vox--2020-01-15--Climate change is making Australia’s weird weather even weirder

The gargantuan bushfires across Australia continue to rage .
They ’ ve burned at least 17.9 million acres , destroyed more than 3,000 homes , and killed at least 28 people since September .
The choking smoke from these blazes is causing a health crisis and has literally circled the world .
At the Australian Open in Melbourne this week , Slovenia ’ s Dalila Jakupovic forfeited her match after keeling over as smoke from the wildfires permeated the tennis stadium and made it difficult for her to breathe .
Australia ’ s bushfires and the conditions behind them are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Australia is warming faster than the global average due to climate change , and parts of the country are getting drier .
The blazes got going in 2019 , which the Australian Bureau of Meteorology has now confirmed was the country ’ s hottest and driest year on record .
This rising heat and aridity helped create the conditions for the massive blazes torching the country .
However , climate change is pummeling Australia on top of its notoriously volatile weather that can bring jarring shifts year to year , or even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a big reason Australia is so vulnerable to extremes and why the continent is experiencing some of the world ’ s worst climate-related disasters .
“ It ’ s always been a variable continent in terms of weather , ” said Mark Howden , director of the Climate Change Institute at the Australian National University .
“ What we saw last year and are seeing this year to date I think both reflect that historical variability but with added components chucked in because of climate change , and that ’ s generated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before.
” As the climate changes , the swings in temperature and precipitation are poised to become more vast and frequent .
While many of the factors that are driving the vacillating patterns of temperature and rainfall are unique to Australia , other parts of the world may soon face their own volatile weather .
So it ’ s important to understand how it occurs and how it ’ s changing in the land down under .
Why Australia ’ s weather is so erratic Several factors contribute to Australia ’ s notoriously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is large enough to include climate regions from the tropics in the north to deserts in the middle to temperate regions in the south .
The continent is also situated between the Antarctic , Indian , and Pacific oceans .
Along Australia ’ s coasts , these oceans act like buffers and help moderate the climate in cities like Sydney .
But Australia is a continent , which means it experiences continentality , a phenomenon where inland areas far from water experience a wider temperature range than the coasts .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t influence the middle of Australia .
The surrounding bodies of water undergo periodic changes in water and atmospheric circulation patterns : El Niño , the Indian Ocean Dipole , the Southern Annular Mode , and so on .
Depending on the phase of their cycles , these patterns can bring torrential rains , searing heat , high winds , or cool breezes .
When several patterns align , they can easily push weather toward extremes , particularly in the middle of the continent .
That ’ s a big reason Australia has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , explained Howden .
“ When we get a wet year in Australia , it ’ s actually detectable in terms of the sea level rise across the globe because there can be so much water sitting on the continent that you can actually lower the sea level a little bit , ” Howden said .
Another factor in Australia ’ s weird weather is that it doesn ’ t have a large inland system of lakes and rivers .
Some large lakes can form during periods of torrential rain , but those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which means they don ’ t store much heat and can evaporate quickly .
That reduces their capacity to cushion surrounding regions against temperature extremes .
Australia also doesn ’ t have a large , snow-capped mountain range like other continental landmasses .
Melting mountain snow can act as a reservoir for water throughout the year and keep rivers and lakes topped up .
For Australia , this makes inland areas more dependent on rainfall and more vulnerable to drying out in droughts than areas that do have white peaks to supply water @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parts of Australia ping-ponging between deluges and droughts as well as heat and cooler air .
Australia ’ s extreme heat and drought in 2019 was building for years .
Researchers saw it coming .
In 2008 , economist Ross Garnaut was commissioned by Australia ’ s Commonwealth , state , and territory governments to look at the potential climate change impacts to Australia ’ s economy , and his report was startlingly prescient .
“ Recent projections of fire weather ( Lucas et al .
2007 ) suggest that fire seasons will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and generally be more intense , ” according to the Garnaut Climate Change Review .
“ This effect increases over time , but should be directly observable by 2020.
” More recently , the Australian government ’ s Bushfire & Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Center warned last August that the 2019-2020 fire season “ has the potential to be an active season across Australia , following on from a very warm and dry start to the year.
” Compare the above forecast map to this January 14 NASA map of fires detected in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One of the main signals of the extreme heat and drought of 2019 emerged when the Indian Ocean Dipole , the temperature gradient between the eastern and western parts of the Indian Ocean , reached record strength .
This pushed moisture away from Australia in the spring .
There was also a bout of sudden stratospheric warming over Antarctica , also reaching record levels .
This heated air over Antarctica was channeled toward Australia ’ s surface with the help of the Southern Annular Mode , a westerly band of wind circling Antarctica @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 also came after Australia ’ s third winter in a row with very low precipitation .
That means there was precious little water on the ground to soak up heat , allowing the landmass to get hotter and hotter .
It turned out that the middle of the continent absorbed so much heat that it overwhelmed the moderating influence of the oceans on the coasts .
“ What we saw recently was essentially the hot and dry interior impinging on the coasts because winds from the pressure systems were bringing that sort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ air or Western Queensland air onto those coastal areas , and that ’ s part of the reason why we had such extreme fires , ” Howden said .
Yet even in the country ’ s driest year ever , parts of Australia broke flood records “ by a large margin ” during storms in February , according to Australia ’ s Bureau of Meteorology .
The torrential rain hit farming regions in Queensland the hardest , killing an estimated 500,000 livestock animals .
It shows that even a year of record-breaking drought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other direction .
How the weather down under is changing Australia is also warming faster than the global average .
Even with the backdrop of large annual variations in weather , distinct trends are emerging .
Eight of Australia ’ s 10 warmest years have occurred since 2005 , and the continent as a whole has warmed by more than 1 degree Celsius since 1910 .
However , the changes not all in the same direction .
“ Rainfall has increased across parts of northern Australia since the 1970s , ” according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State of the Climate report .
“ There has been a decline of around 11 percent in April–October rainfall in the southeast of Australia since the late 1990s.
” As temperatures continue to rise , Australia is poised to experience more frequent and intense heat waves , as well as worsening fire weather , and the conditions the country experienced in 2019 are a sign of what ’ s in store .
“ Temperatures in December in Australia that have occurred recently , they are extreme for now but they would be normal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ degrees of warming , so we are seeing a sign of what would be normal conditions under a future warming world of 3 degrees [ Celsius ] , ” Richard Betts , a researcher at the United Kingdom ’ s Met Office Hadley Center , told the BBC .
But these changes will not be slow and steady .
Instead , Australia is likely to face even more volatility in its weather .
For example , the State of the Climate report anticipates “ [ d ] ecreases in rainfall across southern Australia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an increase in intense heavy rainfall throughout Australia.
” That means that while overall precipitation may decline , when rainfall does occur , it will happen more as massive downpours , leaving the country bouncing between flooding and drought .
It ’ s a phenomenon some scientists have called weather whiplash , and it shows how increases in annual average temperatures and rainfall can mask more dangerous changes underway .
The Bureau of Meteorology is particularly concerned with this increasing variability fueling compound extreme events .
“ As climate change continues , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rising sea levels means that coastal and estuarine environments may have an increase in flood risk from multiple causes , ” according to the State of the Climate report .
Climate change is also shifting where and when ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns gather strength .
That is changing the timing of the seasons in Australia , the location of major rainfall events , and wildlife habitats .
The East Australian Current , for instance , shunts warm water south along Australia ’ s east coast .
It ’ s a crucial mechanism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ temperatures for the region ’ s unique sea life .
“ Historically , it ’ s sort of departed and headed off to New Zealand out into the east roundabout Sydney latitudes , ” Howden said .
“ But these days because of climate change , it ’ s often going down [ south ] to Tasmanian latitudes.
” The change in current will force some marine ecosystems to relocate , but others may disappear as a result .
And while Australia is facing some of the most extreme weather in the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they may not be far behind .
“ Particularly in southern Australia , it sort of maps relatively similarly over other areas in the mid-latitudes , what we ’ d think of as the Mediterranean zone .
So it ’ s the Mediterranean proper , like Spain and Italy and Greece , but [ also ] California , the tip of South Africa , [ and ] over in Chile and Argentina , ” Howden said .
“ So all of those latitudes around the same as Australia , they ’ re getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more problems in terms of water , in terms of agriculture.
” The changes in climate and variability will make it difficult to plan for disasters and will increase the costs associated with events like Australia ’ s devastating fires .
But they also have knock-on effects , such as declines in agricultural production , tourism , and health .
While these shifts are poised to get worse , it ’ s also important to remember that they ’ re already taking a toll .
“ We ’ re already starting to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see as really important in Australia , ” Howden said .

The gargantuan bushfires across Australia continue to rage. They’ve burned at least 17.9 million acres, destroyed more than 3,000 homes, and killed at least 28 people since September. The choking smoke from these blazes is causing a health crisis and has literally circled the world. At the Australian Open in Melbourne this week, Slovenia’s Dalila Jakupovic forfeited her match after keeling over as smoke from the wildfires permeated the tennis stadium and made it difficult for her to breathe.
Awful scenes in Melbourne.
Dalila Jakupovic has abandoned her #AusOpen qualifying match after suffering a coughing fit while playing in thick smoke caused by the #AustralianFires. pic.twitter.com/WAJv6TzTjW — ESPN Australia & NZ (@ESPNAusNZ) January 14, 2020
Australia’s bushfires and the conditions behind them are alarming and unprecedented, but not unexpected. Australia is warming faster than the global average due to climate change, and parts of the country are getting drier.
The blazes got going in 2019, which the Australian Bureau of Meteorology has now confirmed was the country’s hottest and driest year on record. This rising heat and aridity helped create the conditions for the massive blazes torching the country.
However, climate change is pummeling Australia on top of its notoriously volatile weather that can bring jarring shifts year to year, or even in the same year. That’s a big reason Australia is so vulnerable to extremes and why the continent is experiencing some of the world’s worst climate-related disasters.
“It’s always been a variable continent in terms of weather,” said Mark Howden, director of the Climate Change Institute at the Australian National University. “What we saw last year and are seeing this year to date I think both reflect that historical variability but with added components chucked in because of climate change, and that’s generated temperatures well beyond what we have seen before.”
As the climate changes, the swings in temperature and precipitation are poised to become more vast and frequent. While many of the factors that are driving the vacillating patterns of temperature and rainfall are unique to Australia, other parts of the world may soon face their own volatile weather. So it’s important to understand how it occurs and how it’s changing in the land down under.
Why Australia’s weather is so erratic
Several factors contribute to Australia’s notoriously shifty climate. Australia’s landmass is large enough to include climate regions from the tropics in the north to deserts in the middle to temperate regions in the south.
The continent is also situated between the Antarctic, Indian, and Pacific oceans. Along Australia’s coasts, these oceans act like buffers and help moderate the climate in cities like Sydney. But Australia is a continent, which means it experiences continentality, a phenomenon where inland areas far from water experience a wider temperature range than the coasts.
That’s not to say that oceans don’t influence the middle of Australia. The surrounding bodies of water undergo periodic changes in water and atmospheric circulation patterns: El Niño, the Indian Ocean Dipole, the Southern Annular Mode, and so on.
Depending on the phase of their cycles, these patterns can bring torrential rains, searing heat, high winds, or cool breezes. When several patterns align, they can easily push weather toward extremes, particularly in the middle of the continent. That’s a big reason Australia has the most variable rainfall of any continent, explained Howden.
“When we get a wet year in Australia, it’s actually detectable in terms of the sea level rise across the globe because there can be so much water sitting on the continent that you can actually lower the sea level a little bit,” Howden said.
Another factor in Australia’s weird weather is that it doesn’t have a large inland system of lakes and rivers. Some large lakes can form during periods of torrential rain, but those lakes aren’t very deep, which means they don’t store much heat and can evaporate quickly. That reduces their capacity to cushion surrounding regions against temperature extremes.
Australia also doesn’t have a large, snow-capped mountain range like other continental landmasses. Melting mountain snow can act as a reservoir for water throughout the year and keep rivers and lakes topped up. For Australia, this makes inland areas more dependent on rainfall and more vulnerable to drying out in droughts than areas that do have white peaks to supply water.
Together, these elements leave many parts of Australia ping-ponging between deluges and droughts as well as heat and cooler air.
Australia’s extreme heat and drought in 2019 was building for years. Researchers saw it coming.
In 2008, economist Ross Garnaut was commissioned by Australia’s Commonwealth, state, and territory governments to look at the potential climate change impacts to Australia’s economy, and his report was startlingly prescient.
“Recent projections of fire weather (Lucas et al. 2007) suggest that fire seasons will start earlier, end slightly later, and generally be more intense,” according to the Garnaut Climate Change Review. “This effect increases over time, but should be directly observable by 2020.”
More recently, the Australian government’s Bushfire & Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Center warned last August that the 2019-2020 fire season “has the potential to be an active season across Australia, following on from a very warm and dry start to the year.”
Compare the above forecast map to this January 14 NASA map of fires detected in Australia over the past seven days:
One of the main signals of the extreme heat and drought of 2019 emerged when the Indian Ocean Dipole, the temperature gradient between the eastern and western parts of the Indian Ocean, reached record strength. This pushed moisture away from Australia in the spring. There was also a bout of sudden stratospheric warming over Antarctica, also reaching record levels. This heated air over Antarctica was channeled toward Australia’s surface with the help of the Southern Annular Mode, a westerly band of wind circling Antarctica.
The hot, dry conditions in 2019 also came after Australia’s third winter in a row with very low precipitation. That means there was precious little water on the ground to soak up heat, allowing the landmass to get hotter and hotter.
It turned out that the middle of the continent absorbed so much heat that it overwhelmed the moderating influence of the oceans on the coasts. “What we saw recently was essentially the hot and dry interior impinging on the coasts because winds from the pressure systems were bringing that sort of hot, dry ... central Australian air or Western Queensland air onto those coastal areas, and that’s part of the reason why we had such extreme fires,” Howden said.
Yet even in the country’s driest year ever, parts of Australia broke flood records “by a large margin” during storms in February, according to Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology.
The torrential rain hit farming regions in Queensland the hardest, killing an estimated 500,000 livestock animals. It shows that even a year of record-breaking drought can have pockets of extremes in the other direction.
How the weather down under is changing
Australia is also warming faster than the global average. Even with the backdrop of large annual variations in weather, distinct trends are emerging. Eight of Australia’s 10 warmest years have occurred since 2005, and the continent as a whole has warmed by more than 1 degree Celsius since 1910.
However, the changes not all in the same direction. “Rainfall has increased across parts of northern Australia since the 1970s,” according to the Bureau of Meteorology’s 2018 State of the Climate report. “There has been a decline of around 11 percent in April–October rainfall in the southeast of Australia since the late 1990s.”
As temperatures continue to rise, Australia is poised to experience more frequent and intense heat waves, as well as worsening fire weather, and the conditions the country experienced in 2019 are a sign of what’s in store.
“Temperatures in December in Australia that have occurred recently, they are extreme for now but they would be normal under a world getting on for three degrees of warming, so we are seeing a sign of what would be normal conditions under a future warming world of 3 degrees [Celsius],” Richard Betts, a researcher at the United Kingdom’s Met Office Hadley Center, told the BBC.
But these changes will not be slow and steady. Instead, Australia is likely to face even more volatility in its weather. For example, the State of the Climate report anticipates “[d]ecreases in rainfall across southern Australia with more time in drought, but an increase in intense heavy rainfall throughout Australia.”
That means that while overall precipitation may decline, when rainfall does occur, it will happen more as massive downpours, leaving the country bouncing between flooding and drought. It’s a phenomenon some scientists have called weather whiplash, and it shows how increases in annual average temperatures and rainfall can mask more dangerous changes underway.
The Bureau of Meteorology is particularly concerned with this increasing variability fueling compound extreme events. “As climate change continues, the combination of increases in heavy rainfall and rising sea levels means that coastal and estuarine environments may have an increase in flood risk from multiple causes,” according to the State of the Climate report.
Climate change is also shifting where and when ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns gather strength. That is changing the timing of the seasons in Australia, the location of major rainfall events, and wildlife habitats. The East Australian Current, for instance, shunts warm water south along Australia’s east coast. It’s a crucial mechanism for cycling nutrients and maintaining the ideal temperatures for the region’s unique sea life.
“Historically, it’s sort of departed and headed off to New Zealand out into the east roundabout Sydney latitudes,” Howden said. “But these days because of climate change, it’s often going down [south] to Tasmanian latitudes.” The change in current will force some marine ecosystems to relocate, but others may disappear as a result.
And while Australia is facing some of the most extreme weather in the world, other countries should pay attention because they may not be far behind.
“Particularly in southern Australia, it sort of maps relatively similarly over other areas in the mid-latitudes, what we’d think of as the Mediterranean zone. So it’s the Mediterranean proper, like Spain and Italy and Greece, but [also] California, the tip of South Africa, [and] over in Chile and Argentina,” Howden said. “So all of those latitudes around the same as Australia, they’re getting dry, are getting hotter, having more problems in terms of water, in terms of agriculture.”
The changes in climate and variability will make it difficult to plan for disasters and will increase the costs associated with events like Australia’s devastating fires. But they also have knock-on effects, such as declines in agricultural production, tourism, and health. While these shifts are poised to get worse, it’s also important to remember that they’re already taking a toll.
“We’re already starting to see these changes cut into things which we see as really important in Australia,” Howden said.


vox--2020-01-15--New research shows what AI can teach us about the human brain

Google ’ s DeepMind research group has a lot of flashy AI accomplishments to its name .
Among the biggest are AlphaGo , its game-playing algorithm that stunned many by beating top Go players in a 2016 match ; and its successor AlphaZero , which plays Go even better and can also be taught other games ; and AlphaStar , which plays the real-time strategy game StarCraft at an expert level .
But DeepMind , of course , wants its AI to be used for more than game-playing eventually .
Alongside these highly publicized accomplishments , they ’ ve been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ research papers published in Nature on Wednesday highlight some of that work : a paper on how reinforcement learning can teach us more about how the brain works , and a paper on how AI can be used to predict the folding of proteins .
As AI matures as a field ( and runs out of video games to conquer ) probably more of its achievements will look like these : solid improvements in important research domains .
The brain does reinforcement learning sort of like top-performing AI algorithms The first paper explores @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ( more on this below ) might teach us something about how the brain works .
Based on which kinds of reinforcement learning algorithms perform best , researchers theorized that neurons might pass on more complicated information about future rewards than we previously imagined .
A study in mice suggests there might be something to that .
For a long time , researchers have argued that similarities exist between the way deep learning AI systems process information and the way the human brain works .
One way you can train an AI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an AI agent , as it takes actions in the world , finds that some of them are “ rewarded , ” and over time adjusts its behavior to maximize the reward it can earn .
The idea was quickly applied to neuroscience , with some researchers theorizing that neurotransmitters like dopamine function as reward signals much like the ones in AI systems .
But lots of the things that we might want to “ reward ” in a human — or , for that matter , a sophisticated AI agent — are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future .
If someone wants ice cream , for example , and there isn ’ t any in their house , they have to be motivated to put on their shoes , go to the store , buy the ice cream , and return home before they can eat it .
How does that work ?
How does the brain predict the distant reward of ice cream and reward the steps that lead to it ?
We now have pretty good models of how the brain might do that .
At each step @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much reward it will predict at the next step ( plus any reward for getting to the next step ) .
That will motivate it toward steps that increase its predicted reward .
This simple motivation system might be what underlies complex human actions like ( for example ) studying for a test — because you want good grades because you want a good job because you want a lot of money .
But what the new paper in Nature argues is that sophisticated AI systems like the ones in use today are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what ’ s presented above .
At each step , they don ’ t just calculate the average expected reward of their course of action .
Instead , they keep a sophisticated probability distribution in their heads .
Systems that do that — called distributional temporal distance learners — score better than systems that only calculate an average on tasks like platformer games ( where the player moves around a level to score points ) .
That got the researchers wondering if humans keep such sophisticated mathematical models in our heads too .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ best models of reinforcement learning in AI and neuroscience have focused almost entirely on learning to predict the average future reward .
But this doesn ’ t reflect real life — when playing the lottery , for example , people expect to either win big , or win nothing — no one is thinking about getting the average outcome.
” Will Dabney , a DeepMind research scientist who contributed to the paper , wrote .
So DeepMind looked at evidence for this in a Harvard study on mice .
They set up an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uncertain — with some chance of a big reward and some chance of a very small reward .
They measured neuron activity .
They found patterns that suggested that , like the AI systems , the mice ’ s neurons were encoding a complicated probability distribution instead of just an expected average result .
“ The brain represents possible future rewards not as a single mean , but instead as a probability distribution , effectively representing multiple future outcomes simultaneously and in parallel , ” the paper argues .
That ’ s pretty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see our work in AI teach us more about how our own minds work .
Why is it a big deal that AI can fold proteins ?
A second Nature paper summarizes DeepMind ’ s work on using AI to predict protein folding , a crucial issue for developing new drugs .
Last year , DeepMind produced state-of-the-art results at the task , and in the paper they describe how those results were achieved .
Let ’ s say you have a sequence of amino acids — the building blocks of proteins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paper .
When built in a cell , they ’ ll cinch and clump together , making a distinctively shaped globule .
Can we predict that shape ?
The answer is that we usually can ’ t .
Interactions between each of the amino acids can produce surprising shapes , and there are few hard-and-fast rules we can rely on to predict how a protein will look .
And the number of possible configurations is astronomical : Running through all of the shapes a simple , average-sized protein could take would take longer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even if you ran through billions per second .
Of course , this hasn ’ t stopped scientists from trying .
The shape that proteins take predicts which other substances they ’ ll interact with , so understanding protein folding is crucial for drug discovery and could even be used for developing new manufacturing processes .
Every year , at a conference called the Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction ( CASP ) , researchers from around the world submit programs that take a shot at estimating protein structure .
Last year , DeepMind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explains their winning approach and explores the potential for advanced AI systems to make more progress on problems like this one .
“ AlphaFold represents a considerable advance in protein-structure prediction , ” DeepMind researchers write in the paper .
“ We expect this increased accuracy to enable insights into the function and malfunction of proteins , especially in cases for which no structures for homologous proteins have been experimentally determined.
” There ’ s still a long way to go .
AlphaFold was the strongest performer at CASP , but its absolute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and there are lots of important protein-folding challenges that remain unsolved .
But 2019 was DeepMind ’ s first year submitting an AI solution to the challenge ; hopefully , with additional research , AlphaFold and other similar approaches will make even more progress .
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter .
Twice a week , you ’ ll get a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling our biggest challenges : improving public health , decreasing human and animal suffering , easing catastrophic risks , and — to put it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Future Perfect is funded in part by individual contributions , grants , and sponsorships .
Learn more here .

Google’s DeepMind research group has a lot of flashy AI accomplishments to its name.
Among the biggest are AlphaGo, its game-playing algorithm that stunned many by beating top Go players in a 2016 match; and its successor AlphaZero, which plays Go even better and can also be taught other games; and AlphaStar, which plays the real-time strategy game StarCraft at an expert level.
But DeepMind, of course, wants its AI to be used for more than game-playing eventually. Alongside these highly publicized accomplishments, they’ve been working on a lot more. Two research papers published in Nature on Wednesday highlight some of that work: a paper on how reinforcement learning can teach us more about how the brain works, and a paper on how AI can be used to predict the folding of proteins.
As AI matures as a field (and runs out of video games to conquer) probably more of its achievements will look like these: solid improvements in important research domains.
The brain does reinforcement learning sort of like top-performing AI algorithms
The first paper explores how recent advances in “reinforcement learning” (more on this below) might teach us something about how the brain works. Based on which kinds of reinforcement learning algorithms perform best, researchers theorized that neurons might pass on more complicated information about future rewards than we previously imagined. A study in mice suggests there might be something to that.
For a long time, researchers have argued that similarities exist between the way deep learning AI systems process information and the way the human brain works. One way you can train an AI system is with reinforcement learning, where an AI agent, as it takes actions in the world, finds that some of them are “rewarded,” and over time adjusts its behavior to maximize the reward it can earn.
The idea was quickly applied to neuroscience, with some researchers theorizing that neurotransmitters like dopamine function as reward signals much like the ones in AI systems.
But lots of the things that we might want to “reward” in a human — or, for that matter, a sophisticated AI agent — are things that will happen in the distant future. If someone wants ice cream, for example, and there isn’t any in their house, they have to be motivated to put on their shoes, go to the store, buy the ice cream, and return home before they can eat it. How does that work? How does the brain predict the distant reward of ice cream and reward the steps that lead to it?
We now have pretty good models of how the brain might do that. At each step, it simply has to predict how much reward it will predict at the next step (plus any reward for getting to the next step). That will motivate it toward steps that increase its predicted reward. This simple motivation system might be what underlies complex human actions like (for example) studying for a test — because you want good grades because you want a good job because you want a lot of money.
But what the new paper in Nature argues is that sophisticated AI systems like the ones in use today are actually doing something slightly more complicated than what’s presented above. At each step, they don’t just calculate the average expected reward of their course of action. Instead, they keep a sophisticated probability distribution in their heads.
Systems that do that — called distributional temporal distance learners — score better than systems that only calculate an average on tasks like platformer games (where the player moves around a level to score points).
That got the researchers wondering if humans keep such sophisticated mathematical models in our heads too.
“For the last three decades our best models of reinforcement learning in AI and neuroscience have focused almost entirely on learning to predict the average future reward. But this doesn’t reflect real life — when playing the lottery, for example, people expect to either win big, or win nothing — no one is thinking about getting the average outcome.” Will Dabney, a DeepMind research scientist who contributed to the paper, wrote.
So DeepMind looked at evidence for this in a Harvard study on mice. They set up an environment for the mice that was highly uncertain — with some chance of a big reward and some chance of a very small reward. They measured neuron activity. They found patterns that suggested that, like the AI systems, the mice’s neurons were encoding a complicated probability distribution instead of just an expected average result.
“The brain represents possible future rewards not as a single mean, but instead as a probability distribution, effectively representing multiple future outcomes simultaneously and in parallel,” the paper argues.
That’s pretty cool, and it’s exciting to see our work in AI teach us more about how our own minds work.
Why is it a big deal that AI can fold proteins?
A second Nature paper summarizes DeepMind’s work on using AI to predict protein folding, a crucial issue for developing new drugs. Last year, DeepMind produced state-of-the-art results at the task, and in the paper they describe how those results were achieved.
Let’s say you have a sequence of amino acids — the building blocks of proteins — written down on a piece of paper. When built in a cell, they’ll cinch and clump together, making a distinctively shaped globule. Can we predict that shape?
The answer is that we usually can’t. Interactions between each of the amino acids can produce surprising shapes, and there are few hard-and-fast rules we can rely on to predict how a protein will look. And the number of possible configurations is astronomical: Running through all of the shapes a simple, average-sized protein could take would take longer than the lifetime of the universe, even if you ran through billions per second.
Of course, this hasn’t stopped scientists from trying. The shape that proteins take predicts which other substances they’ll interact with, so understanding protein folding is crucial for drug discovery and could even be used for developing new manufacturing processes.
Every year, at a conference called the Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction (CASP), researchers from around the world submit programs that take a shot at estimating protein structure. Last year, DeepMind was the winner.
The Nature paper explains their winning approach and explores the potential for advanced AI systems to make more progress on problems like this one. “AlphaFold represents a considerable advance in protein-structure prediction,” DeepMind researchers write in the paper. “We expect this increased accuracy to enable insights into the function and malfunction of proteins, especially in cases for which no structures for homologous proteins have been experimentally determined.”
There’s still a long way to go. AlphaFold was the strongest performer at CASP, but its absolute success rate wasn’t very good, and there are lots of important protein-folding challenges that remain unsolved. But 2019 was DeepMind’s first year submitting an AI solution to the challenge; hopefully, with additional research, AlphaFold and other similar approaches will make even more progress.
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter. Twice a week, you’ll get a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling our biggest challenges: improving public health, decreasing human and animal suffering, easing catastrophic risks, and — to put it simply — getting better at doing good.
Future Perfect is funded in part by individual contributions, grants, and sponsorships. Learn more here.


vox--2020-01-15--Talking about the Warren and Sanders handshake keeps us from having to talk about sexism

One of the most discussed moments at Tuesday ’ s seventh Democratic primary debate happened after it was over , when Sens .
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders met for a post-debate discussion .
Sanders appeared to extend his hand for a handshake as Warren walked over , but no handshake took place .
Many viewers on social media — and post-debate analysts — described the moment as a snub , with Warren refusing to shake Sanders ’ s hand .
Perhaps it was an intentional snub and Warren didn ’ t want to shake his hand .
It could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to not noticing someone trying to give you a high-five or waving to someone only to realize they weren ’ t waving at you .
It ’ s even less clear what they discussed .
Nevertheless , CNN ’ s post-debate commentary featured a lengthy discussion of the moment , and online Sanders supporters attacked Warren , calling her names and declaring themselves members of a new # NeverWarren movement .
In some ways , all the attention heaped on this one moment was unsurprising , coming after several days of escalating tension @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while the Iowa caucuses that are effectively any of the top four candidates ’ to take loom .
But it also is an example of a media — and human — tendency to allow the minor to obscure the major .
Making a handshake the biggest moment of January ’ s debate has drawn attention away from important things that informed it : narrowly , Sanders and Warren working hard to bury the hatchet in the name of advancing the progressivism they share , and broadly , conversations around the sexism inherent to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president .
Why everyone was so interested in the Liz-Bernie dynamic , briefly explained Reading the post-debate exchange as a snub stems largely from a point of tension that emerged between the senators ’ campaigns ahead of the debate .
Warren and Sanders have had a nonaggression pact throughout the campaign , but that truce was broken following a report from Politico ’ s Alex Thompson and Holly Otterbein that the Sanders campaign had given volunteers a script that attacked other candidates , including Warren .
The Warren campaign responded to this by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meeting that he didn ’ t think a woman could win the White House in 2020 .
Sanders and his surrogates said the Vermont senator said no such thing .
Warren and her surrogates said he did .
The issue came to a head on the debate stage , with each candidate sticking to their side of the story .
And they appeared to have settled the issue , with both using a question about the disagreement to boost their candidacies and champion their support of women candidates : Sanders argued he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 out of respect for Warren in case she wanted to run ; Warren pointed out that the women on the stage had far better electoral records — particularly when facing populist Republicans — than the men .
In so answering , the progressives seemed to lay to rest an issue that threatened to distract from their pitches to voters weeks before the Iowa caucuses and that — given the rancor the disagreement inspired online — seemed poised to pettily divide progressives at a moment at which they are struggling to defend against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the peace and goodwill engendered by the debate itself was largely derailed — among the senators ’ bases , at least — by the moment CNN captured after , when no handshake occurred .
It is important to remember , however , that while everyone saw the same thing , we don ’ t actually know what happened .
We also have little idea what was said in the conversation that followed .
The only information we have about the chat comes from entrepreneur Tom Steyer , who moved away to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Steyer told CNN the two lawmakers were discussing “ getting together.
” But that could mean anything , from a meeting to squash the beef once and for all to a double brunch date .
And the conversation could have gone anywhere from there .
Obviously , this little moment is getting so much attention because the Iowa caucuses are now about two weeks away .
Voting in New Hampshire comes directly after that , then contests in Nevada and South Carolina .
In other words , time is running out .
Candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and to win over undecided voters .
And their supporters , particularly those who have put in countless volunteer hours , are under just as much strain .
But in a rush to cast their particular candidate as the one true good — and some members of the media ’ s desire to add fuel to a potent narrative — we have become distracted from what is really important about the moment : that it is rooted in very real concerns over whether a woman can be president , and a sexism that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that very much needs to be addressed .
Democrats need to overcome doubts about the viability of women candidates Concerns about the viability of a woman candidate were prevalent when Hillary Clinton challenged Donald Trump in 2016 and have not been resolved since .
“ There ’ s a sense that there was backlash about the Obama presidency , and Hillary Clinton didn ’ t win , ” Debbie Walsh , director of the Rutgers Center , told the New York Times .
“ So the conventional wisdom , which starts to feed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we ’ d better just elect the thing we ’ ve always had , ’ which is white men.
” That hesitancy is reflected in polls on the issue , many of which show that individuals want — or at the very least have no problem with — a woman nominee , but that they don ’ t believe other voters feel the same .
For instance , a July Daily Beast/Ipsos national poll found 74 percent of voters said they ’ d be comfortable with a woman as president , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be fine with that .
More broadly , this dynamic has been framed in terms of “ electability ” — more than anything , voters tell pollsters , they want a Democratic nominee who can beat Donald Trump .
It ’ s a conversation the candidates onstage were ready to wade into .
“ Back in the 1960s , people asked could a Catholic could win .
Back in 2008 , people asked if an African American could win , ” Warren said .
“ In both times , the Democratic Party stepped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their candidate , and we changed America .
That is who we are.
” And Sen. Amy Klobuchar has routinely made the case she is the candidate with the most electability based on her record : She has never lost an election , and she performs well in traditionally Republican districts in her home state of Minnesota .
She has also outperformed both President Barack Obama and Clinton .
In 2012 , when Obama carried Minnesota with 53 percent of the vote , Klobuchar got 65 percent in her Senate bid .
Clinton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counties in 2016 ; in 2018 , Klobuchar won 51 .
She also pointed to the victories women have had over Republicans in recent years , beyond the wins she and Warren accomplished , saying Tuesday , “ When you look at the facts , Michigan has a woman governor right now and she beat a Republican , Gretchen Whitmer .
Kansas has a woman governor right now and she beat Kris Kobach.
” As Vox ’ s Li Zhou noted , “ Women also flipped the lion ’ s share of House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well as both Senate seats — and research has long shown that women candidates win at the same rate as men when they run for elected office.
” But that — and Klobuchar ’ s other arguments — haven ’ t swayed voters in favor of the Minnesota senator .
Instead , Biden , who has lost elections , and who does not have as strong a record of winning in Republican areas , is seen as Democrats ’ best chance to beat Trump , according to recent polls .
And it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reynolds , a spokesperson for Emily ’ s List , told Vox this dynamic reflects what the term “ electability ” actually means : “ Metrics like authenticity and likability and electability are just code that we use against candidates who are not like what we are used to.
” Or as Zhou has explained , “ The expectation of who can win is inextricably wrapped up in the knowledge of who has won.
” In 2020 , anything could happen : Trump enjoys the advantages of incumbency and the Electoral College system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ base is incredibly energized and is expected to show a strong turnout .
Respondents to polls may believe Biden has the best chance against Trump , but experts have told Vox that no research argues a woman would be destined to lose in November because of her gender .
Democrats need to face these facts , but they also need to understand and work to undo the thinking that causes voters to pause when it comes to caucusing or voting for a woman .
Instead , they ’ re debating whether one candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @

One of the most discussed moments at Tuesday’s seventh Democratic primary debate happened after it was over, when Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders met for a post-debate discussion.
Sanders appeared to extend his hand for a handshake as Warren walked over, but no handshake took place.
Many viewers on social media — and post-debate analysts — described the moment as a snub, with Warren refusing to shake Sanders’s hand.
Perhaps it was an intentional snub and Warren didn’t want to shake his hand. It could also have been an awkward oversight akin to not noticing someone trying to give you a high-five or waving to someone only to realize they weren’t waving at you. It’s even less clear what they discussed.
Nevertheless, CNN’s post-debate commentary featured a lengthy discussion of the moment, and online Sanders supporters attacked Warren, calling her names and declaring themselves members of a new #NeverWarren movement.
In some ways, all the attention heaped on this one moment was unsurprising, coming after several days of escalating tension between the two progressive leaders — all while the Iowa caucuses that are effectively any of the top four candidates’ to take loom.
But it also is an example of a media — and human — tendency to allow the minor to obscure the major. Making a handshake the biggest moment of January’s debate has drawn attention away from important things that informed it: narrowly, Sanders and Warren working hard to bury the hatchet in the name of advancing the progressivism they share, and broadly, conversations around the sexism inherent to questions of whether a woman can be president.
Why everyone was so interested in the Liz-Bernie dynamic, briefly explained
Reading the post-debate exchange as a snub stems largely from a point of tension that emerged between the senators’ campaigns ahead of the debate. Warren and Sanders have had a nonaggression pact throughout the campaign, but that truce was broken following a report from Politico’s Alex Thompson and Holly Otterbein that the Sanders campaign had given volunteers a script that attacked other candidates, including Warren.
The Warren campaign responded to this by saying Sanders told Warren during a private meeting that he didn’t think a woman could win the White House in 2020. Sanders and his surrogates said the Vermont senator said no such thing. Warren and her surrogates said he did.
The issue came to a head on the debate stage, with each candidate sticking to their side of the story. And they appeared to have settled the issue, with both using a question about the disagreement to boost their candidacies and champion their support of women candidates: Sanders argued he’d waited to launch his candidacy in 2016 out of respect for Warren in case she wanted to run; Warren pointed out that the women on the stage had far better electoral records — particularly when facing populist Republicans — than the men.
In so answering, the progressives seemed to lay to rest an issue that threatened to distract from their pitches to voters weeks before the Iowa caucuses and that — given the rancor the disagreement inspired online — seemed poised to pettily divide progressives at a moment at which they are struggling to defend against the national popularity of moderate Joe Biden.
But the peace and goodwill engendered by the debate itself was largely derailed — among the senators’ bases, at least — by the moment CNN captured after, when no handshake occurred.
It is important to remember, however, that while everyone saw the same thing, we don’t actually know what happened.
We also have little idea what was said in the conversation that followed. The only information we have about the chat comes from entrepreneur Tom Steyer, who moved away to give the senators space to talk. Steyer told CNN the two lawmakers were discussing “getting together.” But that could mean anything, from a meeting to squash the beef once and for all to a double brunch date. And the conversation could have gone anywhere from there.
Obviously, this little moment is getting so much attention because the Iowa caucuses are now about two weeks away. Voting in New Hampshire comes directly after that, then contests in Nevada and South Carolina. In other words, time is running out.
Candidates are under enormous pressure to differentiate themselves and to win over undecided voters. And their supporters, particularly those who have put in countless volunteer hours, are under just as much strain.
But in a rush to cast their particular candidate as the one true good — and some members of the media’s desire to add fuel to a potent narrative — we have become distracted from what is really important about the moment: that it is rooted in very real concerns over whether a woman can be president, and a sexism that lies at the heart of those concerns that very much needs to be addressed.
Democrats need to overcome doubts about the viability of women candidates
Concerns about the viability of a woman candidate were prevalent when Hillary Clinton challenged Donald Trump in 2016 and have not been resolved since.
“There’s a sense that there was backlash about the Obama presidency, and Hillary Clinton didn’t win,” Debbie Walsh, director of the Rutgers Center, told the New York Times. “So the conventional wisdom, which starts to feed on itself, is, ‘Well, we’d better just elect the thing we’ve always had,’ which is white men.”
That hesitancy is reflected in polls on the issue, many of which show that individuals want — or at the very least have no problem with — a woman nominee, but that they don’t believe other voters feel the same.
For instance, a July Daily Beast/Ipsos national poll found 74 percent of voters said they’d be comfortable with a woman as president, but only 33 percent said their neighbors would be fine with that. More broadly, this dynamic has been framed in terms of “electability” — more than anything, voters tell pollsters, they want a Democratic nominee who can beat Donald Trump.
It’s a conversation the candidates onstage were ready to wade into.
“Back in the 1960s, people asked could a Catholic could win. Back in 2008, people asked if an African American could win,” Warren said. “In both times, the Democratic Party stepped up and said yes, got behind their candidate, and we changed America. That is who we are.”
And Sen. Amy Klobuchar has routinely made the case she is the candidate with the most electability based on her record: She has never lost an election, and she performs well in traditionally Republican districts in her home state of Minnesota. She has also outperformed both President Barack Obama and Clinton. In 2012, when Obama carried Minnesota with 53 percent of the vote, Klobuchar got 65 percent in her Senate bid. Clinton won only nine of Minnesota’s counties in 2016; in 2018, Klobuchar won 51.
She also pointed to the victories women have had over Republicans in recent years, beyond the wins she and Warren accomplished, saying Tuesday, “When you look at the facts, Michigan has a woman governor right now and she beat a Republican, Gretchen Whitmer. Kansas has a woman governor right now and she beat Kris Kobach.”
As Vox’s Li Zhou noted, “Women also flipped the lion’s share of House seats that Democrats retook in 2018, as well as both Senate seats — and research has long shown that women candidates win at the same rate as men when they run for elected office.”
But that — and Klobuchar’s other arguments — haven’t swayed voters in favor of the Minnesota senator. Instead, Biden, who has lost elections, and who does not have as strong a record of winning in Republican areas, is seen as Democrats’ best chance to beat Trump, according to recent polls. And it is Biden who leads nationally.
Christina Reynolds, a spokesperson for Emily’s List, told Vox this dynamic reflects what the term “electability” actually means: “Metrics like authenticity and likability and electability are just code that we use against candidates who are not like what we are used to.”
Or as Zhou has explained, “The expectation of who can win is inextricably wrapped up in the knowledge of who has won.”
In 2020, anything could happen: Trump enjoys the advantages of incumbency and the Electoral College system, but experts have said the Democratic base is incredibly energized and is expected to show a strong turnout. Respondents to polls may believe Biden has the best chance against Trump, but experts have told Vox that no research argues a woman would be destined to lose in November because of her gender.
Democrats need to face these facts, but they also need to understand and work to undo the thinking that causes voters to pause when it comes to caucusing or voting for a woman.
Instead, they’re debating whether one candidate snubbed another’s proffered hand.


vox--2020-01-16--These candidates were accused of sexual misconduct. They’re running again in 2020.

Roy Moore ’ s 2017 Senate campaign ended in defeat after multiple women said he had pursued them sexually or romantically when they were teenagers .
One , Leigh Corfman , said that he removed her clothes and touched her sexually when she was 14 and he was 32 .
Another , Beverly Young Nelson , said that he sexually assaulted her when she was 16 .
Now , just over two years after the allegations came to light , Moore is running for Senate again .
In a recent interview with the local network WSFA TV , the Alabama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against him — presented himself as the candidate of the moral high ground .
“ I think the major difference between myself and others running public offices , I ’ ve actually stood for something , ” he said .
“ I think it ’ s very important for a candidate not only to talk the talk , but to walk the walk.
” Moore is unlikely to win his race , especially since former senator and Trump attorney general Jeff Sessions entered the fray in November .
But he ’ s far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ running for office again after allegations of sexual misconduct .
Of course , there ’ s President Trump , who ’ s running for reelection this year despite being accused of sexual misconduct by more than 20 women .
But there are also many former state or local politicians , like former Arizona Rep. David Stringer , who ’ s now running for a county attorney seat after allegations that he paid children for sex in the 1980s .
State and local candidates like Stringer may have an easier time coming back from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost a senatorial bid .
In a local race , voters may feel they know the candidate personally and be more willing to dismiss accusations against them , Nadia Brown , an associate professor of political science at Purdue University , told Vox .
Meanwhile , the Me Too movement ’ s impact on politics , especially at the state and local level , has gotten a bit less attention as coverage focuses on powerful men in Hollywood and the media .
But just as people like Louis C.K .
and Mark Halperin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are doing so this year .
And November ’ s election , about three years after the movement entered its current phase , will be the most high-profile test yet of how much voters care about allegations of sexual misconduct — and how easy it is for the accused to come back into power , if they ever left in the first place .
Many people accused of sexual misconduct are running again in 2020 As the Me Too movement rose to prominence in 2017 , hundreds of people came forward to report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country — and dozens of the accused were local , state , or federal politicians .
In 2018 , the Washington Post counted 27 federal officials or candidates for federal office who had been accused of sexual misconduct as part of the movement .
Of those , 19 faced significant career impact — they resigned , lost their races , or declined to run for reelection .
But some of those 19 are now attempting or have attempted comebacks .
Moore , for example , announced last June that he would be running @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost to Democrat Doug Jones in 2017 .
Moore has been opposed by high-powered Republicans including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , and he came in fourth in a December poll of Alabama Republican voters .
But in a December speech , Moore vowed to press on against Republicans in Washington who “ have vowed to stop ” him .
He ’ s not the only one to return to or stay in politics .
Pennsylvania state Sen. Daylin Leach suspended his congressional campaign after campaign workers accused him of unwanted touching and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
But he stayed in the state Senate and is running for reelection in 2020 .
Leach has a number of primary challengers , but his opponents are worried they ’ ll end up splitting the ticket and he will win , according to the Philadelphia Inquirer .
Others have made unsuccessful comeback bids .
Rep. Ruben Kihuen ( D-NV ) announced in 2017 that he would not seek reelection , after several women came forward with reports of sexual misconduct by him ( he denied the allegations ) .
In 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Council but lost in the primary .
Beyond the 27 federal-level politicians tracked by the Washington Post , many state and local lawmakers have been accused of sexual misconduct in recent years as well .
Arizona state Rep. David Stringer , for example , resigned in March 2019 after the Phoenix New Times uncovered charges from 1983 that he had paid two children under the age of 15 for sex .
Stringer said he had “ done nothing wrong ” and had never been convicted , but it was impossible to confirm that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to the Arizona Republic .
The state legislator had also made racist statements , describing immigration as an “ existential threat ” and saying there were not “ enough white kids to go around ” in Arizona ’ s schools .
Last week , less than a year after his resignation , Stringer announced he will run for county attorney in Yavapai County , Arizona .
“ Being forced from the legislature has not scared me away from fighting for those who need my help , ” he said in a Facebook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it has hardened my resolve to stand up to bullies and bureaucrats who serve themselves instead of We The People.
” Some state politicians accused of sexual misconduct stayed in office and are now running for reelection .
California state Assembly member Cristina Garcia , for example , was accused in 2018 of making inappropriate sexual advances toward a staffer .
The Assembly member , who said she had “ zero recollection of engaging in inappropriate behavior , ” was stripped of her committee appointments and required to undergo sexual harassment and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for reelection this year .
The allegations might not keep these candidates out of office Whether voters care about sexual misconduct allegations surely depends on the race and the candidate .
But overall , preliminary research shows that voters aren ’ t swayed much by allegations if the accused shares their party affiliation , Brown , the political scientist , said .
Democratic women seem to care the most about allegations , followed by Republican women and Democratic men — and Republican men in “ super last ” place , Brown said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ trumping ( no pun intended ) our collective willingness to deal with Me Too , ” she said .
The movement may have a bigger impact on a candidate like Moore , whose name was in national media headlines for months .
But in state-level races , voters aren ’ t always aware of allegations against a candidate , political science professor Michael Miller told the Washington Post in 2018 .
And voters may have a sense of personal familiarity with state or local candidates , Brown said .
That makes it “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these allegations might not be true , or if they are true , this person has done all these other great things.
” In races at all levels , some voters may care about sexual misconduct allegations to a degree , but not as much as other priorities , like electing a candidate who shares their views on abortion or other issues , Brown explained .
There ’ s a need for more research into how voters think about sexual misconduct within the larger spectrum of issues they care about , she said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make comebacks Whatever happens in November , voters around the country may not have heard the last of candidates like Stringer and Moore .
Some lawmakers who lost their reelection bids after misconduct allegations have already managed to return to influential positions at the local or state level .
Washington state Sen. Joe Fain , for example , lost his 2018 reelection campaign after a woman said he had raped her in 2007 .
In February 2019 , he was named the new president and CEO of the Chamber of Commerce in Bellevue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the organization praised Fain , who has denied the allegation against him , for his “ proven track record of collaborative leadership in both government and business.
” And former Georgia state Sen. David Shafer lost his 2018 campaign for lieutenant governor after a woman filed a sexual harassment complaint against him ( he denied the allegation ) .
In 2019 , he became the chair of the Georgia Republican Party .
In an interview in July , he talked about the party ’ s 2020 strategy , saying he hoped to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will happen remains to be seen .
Trump , for his part , faced many allegations of sexual misconduct before the 2016 election , and he won anyway .
Perhaps it ’ s no surprise , then , that a significant number of people accused of sexual misconduct are running for office again in 2020 .
After all , while Americans are still arguing over whether a woman can win the presidency , we already know that a man accused of sexually assaulting women can do so .

Roy Moore’s 2017 Senate campaign ended in defeat after multiple women said he had pursued them sexually or romantically when they were teenagers.
One, Leigh Corfman, said that he removed her clothes and touched her sexually when she was 14 and he was 32. Another, Beverly Young Nelson, said that he sexually assaulted her when she was 16.
Now, just over two years after the allegations came to light, Moore is running for Senate again. In a recent interview with the local network WSFA TV, the Alabama judge — who has denied the allegations against him — presented himself as the candidate of the moral high ground.
“I think the major difference between myself and others running public offices, I’ve actually stood for something,” he said. “I think it’s very important for a candidate not only to talk the talk, but to walk the walk.”
Moore is unlikely to win his race, especially since former senator and Trump attorney general Jeff Sessions entered the fray in November. But he’s far from the only candidate who’s running for office again after allegations of sexual misconduct. Of course, there’s President Trump, who’s running for reelection this year despite being accused of sexual misconduct by more than 20 women. But there are also many former state or local politicians, like former Arizona Rep. David Stringer, who’s now running for a county attorney seat after allegations that he paid children for sex in the 1980s.
State and local candidates like Stringer may have an easier time coming back from allegations than someone like Moore, who lost a senatorial bid. In a local race, voters may feel they know the candidate personally and be more willing to dismiss accusations against them, Nadia Brown, an associate professor of political science at Purdue University, told Vox.
Meanwhile, the Me Too movement’s impact on politics, especially at the state and local level, has gotten a bit less attention as coverage focuses on powerful men in Hollywood and the media.
But just as people like Louis C.K. and Mark Halperin have planned or executed comebacks, politicians are doing so this year. And November’s election, about three years after the movement entered its current phase, will be the most high-profile test yet of how much voters care about allegations of sexual misconduct — and how easy it is for the accused to come back into power, if they ever left in the first place.
Many people accused of sexual misconduct are running again in 2020
As the Me Too movement rose to prominence in 2017, hundreds of people came forward to report sexual misconduct by powerful figures around the country — and dozens of the accused were local, state, or federal politicians.
In 2018, the Washington Post counted 27 federal officials or candidates for federal office who had been accused of sexual misconduct as part of the movement. Of those, 19 faced significant career impact — they resigned, lost their races, or declined to run for reelection.
But some of those 19 are now attempting or have attempted comebacks. Moore, for example, announced last June that he would be running again for the Alabama Senate seat he lost to Democrat Doug Jones in 2017. Moore has been opposed by high-powered Republicans including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and he came in fourth in a December poll of Alabama Republican voters.
But in a December speech, Moore vowed to press on against Republicans in Washington who “have vowed to stop” him.
He’s not the only one to return to or stay in politics. Pennsylvania state Sen. Daylin Leach suspended his congressional campaign after campaign workers accused him of unwanted touching and suggestive jokes (Leach denied any wrongdoing). But he stayed in the state Senate and is running for reelection in 2020. Leach has a number of primary challengers, but his opponents are worried they’ll end up splitting the ticket and he will win, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer.
Others have made unsuccessful comeback bids. Rep. Ruben Kihuen (D-NV) announced in 2017 that he would not seek reelection, after several women came forward with reports of sexual misconduct by him (he denied the allegations). In 2019, he ran for Las Vegas City Council but lost in the primary.
Beyond the 27 federal-level politicians tracked by the Washington Post, many state and local lawmakers have been accused of sexual misconduct in recent years as well. Arizona state Rep. David Stringer, for example, resigned in March 2019 after the Phoenix New Times uncovered charges from 1983 that he had paid two children under the age of 15 for sex. Stringer said he had “done nothing wrong” and had never been convicted, but it was impossible to confirm that because court records had been expunged, according to the Arizona Republic.
The state legislator had also made racist statements, describing immigration as an “existential threat” and saying there were not “enough white kids to go around” in Arizona’s schools.
Last week, less than a year after his resignation, Stringer announced he will run for county attorney in Yavapai County, Arizona. “Being forced from the legislature has not scared me away from fighting for those who need my help,” he said in a Facebook post announcing his candidacy. “Instead, it has hardened my resolve to stand up to bullies and bureaucrats who serve themselves instead of We The People.”
Some state politicians accused of sexual misconduct stayed in office and are now running for reelection. California state Assembly member Cristina Garcia, for example, was accused in 2018 of making inappropriate sexual advances toward a staffer. The Assembly member, who said she had “zero recollection of engaging in inappropriate behavior,” was stripped of her committee appointments and required to undergo sexual harassment and sensitivity training, but she is running for reelection this year.
The allegations might not keep these candidates out of office
Whether voters care about sexual misconduct allegations surely depends on the race and the candidate. But overall, preliminary research shows that voters aren’t swayed much by allegations if the accused shares their party affiliation, Brown, the political scientist, said. Democratic women seem to care the most about allegations, followed by Republican women and Democratic men — and Republican men in “super last” place, Brown said.
So far, “partisanship is really trumping (no pun intended) our collective willingness to deal with Me Too,” she said.
The movement may have a bigger impact on a candidate like Moore, whose name was in national media headlines for months. But in state-level races, voters aren’t always aware of allegations against a candidate, political science professor Michael Miller told the Washington Post in 2018.
And voters may have a sense of personal familiarity with state or local candidates, Brown said. That makes it “a lot easier to say, all these allegations might not be true, or if they are true, this person has done all these other great things.”
In races at all levels, some voters may care about sexual misconduct allegations to a degree, but not as much as other priorities, like electing a candidate who shares their views on abortion or other issues, Brown explained. There’s a need for more research into how voters think about sexual misconduct within the larger spectrum of issues they care about, she said.
Even politicians who lose can still make comebacks
Whatever happens in November, voters around the country may not have heard the last of candidates like Stringer and Moore. Some lawmakers who lost their reelection bids after misconduct allegations have already managed to return to influential positions at the local or state level.
Washington state Sen. Joe Fain, for example, lost his 2018 reelection campaign after a woman said he had raped her in 2007. In February 2019, he was named the new president and CEO of the Chamber of Commerce in Bellevue, Washington. The board chair of the organization praised Fain, who has denied the allegation against him, for his “proven track record of collaborative leadership in both government and business.”
And former Georgia state Sen. David Shafer lost his 2018 campaign for lieutenant governor after a woman filed a sexual harassment complaint against him (he denied the allegation). In 2019, he became the chair of the Georgia Republican Party. In an interview in July, he talked about the party’s 2020 strategy, saying he hoped to see Trump take Georgia again.
Whether that will happen remains to be seen. Trump, for his part, faced many allegations of sexual misconduct before the 2016 election, and he won anyway. Perhaps it’s no surprise, then, that a significant number of people accused of sexual misconduct are running for office again in 2020.
After all, while Americans are still arguing over whether a woman can win the presidency, we already know that a man accused of sexually assaulting women can do so.


vox--2020-01-16--The psychology behind over- (and under-) packing

If you find yourself at an airport , you ’ ll likely notice two types of travelers .
There ’ s the person struggling with the overstuffed suitcase ( or three ) right alongside the traveler handling little more than a light duffel .
Of course , they might be heading to totally different destinations for totally different lengths of time and under totally different circumstances , but it ’ s clear that a person ’ s packing style — whether they pack light or pack heavy — is a distinctive personality trait .
It turns out that how much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our personal travel experiences , including our destination , luggage type , and even social standards .
Packing , whether it be for a weekend trip or a two-week vacation , is a highly personal act and can create a fair amount of pressure .
We ’ re expected to be effective and efficient travelers who can determine the most important items we need for the entire length of time we ’ re away from home .
I personally find comfort in bringing more than I need , just in case .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emotions can feel more polarized since we ’ re experiencing a stressful situation , ” Lara Fielding , a clinical psychologist and author of Mastering Adulthood , told me .
“ Our stress levels increase because we ’ re not in our comfort zone , and [ because we ] are surrounded by uncomfortable , different people.
” A popular travel stereotype is that women tend to pack more than men , which is an old cliché that Fielding suspects originated nearly a century ago , when women wore more elaborate outfits .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ some sort of bag , since women ’ s clothing tends to have small , inadequate pockets .
Although those expectations have changed , it takes awhile for these stereotypes to dissipate , Fielding added .
“ Our stress levels increase because we ’ re not in our comfort zone , and [ because we ] are surrounded by uncomfortable , different people ” From Fielding ’ s point of view , how a traveler chooses to pack ultimately comes down to their past travel experiences .
A person ’ s behavior is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve encountered before , and most people are “ aiming to cover their butts when they pack.
” There are plenty of smart packing and self-help guides for overpackers , but Jan Chipchase , founder of the design firm Studio D Radiodurans , says luggage design can also influence a person ’ s packing behaviors .
Chipchase , who also designs and sells lightweight luggage at SDR Traveller , classifies himself as a “ no-wheels traveler ” and has spent the past decade studying people ’ s packing behavior around the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believes wheeled luggage is not a convenient invention for travelers , but rather constrains them during their trips .
“ People see wheels as a way to get their luggage from point A to point B , but the moment they ’ ve chosen wheels , they ’ ve cut down the travel options that are open to them , ” he said .
For example , it would be much harder for a tourist to navigate a new city ’ s public transit system with a wheeled suitcase than it would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also allows for more spontaneous travel , Chipchase argued , since a person only has to worry about what ’ s on their back .
The first wheeled suitcases were sold in 1970 , but the concept faced resistance early on — salespeople didn ’ t think men wanted a suitcase with wheels .
In the decades following this invention , however , designers fine-tuned the standard model of rolling luggage we ’ re familiar with today : a suitcase with two tiny wheels and a retractable handle .
Wheels give the illusion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chipchase , lead people to pack more .
In a 2015 blog , he wrote that when people are packing at home , they ’ re focused on fitting everything they need within the bag .
“ Only after the trip has started , when the drawback of that extra bulk is apparent , is the desire for remedial action , the clear-out , triggered .
By then it is too late.
” His reasoning makes sense to me , a chronic overpacker .
For a recent weekend trip to San Francisco , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ended up trying to make the stuff I brought fit alongside whatever else I accumulated during my two-day stay .
As a frequent traveler , Chipchase is on the road anywhere from six to nine months a year , a lifestyle that requires him to be minimalist and intentional in his packing .
In manifestos and blogs online , ultralight packers say this preparation method helps them think more deeply about the trip on which they ’ re about to embark .
In an essay for BuzzFeed News , reporter Alison Willmore wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ requires only that you accustom yourself to leaving things behind — things that you bought because you thought you needed them , but now know you can get by without.
” In a way , packing light is counterintuitive to what most of us have been conditioned to feel about entirely new environments .
“ Even if you ’ re an experienced traveler , you ’ re likely to have a higher stress response , and the desire to make yourself more comfortable intensifies , ” said Fielding , the psychologist .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ travelers , like Willmore and Chipchase , have attempted to overcome .
However , Willmore wrote there ’ s a reason for our attachment to heavy suitcases , that the amount of excess stuff we carry is an attempt to cope with the distance from home : “ The emotions carried in that heavy suitcase remain — the desire to bring something of your life to a new place and to take something similar back.
” There ’ s no right answer to whether a person should pack light or heavy , although @ @ @ @ @ @ @ travel with less .
Checked-bag fees are on the rise , and airlines have adopted less-expensive ticket tiers like basic economy that limit travelers to only a small bag .
It ’ s difficult to find that sweet spot if you ’ re an infrequent traveler , but whatever your default packing behavior , it likely isn ’ t a personality flaw , Fielding told me : “ It ’ s a safety prediction based on your needs for whatever lies ahead.
” Sign up for The Goods newsletter .
Twice a week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best Goods stories exploring what we buy , why we buy it , and why it matters .

If you find yourself at an airport, you’ll likely notice two types of travelers. There’s the person struggling with the overstuffed suitcase (or three) right alongside the traveler handling little more than a light duffel.
Of course, they might be heading to totally different destinations for totally different lengths of time and under totally different circumstances, but it’s clear that a person’s packing style — whether they pack light or pack heavy — is a distinctive personality trait.
no matter how hard i try, i ALWAYS overpack — lil angg (@angelatrannnnn) January 9, 2020
It turns out that how much we pack has more to do with our personal travel experiences, including our destination, luggage type, and even social standards. Packing, whether it be for a weekend trip or a two-week vacation, is a highly personal act and can create a fair amount of pressure. We’re expected to be effective and efficient travelers who can determine the most important items we need for the entire length of time we’re away from home. I personally find comfort in bringing more than I need, just in case.
“When we’re traveling, our emotions can feel more polarized since we’re experiencing a stressful situation,” Lara Fielding, a clinical psychologist and author of Mastering Adulthood, told me. “Our stress levels increase because we’re not in our comfort zone, and [because we] are surrounded by uncomfortable, different people.”
A popular travel stereotype is that women tend to pack more than men, which is an old cliché that Fielding suspects originated nearly a century ago, when women wore more elaborate outfits. Women are also more accustomed to carrying some sort of bag, since women’s clothing tends to have small, inadequate pockets. Although those expectations have changed, it takes awhile for these stereotypes to dissipate, Fielding added.
“Our stress levels increase because we’re not in our comfort zone, and [because we] are surrounded by uncomfortable, different people”
From Fielding’s point of view, how a traveler chooses to pack ultimately comes down to their past travel experiences. A person’s behavior is influenced consciously or subconsciously by what they’ve encountered before, and most people are “aiming to cover their butts when they pack.”
There are plenty of smart packing and self-help guides for overpackers, but Jan Chipchase, founder of the design firm Studio D Radiodurans, says luggage design can also influence a person’s packing behaviors. Chipchase, who also designs and sells lightweight luggage at SDR Traveller, classifies himself as a “no-wheels traveler” and has spent the past decade studying people’s packing behavior around the world.
Contrary to popular belief, Chipchase believes wheeled luggage is not a convenient invention for travelers, but rather constrains them during their trips. “People see wheels as a way to get their luggage from point A to point B, but the moment they’ve chosen wheels, they’ve cut down the travel options that are open to them,” he said.
For example, it would be much harder for a tourist to navigate a new city’s public transit system with a wheeled suitcase than it would be with a small backpack. A backpack also allows for more spontaneous travel, Chipchase argued, since a person only has to worry about what’s on their back.
The first wheeled suitcases were sold in 1970, but the concept faced resistance early on — salespeople didn’t think men wanted a suitcase with wheels. In the decades following this invention, however, designers fine-tuned the standard model of rolling luggage we’re familiar with today: a suitcase with two tiny wheels and a retractable handle.
Wheels give the illusion of weightless luggage and, according to Chipchase, lead people to pack more. In a 2015 blog, he wrote that when people are packing at home, they’re focused on fitting everything they need within the bag. “Only after the trip has started, when the drawback of that extra bulk is apparent, is the desire for remedial action, the clear-out, triggered. By then it is too late.”
His reasoning makes sense to me, a chronic overpacker. For a recent weekend trip to San Francisco, I unnecessarily packed a full suitcase and ended up trying to make the stuff I brought fit alongside whatever else I accumulated during my two-day stay.
As a frequent traveler, Chipchase is on the road anywhere from six to nine months a year, a lifestyle that requires him to be minimalist and intentional in his packing. In manifestos and blogs online, ultralight packers say this preparation method helps them think more deeply about the trip on which they’re about to embark.
In an essay for BuzzFeed News, reporter Alison Willmore wrote that the real trick to traveling light “requires only that you accustom yourself to leaving things behind — things that you bought because you thought you needed them, but now know you can get by without.”
In a way, packing light is counterintuitive to what most of us have been conditioned to feel about entirely new environments. “Even if you’re an experienced traveler, you’re likely to have a higher stress response, and the desire to make yourself more comfortable intensifies,” said Fielding, the psychologist.
This is a mindset that most seasoned travelers, like Willmore and Chipchase, have attempted to overcome. However, Willmore wrote there’s a reason for our attachment to heavy suitcases, that the amount of excess stuff we carry is an attempt to cope with the distance from home: “The emotions carried in that heavy suitcase remain — the desire to bring something of your life to a new place and to take something similar back.”
There’s no right answer to whether a person should pack light or heavy, although the travel industry is encouraging fliers to travel with less. Checked-bag fees are on the rise, and airlines have adopted less-expensive ticket tiers like basic economy that limit travelers to only a small bag.
It’s difficult to find that sweet spot if you’re an infrequent traveler, but whatever your default packing behavior, it likely isn’t a personality flaw, Fielding told me: “It’s a safety prediction based on your needs for whatever lies ahead.”
Sign up for The Goods newsletter. Twice a week, we’ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy, why we buy it, and why it matters.