crítico" de extinción, la categoría más alta de riesgo:

Leopardo de Amur

















Leopardo de Amur. Foto: Archivo

Es la subespecie de leopardo más rara que existe. Sólo hay entre 25 y 34 ejemplares en libertad, en la reserva de Sijote-Alin (Siberia). Su hábitat se extendía por la península de Corea, noroeste de China y el sureste de Rusia.

Rinoceronte negro
























Rinoceronte negro. Foto: Archivo

Es uno de los dos rinocerontes que habitan en la sabana africana. Al menos dos de sus subespecies, el Diceros bicornis bruccii, y el Diceros bicornis longipes, se han extinguido debido a la caza furtiva.

Orangután de Borneo

























Orangután de Borneo. Foto: Archivo

Es nativo de la isla de Borneo, Indonesia. Hay alrededor de 40 mil en estado salvaje, pero están seriamente amenazados por la tala de los bosques donde habita, la caza y el tráfico ilegal de sus crías.

Tortuga carey

























Tortuga carey. Foto: Archivo

Existen dos subespecies, la Eretmochelys imbricata imbricata, que se vive en el océano Atlántico, y la Eretmochelys imbricata bissa, que se encuentra en la región indo-pacífica. Están amenazadas por la pesca de países como China y Japón, que consideran a la especie un manjar.

Elefante de Sumatra





















Elefante de Sumatra. Foto: Archivo

Es una subespecie de elefante asiático, endémico de la isla de Sumatra, Indonesia. Debido a la pérdida del 70% de su hábitat, se cree que para el 2040 podría estar totalmente extinto. El elefante de Sumatra habita regiones selváticas que se están utilizando para construir asentamientos y granjas.

Tigre de Sumatra































Tigre de Sumatra. Foto: Archivo

Se estima que hay entre 400 y 500 ejemplares en libertad. Viven en su mayoría dentro de los cinco parques nacionales de Sumatra. La mayor amenaza que sufren es la destrucción de su hábitat, que es constante, a pesar de tratarse de parques nacionales.

Vaquita marina







































Vaquita marina. Foto: Archivo


Existen menos de 60 ejemplares. Es un cetáceo que habita lagos turbios y poco profundos a lo largo del golfo de California. Su principal amenaza es la pesca con redes de enmalle.






Fuente:www.lanacion.com.ar

ChatGPT, una introducción realista, por Ariel Torres

The following information is used for educational purposes only.           ChatGPT, una introducción realista    ChatGPT parece haber alcanz...