vox--2020-01-07--Finally, really good advice on how to stop killing your houseplants

Yellowed leaves .
Drooping leaves .
Dried leaves .
It ’ s pretty easy ( and heartbreaking ) to spot a sick houseplant .
Who among us has brought home a healthy plant , perhaps a tropical split-leaf monstera or a fuzzy , opalescent succulent , only to soon stand guilty of planticide ?
( Sheepishly raises hand . )
Who has kept a dearly departed air plant on a windowsill months after its expiration as a painful reminder of the crime ?
( Maybe just me . )
What ’ s less straightforward , and what can be downright @ @ @ @ @ @ @ houseplant ’ s seemingly preordained demise before it ’ s too late .
We ’ re in the midst of a vibrant houseplantaissance .
Millennials dig them , particularly apartment dwellers in big cities looking to infuse their corners of cramped real estate with breaths of fresh air from the great , green outdoors .
And it ’ s no wonder why : Healthy houseplants mean healthy humans .
Studies have shown that indoor plants boost productivity , purify the air , and bust stress .
Which makes it all the more frustrating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personality type — when a houseplant ’ s health fails .
A string of ill-fated plant purchases might even make you wonder if you ’ re fit to take care of houseplants at all .
But friend , you are !
It ’ s absolutely possible to not assassinate your houseplants !
Here ’ s how .
Treat your plants like they ’ re your pets Step one for keeping a plant alive ?
Remember this : It ’ s alive !
And now that you ’ ve brought it indoors , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dog or a cat , your houseplant depends on you for its care .
That means nutrition , hydration , a supportive home environment , and intuiting its needs .
Plants are aesthetically pleasing and can transform a living space , to be sure , but they ’ re not simply decoration .
“ I don ’ t say that they become a part of your plant family for nothing , ” says Hilton Carter , noted plantfluencer and author of Wild at Home .
“ Plants are living things .
They aren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ folks in the market for a plant figure out what kind of “ plant person ” they are before bringing one home .
“ If you ’ re a busy person , you don ’ t want to put yourself in a situation where you ’ re purchasing ferns that need to be watered every three days , ” says Carter .
“ Because if you do , then you ’ re going to end up killing these plants over and over again , and you ’ re going to consider yourself a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone who has a ‘ brown thumb.
’ But that ’ s not really the case .
It ’ s that you don ’ t know what type of ‘ plant person ’ you are.
” Do you spend 60 hours a week at work ?
Do you travel a lot ?
Are you pretty forgetful ?
These types of questions aren ’ t a whole lot different from what to ask yourself before bringing home a dog ( at least , we hope you ask yourself these questions ) .
They get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to invest in your houseplants .
Because let ’ s face it , plants can be expensive ( sometimes really expensive ) .
If you ’ re going to invest the funds , be sure you can invest the time , too .
Every plant requires a different care regimen — running the gamut from every-other-day maintenance to once-monthly check-ins — and the answers to those Plant Person Questions can point you to which plants are right for your lifestyle .
An areca palm might look cool and match your rug , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the two of you are a good fit for each other .
And while you ’ re at it , take an inventory of what your living space brings to the table .
The biggie is sunlight .
Do you get much of it ( yay ! )
, or do you live in a spooky house straight out of a gothic horror story , all heavy drapes and zero sun ( no judgment ) ?
Is it humid in your place ?
Is it dry ?
Do you crank the heat in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( and , it bears repeating , is your house haunted ) ?
Don ’ t buy that dracaena because all the beautiful people on Instagram have one ; ask your local plant shop what plants might adapt best to the environment you have to offer .
Horticulturist Tovah Martin recommends that plant newbies consider starting out with a class of plants that she terms “ indestructibles ” — plants like the spider plant , the ZZ plant , and yes , the dracaena .
She picked 200 for her book The Indestructible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tend to tolerate sub-par conditions and less-than-perfect gardeners.
” If you Google “ set it and forget houseplant , ” which I did , you ’ ll find a slew of articles boasting plants “ that are almost impossible to kill.
” But there ’ s a caveat .
“ Anything that is alive can be killed , ” Martin says .
“ [ Indestructibles ] are plants that can take a lot of abuse , a lot of forgetfulness .
But you don ’ t want to abuse anything , so don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t go there.
” She shares Carter ’ s earlier point : “ Think of them as your pets.
” For anyone unfamiliar with the musical Little Shop of Horrors , a very rare Audrey II plant sings , “ Feed me , Seymour !
” in a resonant baritone when it ’ s hungry , which at a certain point in the narrative is always .
( Audrey II , it must be noted , is a bloodthirsty alien intent on world domination . )
It ’ s a shame that real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What they lack in verbal skills , however , they make up for in body language .
Those yellowed or drooping or dried leaves are your plant ’ s pained way of screaming , “ Please pay attention to me !
” When it comes to sunlight in particular , “ Plants have a clever way of conveying when they need more lumens , ” writes Martin in Indestructible Houseplant .
“ When they bend toward the light source , that ’ s your cue to move them closer and rotate their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ watering .
Soggy soil that isn ’ t escaping through the container ’ s drainage holes ?
Too much watering .
Soil speaks !
The easiest way to pick up on your houseplants ’ cues and become attuned to their needs is to , simply put , enjoy them .
“ You ’ re looking at your plants all the time because they ’ re so beautiful and you ’ re loving them , ” says Martin .
“ So take a minute to check and see if they need a little drink.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ re plant parenting Houseplants don ’ t necessarily come equipped with a one-size-fits-all how-to .
There are a host of factors that play into how best ( and how often ) to serve your houseplant .
Luckily , though , there are only a few key care categories to incorporate into your plantiful lifestyle .
“ When I lecture , audience members sit with their pens poised , hoping I will advise them to water every Tuesday or the like , ” writes Martin in Indestructible Houseplant .
“ It doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how often to water depends not only on the type of plant but also on weather conditions outside and the temperature you keep your house .
The conditions may be variable , but luckily , Martin tells Vox , “ The solution is the same .
You check the soil to see if it ’ s dry .
That ’ s the solution.
” Martin cites an oft-repeated myth about watering .
“ Never , never wait for it to wilt , ” she says .
“ That ’ s like saying , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before you feed them.
’ That ’ s stressing the plant .
A stressed plant is a plant that ’ s going to be victim to problems.
” It ’ s absolutely possible to be overzealous and overwater , a practice akin to helicopter parenting , says Carter .
Learn what balance to strike in the watering department by studying up on your plant and by familiarizing yourself with what healthy soil looks and feels like .
“ If the soil crumbles apart , that ’ s good , ” writes Martin in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in one soggy glob , that ’ s not good.
” After you bring your plant home , you ’ ll likely want to repot it in a container that resonates with your personal style .
You also probably need to repot it anyway , because often the container your plant comes in doesn ’ t have drainage holes , which give excess water an escape route .
Make sure that water has someplace to run off to .
Following that initial homecoming , there will come a time when you will need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can grow bigger and avoid issues like root rot , says Carter .
If your plant is wilting , it might need more space for its roots to spread out .
Research what healthy roots look like ( light and fibrous ! )
versus what unhealthy roots look like ( kind of a gloopy mess ) .
You might also consider terrariums for certain plants to keep them moist and humid , adds Martin , particularly if you travel for work .
Not all plants are made for terrariums , though , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Reading up on how much water your particular plant friend needs will point you in the direction of another plant-specific necessity : sunlight .
Assign your most sun-loving plants to your most generous windows , and don ’ t be afraid to relocate them from time to time to keep them nourished and happy .
On the flip side , your plant might be sunlight adverse and prefer shade .
The great thing about the modern age in which we live is that you don ’ t need to guess .
Google @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ask your local plant shopkeeper , DM your favorite plantfluencer , and equip yourself with knowledge .
You ’ ve got to rotate them too , says Carter .
Rotating tends to be an overlooked care tip .
The side of your plant that ’ s directly against the window will , of course , get the most sun , but what many plant parents forget is that this can translate into either overgrowth on one side , causing the plant to topple over , or into a half-fried plant .
Don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
You ’ re going to need to prune those yellowed and dried leaves , and Carter recommends that you wipe your leaves down regularly to boot .
Dusting isn ’ t just for keeping your home clean .
Says Carter , “ Dust creates a filter between the sunlight and the leaf tissue , ” and that barrier keeps the leaf from effectively absorbing the sun ’ s rays .
And if you ’ re enjoying an ongoing conversation with your plants — rotating them , wiping down their leaves , checking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll notice any unwelcome bugs that might infiltrate Plant Town before a full-on invasion hits .
For Carter , it all comes back to the pet analogy .
“ You take your dog for a long walk in the woods .
Most good dog parents check their dogs when they get home to make sure they don ’ t have ticks.
” There are plant enthusiasts , too , who bring in “ good bugs ” for their plants , like plant YouTuber Summer Rayne Owens .
“ I think when you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ creating this little ecosystem in your home , ” Owens told the New Yorker .
“ And for me it ’ s the only sensible way to be able to control any kind of outbreak .
Otherwise all my plants would be dead.
” That poor once-green victim of your forgetfulness or your under-watering or your overwatering or whatever weird confluence of events ?
Do not despair !
It ’ s possible to revive a dying houseplant and bring it back from the brink of death .
And in fact , your yellowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be as dead as you fear .
“ It ’ s not dead until the stem is completely dried out , ” says Carter .
Many people , he adds , are too quick to throw out plants they mistakenly believe are dead , when in fact they simply need help .
“ There ’ s always , always a chance to turn it around.
” Stephie Grob Plante is a writer whose work has appeared in Smithsonian Magazine , Playboy , the Atlantic , The Verge , The Goods and elsewhere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of homeopathy for The Highlight .

Yellowed leaves. Drooping leaves. Dried leaves. It’s pretty easy (and heartbreaking) to spot a sick houseplant. Who among us has brought home a healthy plant, perhaps a tropical split-leaf monstera or a fuzzy, opalescent succulent, only to soon stand guilty of planticide? (Sheepishly raises hand.) Who has kept a dearly departed air plant on a windowsill months after its expiration as a painful reminder of the crime? (Maybe just me.) What’s less straightforward, and what can be downright daunting, is how to prevent a houseplant’s seemingly preordained demise before it’s too late.
We’re in the midst of a vibrant houseplantaissance. Millennials dig them, particularly apartment dwellers in big cities looking to infuse their corners of cramped real estate with breaths of fresh air from the great, green outdoors. And it’s no wonder why: Healthy houseplants mean healthy humans. Studies have shown that indoor plants boost productivity, purify the air, and bust stress.
Which makes it all the more frustrating — and/or gutting, depending on your personality type — when a houseplant’s health fails. A string of ill-fated plant purchases might even make you wonder if you’re fit to take care of houseplants at all. But friend, you are! It’s absolutely possible to not assassinate your houseplants! Here’s how.
Treat your plants like they’re your pets
Step one for keeping a plant alive? Remember this: It’s alive! And now that you’ve brought it indoors, it needs you. Not entirely unlike a dog or a cat, your houseplant depends on you for its care. That means nutrition, hydration, a supportive home environment, and intuiting its needs.
Plants are aesthetically pleasing and can transform a living space, to be sure, but they’re not simply decoration. “I don’t say that they become a part of your plant family for nothing,” says Hilton Carter, noted plantfluencer and author of Wild at Home. “Plants are living things. They aren’t props.”
Know thyself, know thy space
Carter suggests that folks in the market for a plant figure out what kind of “plant person” they are before bringing one home. “If you’re a busy person, you don’t want to put yourself in a situation where you’re purchasing ferns that need to be watered every three days,” says Carter. “Because if you do, then you’re going to end up killing these plants over and over again, and you’re going to consider yourself a ‘bad plant person,’ or someone who has a ‘brown thumb.’ But that’s not really the case. It’s that you don’t know what type of ‘plant person’ you are.”
Do you spend 60 hours a week at work? Do you travel a lot? Are you pretty forgetful? These types of questions aren’t a whole lot different from what to ask yourself before bringing home a dog (at least, we hope you ask yourself these questions). They get at how much energy you are willing to invest in your houseplants. Because let’s face it, plants can be expensive (sometimes really expensive). If you’re going to invest the funds, be sure you can invest the time, too.
Every plant requires a different care regimen — running the gamut from every-other-day maintenance to once-monthly check-ins — and the answers to those Plant Person Questions can point you to which plants are right for your lifestyle. An areca palm might look cool and match your rug, but you should bring one home only if the two of you are a good fit for each other.
And while you’re at it, take an inventory of what your living space brings to the table. The biggie is sunlight. Do you get much of it (yay!), or do you live in a spooky house straight out of a gothic horror story, all heavy drapes and zero sun (no judgment)? Is it humid in your place? Is it dry? Do you crank the heat in winter and/or blast the AC in summer (and, it bears repeating, is your house haunted)? Don’t buy that dracaena because all the beautiful people on Instagram have one; ask your local plant shop what plants might adapt best to the environment you have to offer.
Horticulturist Tovah Martin recommends that plant newbies consider starting out with a class of plants that she terms “indestructibles” — plants like the spider plant, the ZZ plant, and yes, the dracaena. She picked 200 for her book The Indestructible Houseplant that, she writes, “tend to tolerate sub-par conditions and less-than-perfect gardeners.” If you Google “set it and forget houseplant,” which I did, you’ll find a slew of articles boasting plants “that are almost impossible to kill.” But there’s a caveat.
“Anything that is alive can be killed,” Martin says. “[Indestructibles] are plants that can take a lot of abuse, a lot of forgetfulness. But you don’t want to abuse anything, so don’t do it. Don’t go there.” She shares Carter’s earlier point: “Think of them as your pets.”
Become fluent in plant
For anyone unfamiliar with the musical Little Shop of Horrors, a very rare Audrey II plant sings, “Feed me, Seymour!” in a resonant baritone when it’s hungry, which at a certain point in the narrative is always. (Audrey II, it must be noted, is a bloodthirsty alien intent on world domination.)
It’s a shame that real plants can’t talk like that. What they lack in verbal skills, however, they make up for in body language. Those yellowed or drooping or dried leaves are your plant’s pained way of screaming, “Please pay attention to me!”
When it comes to sunlight in particular, “Plants have a clever way of conveying when they need more lumens,” writes Martin in Indestructible Houseplant. “When they bend toward the light source, that’s your cue to move them closer and rotate their containers.”
Overdry soil? Not enough watering. Soggy soil that isn’t escaping through the container’s drainage holes? Too much watering. Soil speaks!
The easiest way to pick up on your houseplants’ cues and become attuned to their needs is to, simply put, enjoy them. “You’re looking at your plants all the time because they’re so beautiful and you’re loving them,” says Martin. “So take a minute to check and see if they need a little drink.”
What to expect when you’re plant parenting
Houseplants don’t necessarily come equipped with a one-size-fits-all how-to. There are a host of factors that play into how best (and how often) to serve your houseplant. Luckily, though, there are only a few key care categories to incorporate into your plantiful lifestyle.
Watering
“When I lecture, audience members sit with their pens poised, hoping I will advise them to water every Tuesday or the like,” writes Martin in Indestructible Houseplant. “It doesn’t work that way.” How much and how often to water depends not only on the type of plant but also on weather conditions outside and the temperature you keep your house. The conditions may be variable, but luckily, Martin tells Vox, “The solution is the same. You check the soil to see if it’s dry. That’s the solution.”
Martin cites an oft-repeated myth about watering. “Never, never wait for it to wilt,” she says. “That’s like saying, ‘Wait for your teenager to faint before you feed them.’ That’s stressing the plant. A stressed plant is a plant that’s going to be victim to problems.”
It’s absolutely possible to be overzealous and overwater, a practice akin to helicopter parenting, says Carter. Learn what balance to strike in the watering department by studying up on your plant and by familiarizing yourself with what healthy soil looks and feels like. “If the soil crumbles apart, that’s good,” writes Martin in Indestructible Houseplant. “If it remains in one soggy glob, that’s not good.”
Potting
After you bring your plant home, you’ll likely want to repot it in a container that resonates with your personal style. You also probably need to repot it anyway, because often the container your plant comes in doesn’t have drainage holes, which give excess water an escape route. Make sure that water has someplace to run off to.
Following that initial homecoming, there will come a time when you will need to repot your plant so that it can grow bigger and avoid issues like root rot, says Carter. If your plant is wilting, it might need more space for its roots to spread out. Research what healthy roots look like (light and fibrous!) versus what unhealthy roots look like (kind of a gloopy mess).
You might also consider terrariums for certain plants to keep them moist and humid, adds Martin, particularly if you travel for work. Not all plants are made for terrariums, though, so be sure to do your homework first.
Positioning and rotating
Reading up on how much water your particular plant friend needs will point you in the direction of another plant-specific necessity: sunlight. Assign your most sun-loving plants to your most generous windows, and don’t be afraid to relocate them from time to time to keep them nourished and happy. On the flip side, your plant might be sunlight adverse and prefer shade. The great thing about the modern age in which we live is that you don’t need to guess. Google your plant, go to the library, ask your local plant shopkeeper, DM your favorite plantfluencer, and equip yourself with knowledge.
You’ve got to rotate them too, says Carter. Rotating tends to be an overlooked care tip. The side of your plant that’s directly against the window will, of course, get the most sun, but what many plant parents forget is that this can translate into either overgrowth on one side, causing the plant to topple over, or into a half-fried plant. Don’t topple or fry your plants.
Leaf care, soil stuff, and pests
You’re going to need to prune those yellowed and dried leaves, and Carter recommends that you wipe your leaves down regularly to boot. Dusting isn’t just for keeping your home clean. Says Carter, “Dust creates a filter between the sunlight and the leaf tissue,” and that barrier keeps the leaf from effectively absorbing the sun’s rays.
And if you’re enjoying an ongoing conversation with your plants — rotating them, wiping down their leaves, checking their soil, etc. — you’ll notice any unwelcome bugs that might infiltrate Plant Town before a full-on invasion hits. For Carter, it all comes back to the pet analogy. “You take your dog for a long walk in the woods. Most good dog parents check their dogs when they get home to make sure they don’t have ticks.”
There are plant enthusiasts, too, who bring in “good bugs” for their plants, like plant YouTuber Summer Rayne Owens. “I think when you get enough plants you’re basically creating this little ecosystem in your home,” Owens told the New Yorker. “And for me it’s the only sensible way to be able to control any kind of outbreak. Otherwise all my plants would be dead.”
Don’t give up!
That poor once-green victim of your forgetfulness or your under-watering or your overwatering or whatever weird confluence of events? Do not despair! It’s possible to revive a dying houseplant and bring it back from the brink of death. And in fact, your yellowed, drooping, dried plant friend might not be as dead as you fear.
“It’s not dead until the stem is completely dried out,” says Carter. Many people, he adds, are too quick to throw out plants they mistakenly believe are dead, when in fact they simply need help. “There’s always, always a chance to turn it around.”
Stephie Grob Plante is a writer whose work has appeared in Smithsonian Magazine, Playboy, the Atlantic, The Verge, The Goods and elsewhere. She last wrote about the rise of homeopathy for The Highlight.


vox--2020-01-07--Elizabeth Warren’s new plan to reform bankruptcy law, explained

With a new plan out Tuesday , Sen. Elizabeth Warren is returning to her roots — proposing to roll back bankruptcy changes made in 2005 while also pitching a series of new reforms .
The plan reflects both her longtime vision of how bankruptcy should work and her more recent focus on the idea that rich people have rigged the system for their benefit .
Warren ’ s transition from academic expert to politician was driven by her work over years as an opponent of bankruptcy reform legislation — legislation that researchers believe exacerbated the Great Recession by inducing more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ objections in 2005 .
Her interests have broadened out over the past 15 years to the point where most people following the 2020 presidential campaign might not even realize this was both her original area of scholarly expertise and motivation for taking on a larger role as an advocate and , eventually , a politician .
It ’ s a plan from a former law professor on the federal bankruptcy code , so there are a lot of details , and not necessarily a catchy slogan .
But the big picture is easy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal law was changed to make it harder for middle-class families to discharge debts in bankruptcy .
That was good for credit card companies and others that want to collect those debts , and was said by its proponents to have the secondary consequence of making cheap credit easier to obtain ( in practice , credit card interest rates went up rather than down so this rationale seems dubious anyway ) .
Warren wants to shift the pendulum back in the other direction and make it easier for middle-class families who ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through bankruptcy .
Warren doesn ’ t much mind if the consequence of this reform is lenders get less aggressive about pushing people into loans .
At the same time , she wants to crack down on a number of strategies very rich people use to shelter assets , strategies that , because of effective lobbying , were preserved in the 2005 reform .
For much of Western history , the only way out from under crushing debt was debtors ’ prison , where you ’ d be coerced into working off what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen as both inhumane and an ineffective way for creditors to actually recoup their money .
Under the modern system , if you ’ re in over your head in debt , you can file paperwork in bankruptcy court that shields you temporarily from your creditors .
You end up needing to at least partially pay some of them back , but you emerge less indebted and able to move on with your life — albeit probably as someone who will have a harder time getting loans in the future .
The existence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bit riskier than it otherwise would be .
But they serve as a kind of insurance process to help deal with strokes of bad luck .
The current system also creates incentives for consumers to borrow and lenders to lend .
Consumers can seek loans whenever one would be convenient rather than merely in worst-case scenarios .
In other words , access to bankruptcy not only benefits specific debtors , it boosts the overall economy by encouraging a robust financial system and ensuring that people who fail or experience bad luck can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the United States comes in a few forms .
There are two kinds of business bankruptcy and a bankruptcy process for local government entities like towns , counties , and school districts ( interestingly , there is no formal bankruptcy process for state governments ) .
But the 2005 bankruptcy reform debate that helped launch Warren ’ s political career was fundamentally about personal bankruptcy , which comes in two flavors .
In a Chapter 7 personal bankruptcy , you may have to sell off your stuff to pay what you can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rules about what kind of stuff you do and don ’ t need to sell ) , but when your assets are handed over to your creditors , you are free and clear .
A Chapter 13 personal bankruptcy , by contrast , involves putting you on a payment plan in which some of your future income goes to your creditors .
In most cases , the bankrupt individual ’ s hard assets are worth much less than their debts so it ends up being more favorable to file under Chapter 7 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1990s , more and more people were filing for bankruptcy , often under Chapter 7 .
Because of this , the main thrust of the 2005 reform was to try to clamp down on the steady growth of bankruptcy filings by pushing more people into Chapter 13 .
Warren ’ s core idea is to replace the Chapter 7 and 13 distinction with a single path to personal bankruptcy .
She wants to make the filing process relatively streamlined — you disclose all your assets , debts , and income to the courts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and often costly legal fees associated with the current system .
Then , according to her Medium post outlining the plan , filers would “ choose from a menu of options for addressing their debts.
” In one option , you surrender all your property ( with a few specific exemptions laid out in law ) to your creditors and in exchange you walk away free and clear of all your debts .
Alternatively , there would be options for declaring bankruptcy on some debts ( a home mortgage , for example ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your other payments .
Last , a debtor would have the option of filing a proposed payment plan to discharge debts without surrendering assets , and then petition the court to accept that plan , halting collections to the extent needed to execute it .
This menu of options would be both faster and more user-friendly than the current system .
It ’ s also much more generous in its treatment of people who may have racked up large debts without acquiring comparably large assets .
If you owe tens of thousands of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you bought a bunch of jewelry , for example , then discharging the debt by surrendering your assets will still leave the credit card company with a bunch of valuable gold and diamonds .
But if you owe tens of thousands of dollars primarily because you had medical expenses while simultaneously working less due to illness , then you won ’ t have many assets to surrender .
Under Warren ’ s plan , the debtor in either case would have a clear path to becoming debt-free ; the same isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2005 reform saw both repayment and the accumulation of debt .
One of the big goals of the 2005 reform was to make it harder for people in that second scenario to wriggle out of debt .
And from that priority arose the key question of how to characterize the impacted population — at the time ( and now ) Warren argued factors like medical emergencies and a threadbare social safety net were what led to overwhelming personal debt and bankruptcy .
Lawmakers on the other side of the issue and their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consumer behavior as the main issue .
Rather than simply roll back the 2005 changes and restore easy access to the Chapter 7 process , Warren now proposes creating a new unified process because she ’ s putting forth a bunch of other pro-debtor reforms .
Warren wants more debtor-friendly changes Warren ’ s main idea is paired with a potpourri of tweaks to the existing rule : • Warren would end the current situation in which student loans are almost always non-dischargeable even in bankruptcy .
• She would allow people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ spend a reasonable amount on toys and books and basic recreational activities for their kids during the bankruptcy process.
” • Warren would allow bankruptcy filers who want to hold onto their car ( perhaps they need it to go to work ) to pay their auto lender cash equal to the current value of the car , rolling back a 2005 change that made them liable for the full value of the loan even if it exceeds the value of the car .
• Warren would create a uniform federal “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than the current patchwork where some states are extremely stingy in what they allow while others allow rich debtors to shelter huge sums of money through real estate transactions .
• Last but by no means least , Warren wants to create a standardized way to modify mortgages through the bankruptcy process , something that ’ s typically not allowed under current law .
Mortgage modification became a big deal during the 2008- ’ 09 recession when many families in financial distress found themselves owing more on their home mortgages than their houses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political discussion on possible avenues for the federal government to create relief for so-called underwater homeowners .
But they mostly didn ’ t happen , with Obama administration officials offering a variety of at-times-inconsistent explanations for why .
Under Warren ’ s plan , “ if a foreclosure has started , and the homeowner certifies that she has attempted to negotiate a modification in good faith , she could seek an automatic modification of the mortgage debt to the market value of the property , with interest rates reduced to achieve a sustainable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the face value of the mortgage would be marked down to what the house is actually worth , with an interest rate then set at a level the borrower can afford .
Warren would very partially offset this set of debtor-friendly changes with a crackdown on the “ millionaires loophole ” that rich people use to shelter assets from bankruptcy by placing assets in trusts that name themselves as the beneficiary .
This would lead creditors to recoup more from the wealthiest debtors , even as they have a harder time collecting from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a top-tier issue for anyone voting in 2020 , but it plays a potentially important role in the campaign .
While most of the members of Congress who backed the 2005 reform were Republicans , one of its main sponsors was a Delaware senator by the name of Joe Biden .
This is an issue that Biden and Warren clashed over for years while he was a senator and she was a professor .
And significantly , Barack Obama was also a senator at the time the bill passed , and he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That makes the issue not just biographically significant to Warren , but a thematically useful wedge to separate the national frontrunner from the popular former president whose name he often wields as a shield against criticism .
The bankruptcy issue is also an important ideological lens for understanding Warren .
After all , the downside to adopting debtor-friendly bankruptcy rules is they may make lenders more reluctant to lend people money .
To Warren , though , that ’ s fine .
Beginning as a researcher into bankruptcy , Warren eventually developed a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wage stagnation .
Almost every cause she champions — from subsidized child care to Medicare-for-all to her sweeping anti-corruption proposals — can be understood as one of two things : either trying to offer a solution to the problems mid-aughts America was using cheap debt as a patch for , or else as a reaction to her perception that Congress was all too ready to brush aside expert recommendations and change bankruptcy law in ways that benefited banks .

With a new plan out Tuesday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren is returning to her roots — proposing to roll back bankruptcy changes made in 2005 while also pitching a series of new reforms. The plan reflects both her longtime vision of how bankruptcy should work and her more recent focus on the idea that rich people have rigged the system for their benefit.
Warren’s transition from academic expert to politician was driven by her work over years as an opponent of bankruptcy reform legislation — legislation that researchers believe exacerbated the Great Recession by inducing more foreclosures – that eventually passed over her objections in 2005. Her interests have broadened out over the past 15 years to the point where most people following the 2020 presidential campaign might not even realize this was both her original area of scholarly expertise and motivation for taking on a larger role as an advocate and, eventually, a politician.
It’s a plan from a former law professor on the federal bankruptcy code, so there are a lot of details, and not necessarily a catchy slogan. But the big picture is easy enough to understand.
In 2005, federal law was changed to make it harder for middle-class families to discharge debts in bankruptcy. That was good for credit card companies and others that want to collect those debts, and was said by its proponents to have the secondary consequence of making cheap credit easier to obtain (in practice, credit card interest rates went up rather than down so this rationale seems dubious anyway).
Warren wants to shift the pendulum back in the other direction and make it easier for middle-class families who’ve gotten into financial trouble to gain relief through bankruptcy.
Warren doesn’t much mind if the consequence of this reform is lenders get less aggressive about pushing people into loans. At the same time, she wants to crack down on a number of strategies very rich people use to shelter assets, strategies that, because of effective lobbying, were preserved in the 2005 reform.
Personal bankruptcy, in general, explained
For much of Western history, the only way out from under crushing debt was debtors’ prison, where you’d be coerced into working off what you owed. This came to be seen as both inhumane and an ineffective way for creditors to actually recoup their money.
Under the modern system, if you’re in over your head in debt, you can file paperwork in bankruptcy court that shields you temporarily from your creditors. You end up needing to at least partially pay some of them back, but you emerge less indebted and able to move on with your life — albeit probably as someone who will have a harder time getting loans in the future.
The existence of these bankruptcy processes naturally makes lending a bit riskier than it otherwise would be. But they serve as a kind of insurance process to help deal with strokes of bad luck. The current system also creates incentives for consumers to borrow and lenders to lend. Consumers can seek loans whenever one would be convenient rather than merely in worst-case scenarios.
In other words, access to bankruptcy not only benefits specific debtors, it boosts the overall economy by encouraging a robust financial system and ensuring that people who fail or experience bad luck can move on with their lives.
Bankruptcy in the United States comes in a few forms. There are two kinds of business bankruptcy and a bankruptcy process for local government entities like towns, counties, and school districts (interestingly, there is no formal bankruptcy process for state governments). But the 2005 bankruptcy reform debate that helped launch Warren’s political career was fundamentally about personal bankruptcy, which comes in two flavors.
In a Chapter 7 personal bankruptcy, you may have to sell off your stuff to pay what you can to your creditors (there are various rules about what kind of stuff you do and don’t need to sell), but when your assets are handed over to your creditors, you are free and clear. A Chapter 13 personal bankruptcy, by contrast, involves putting you on a payment plan in which some of your future income goes to your creditors.
In most cases, the bankrupt individual’s hard assets are worth much less than their debts so it ends up being more favorable to file under Chapter 7. Over the course of the 1980s and 1990s, more and more people were filing for bankruptcy, often under Chapter 7. Because of this, the main thrust of the 2005 reform was to try to clamp down on the steady growth of bankruptcy filings by pushing more people into Chapter 13.
Warren’s plan: a single, easy path to bankruptcy
Warren’s core idea is to replace the Chapter 7 and 13 distinction with a single path to personal bankruptcy. She wants to make the filing process relatively streamlined — you disclose all your assets, debts, and income to the courts — to save people the arduous paperwork and often costly legal fees associated with the current system.
Then, according to her Medium post outlining the plan, filers would “choose from a menu of options for addressing their debts.”
In one option, you surrender all your property (with a few specific exemptions laid out in law) to your creditors and in exchange you walk away free and clear of all your debts.
Alternatively, there would be options for declaring bankruptcy on some debts (a home mortgage, for example) while simply committing to remain current on your other payments.
Last, a debtor would have the option of filing a proposed payment plan to discharge debts without surrendering assets, and then petition the court to accept that plan, halting collections to the extent needed to execute it.
This menu of options would be both faster and more user-friendly than the current system. It’s also much more generous in its treatment of people who may have racked up large debts without acquiring comparably large assets.
If you owe tens of thousands of dollars to your credit card company because you bought a bunch of jewelry, for example, then discharging the debt by surrendering your assets will still leave the credit card company with a bunch of valuable gold and diamonds. But if you owe tens of thousands of dollars primarily because you had medical expenses while simultaneously working less due to illness, then you won’t have many assets to surrender.
Under Warren’s plan, the debtor in either case would have a clear path to becoming debt-free; the same isn’t currently true because of how those structuring the 2005 reform saw both repayment and the accumulation of debt.
One of the big goals of the 2005 reform was to make it harder for people in that second scenario to wriggle out of debt. And from that priority arose the key question of how to characterize the impacted population — at the time (and now) Warren argued factors like medical emergencies and a threadbare social safety net were what led to overwhelming personal debt and bankruptcy. Lawmakers on the other side of the issue and their industry allies, however, saw irresponsible consumer behavior as the main issue.
Rather than simply roll back the 2005 changes and restore easy access to the Chapter 7 process, Warren now proposes creating a new unified process because she’s putting forth a bunch of other pro-debtor reforms.
Warren wants more debtor-friendly changes
Warren’s main idea is paired with a potpourri of tweaks to the existing rule:
Warren would end the current situation in which student loans are almost always non-dischargeable even in bankruptcy.
She would allow people who opt for a payment plan option to “spend a reasonable amount on toys and books and basic recreational activities for their kids during the bankruptcy process.”
Warren would allow bankruptcy filers who want to hold onto their car (perhaps they need it to go to work) to pay their auto lender cash equal to the current value of the car, rolling back a 2005 change that made them liable for the full value of the loan even if it exceeds the value of the car.
Warren would create a uniform federal “homestead” exemption for home equity rather than the current patchwork where some states are extremely stingy in what they allow while others allow rich debtors to shelter huge sums of money through real estate transactions.
Last but by no means least, Warren wants to create a standardized way to modify mortgages through the bankruptcy process, something that’s typically not allowed under current law.
Mortgage modification became a big deal during the 2008-’09 recession when many families in financial distress found themselves owing more on their home mortgages than their houses were currently worth. There was widespread political discussion on possible avenues for the federal government to create relief for so-called underwater homeowners. But they mostly didn’t happen, with Obama administration officials offering a variety of at-times-inconsistent explanations for why.
Under Warren’s plan, “if a foreclosure has started, and the homeowner certifies that she has attempted to negotiate a modification in good faith, she could seek an automatic modification of the mortgage debt to the market value of the property, with interest rates reduced to achieve a sustainable debt-to-income ratio.” In other words, the face value of the mortgage would be marked down to what the house is actually worth, with an interest rate then set at a level the borrower can afford.
Warren would very partially offset this set of debtor-friendly changes with a crackdown on the “millionaires loophole” that rich people use to shelter assets from bankruptcy by placing assets in trusts that name themselves as the beneficiary. This would lead creditors to recoup more from the wealthiest debtors, even as they have a harder time collecting from the middle class.
A clash — and a vision
Bankruptcy reform is not a top-tier issue for anyone voting in 2020, but it plays a potentially important role in the campaign. While most of the members of Congress who backed the 2005 reform were Republicans, one of its main sponsors was a Delaware senator by the name of Joe Biden.
This is an issue that Biden and Warren clashed over for years while he was a senator and she was a professor. And significantly, Barack Obama was also a senator at the time the bill passed, and he didn’t vote for it. That makes the issue not just biographically significant to Warren, but a thematically useful wedge to separate the national frontrunner from the popular former president whose name he often wields as a shield against criticism.
The bankruptcy issue is also an important ideological lens for understanding Warren.
After all, the downside to adopting debtor-friendly bankruptcy rules is they may make lenders more reluctant to lend people money. To Warren, though, that’s fine.
Beginning as a researcher into bankruptcy, Warren eventually developed a larger theory of middle-class financial fragility and wage stagnation. Almost every cause she champions — from subsidized child care to Medicare-for-all to her sweeping anti-corruption proposals — can be understood as one of two things: either trying to offer a solution to the problems mid-aughts America was using cheap debt as a patch for, or else as a reaction to her perception that Congress was all too ready to brush aside expert recommendations and change bankruptcy law in ways that benefited banks.


vox--2020-01-07--“You’ll see the sky crawling”: Astronomers fear that satellites will crowd out stars

Share All sharing options for : “ You ’ ll see the sky crawling ” : Astronomers fear that satellites will crowd out stars In the predawn hours of November 18 , 2019 , Northwestern University astronomer Cliff Johnson noticed a huge swarm of unfamiliar objects streaking across the sky .
That night , Johnson was surveying the Magellanic Clouds — two very dim dwarf galaxies that orbit our own Milky Way galaxy — with the telescopes at the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory in Chile .
These galaxies are teaching scientists how stars form , and what happens when two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was watching them remotely , through a webcam at Fermilab outside of Chicago .
“ All of a sudden , ” he says , “ we just start seeing these streaks come across the webcam view .
I ’ ve never seen anything like that.
” The streaks weren ’ t from the heavens .
They were from Earth .
Over five minutes , a train of 19 satellites had crossed into the telescopes ’ view , scarring the observation with bright parallel marks , and degrading their scientific value .
It didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long to figure out whose satellites they were : A week earlier , Elon Musk ’ s SpaceX had launched 60 small satellites into low Earth orbit .
Johnson ’ s colleague , astronomer Clarae Martínez-Vázquez , who was also working that night , vented her frustration on Twitter .
“ I am in shock , ” she wrote .
This is what the telescope ’ s camera caught .
Astronomers are accustomed to satellites occasionally passing into view — one at a time .
They don ’ t ruin observations , per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effort to digitally remove them from the final image .
But 19 satellites ?
That was unprecedented , leading to 15 to 20 percent of the image being “ completely lost , ” Johnson says .
What ’ s more , Johnson worries that the swarm was an omen — of a future where just about every telescope observation conducted at twilight is marred by satellite streaks .
Soon , Earth may be blanketed by tens of thousands of satellites , and they ’ ll greatly outnumber the approximately 9,000 stars that are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is not some distant threat .
It ’ s already happening .
SpaceX has already put 180 of these small satellites , collectively called Starlink , in the sky .
Sixty were launched Monday .
That will be followed by more launches , possibly every two weeks .
In all , the company has approval from the Federal Communications Commission to launch 12,000 satellites , and Musk is seeking approval to launch 30,000 more .
SpaceX ’ s goal is for Starlink satellites to form into a constellation that will provide internet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remote areas of Earth .
And it ’ s hardly the only company in this market .
OneWeb , a UK-based company that also wants to beam internet access from space , is seeking to launch 650 satellites , beginning this January .
Amazon wants to launch 3,200 satellites , in a constellation called Kuiper , also with the goal of selling internet access .
In the near future , there could be 50,000 or more small satellites encircling the Earth , and for purposes other than delivering internet .
Could some company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spell out the name of a popular soda ?
Maybe .
There ’ s no global ban on space advertising .
These new satellites are small , mass-produced , and orbit very closely to the Earth to ensure the internet connection they provide is speedy .
But that closeness also makes them more visible , and brighter in the night sky .
“ Satellites launched by SpaceX and others will be brighter than 99 percent of the population of objects of all types currently in Earth orbit , ” Patrick Seitzer , an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ studies orbital debris , tells me by email .
He says Starlinks are brighter than other satellites orbiting at the same height .
“ So it has something to do with the design and attitude [ i.e.
, orientation ] of the Starlinks.
” In the long run , this could diminish our view of the universe , create more space debris , and , potentially , deprive humanity of an unblemished view of the night sky .
It ’ s not that the 19 Starlink satellites ruined the entire night of observations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that this is going to become the new normal .
If we ’ re really talking about many thousands to tens of thousands of satellites ... that is no longer a small deal.
” What ’ s more , some worry it may already be too late to fight back .
What the future of the night sky may look like The deployment of so many satellites is critical to close the connectivity gap .
Starlink and its competitors will be able to connect the most remote places in the world ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the internet , and therefore , the global economy .
That ’ s revolutionary .
The world will be more connected than ever before .
The systems may also prove useful during natural disasters .
When a hurricane takes out communications infrastructure on the ground , rescue crews will still be able to access space-based internet .
But it comes with a cost .
Astronomers have done the calculations , and say many of these satellites will be visible to the naked eye , particularly in the time after sunset and before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strongly catch the glare of the sun .
When there are 50,000 satellites in the sky , “ you ’ ll see the sky crawling , ” says Tony Tyson , a University of California Davis astronomer and physicist .
“ Every square degree will have something crawling in it.
” The Starlink satellites are most visible after they first launch , when they ’ re closer to the Earth and orbit in close proximity to one another .
So what Johnson saw through his webcam view — the train of satellites passing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after each launch .
But over time , the satellites will climb into higher orbits , where they ’ ll be slightly less visible , and will spread out from one another .
When they reach their final orbits , Tyson says they ’ ll still be “ visible by dark-adapted eyes in dark locations , ” at twilight ( after sunset and before sunrise ) .
But “ twilight can last most of the night , ” he says , depending on your latitude and the time of the year .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ objects in the space — particularly asteroids that are coming from the direction of the sun — that can only be seen at twilight . )
You may be familiar with the problem of light pollution .
Most people living near or in urban areas can ’ t see many stars because city lights cast a glowing haze that obscures the view of all but the brightest of stars .
But the satellites are not creating light pollution .
It ’ s more like sky pollution .
In the darker places of Earth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to spot .
“ It ’ s pretty dystopian to me , ” Johnson says .
“ This is a problem that ’ s going to find you wherever you are.
” In the video below , astronomer Michael Vlasov has a sped-up animation of what the night sky might look like when there are 12,000 Starlink satellites in orbit .
Keep in mind , this is a YouTube video , and it may not look all that impressive .
But you can see how the early night sky , and predawn sky @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sky .
And here ’ s an annotated animation from Vlasov showing where the satellites would be flying overhead .
Whether you notice them or not in the future may depend on where you live , and your access to a dark sky .
“ A large percentage of humans living in cities are not going to notice a large difference at all , ” Tony Beasley , director of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory , says .
There are a lot of other potential concerns about so many satellites in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When a satellite breaks down in space , it just stays up there as junk until gravity pulls it back down to Earth .
Already , several Starlink satellites have stopped functioning and are just hanging out up there as debris , where they present a hazard for colliding with other objects in space .
“ If you ’ re going to put up 10,000 , or 20,000 or 30,000 satellites , you automatically , instantly intentionally have hundreds of pieces of debris right off the bat , ” says Christopher Johnson , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Foundation , a nonprofit that advocates for the sustainable and peaceful use of space .
The more space debris in orbit , the harder it becomes to build and operate equipment there .
More immediately , the constellation satellites are a cause for straight-up alarm among many astronomers .
In the next decade , they have been hoping to capture an even wider , deeper view of the cosmos from the Earth .
And the satellites will get in the way .
Starlink and similar constellation satellites are different than many of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makes them a nuisance to astronomy : They ’ re very close to Earth .
If something is two times lower in orbit , Tyson explains , it ’ s four times brighter to us on the ground .
Telescopes capture images of the sky with very sensitive cameras .
The satellites are so bright , that they overexpose the cameras ’ sensors .
The effect is like taking an eraser to their images of the night sky , covering their images of the sky with tracts of unusable data .
Along with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the chief scientist at the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope .
It ’ s an observatory under construction in Chile with a huge field of view : Its mirrors will be able to capture an area of the sky 40 times the size of the full moon , and spot objects 10 million times fainter than the human eye could see .
Starting in 2023 , the $ 500 million LSST will embark on a 10-year survey of the entire night sky , producing a trove of data for scientists to help answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the universe .
That will show the universe in motion , and capture millions of stars evolving over time .
But if there are tens of thousands of satellites in orbit , LSST ’ s unique view of the universe will be obscured .
“ There ’ ll be nowhere where you can take LSST and point it without having one of [ the satellites ] in the field of view , ” Tyson says .
“ We ’ re going to see a potentially revolutionary new view onto the transient universe , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see a haze of streaks.
” SpaceX says it has been working with the astronomy community , and the scientists on the LSST in particular , on mitigating the problem .
Their efforts are being recognized : “ SpaceX is setting a very good precedent , I think , trying to do the right thing , ” Beasley says .
In an experiment , the company deployed a dark coating for the underside of one of its satellites on the latest launch to see if it will be less visible to telescopes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ work .
Tyson says that if SpaceX is able to darken the satellites by a factor of 100 “ then I believe that our software could handle it.
” But it ’ s not simple to just slap a coat of black paint on the satellites .
Too dark , and the satellites will start to absorb excess heat , which could impact their functioning .
It still unclear how dark SpaceX will ultimately go .
The company is taking an iterative “ trial and error ” approach , as SpaceX president Gwynne @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , astronomers don ’ t have some mandated right to an unobstructed view of the night sky , and don ’ t have a forum to voice their complaints .
Tyson is not feeling optimistic .
“ I don ’ t have any hopes , ” Tyson says .
“ I have no hope whatsoever that they ’ ll go anywhere near a factor of 100.
” I asked him if astronomers are powerless in protecting their view on the night sky .
“ We ’ re definitely powerless , ” he says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ astronomy , but not optical The pessimism among astronomers is due to the fact that they have no legal — national or international — protections here .
Simply put : “ There are currently no regulations , rules , or guidelines of any sort dealing with the brightness of satellites , ” Seitzer says .
“ Not at the international level , not at the national level anywhere.
” Sure , SpaceX might be willing to work with the scientific community in reducing the brightness of their satellites .
But another company , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To some , that ’ s an outrage .
“ The fact that one person , or one company , can take control and completely transform humans ’ experience of the night sky , and not just humans , but every organism on Earth … that seems profoundly wrong , ” Caitlin Casey , a University of Texas Austin astronomer says .
There is some regulation here , administered in the United States by the FCC , and internationally by the UN ’ s International Telecommunication Union .
But it mostly concerned with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to use which parts of the electromagnetic spectrum , and for what ( and also : making sure the satellites don ’ t crash into one another ) .
They don ’ t regulate how the satellites look .
“ We are aware from press articles that there have been some concerns raised about the effect of Starlink satellites on observations by astronomers at optical wavelengths , ” Will Wiquist , an FCC spokesperson , says in an email .
But also admits “ this issue has not been raised in any FCC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work in radio astronomy .
That ’ s where scientists look at the night sky at frequencies our eyes can ’ t see .
Radio astronomy has access to some protected wavelengths that communications companies are not allowed to infringe on .
Though , as Casey points out , radio astronomers like to look at all sorts of wavelengths outside of that range .
Overall , they ’ ll have to depend on the goodwill of companies like SpaceX to turn off their satellite transmitters when orbiting over a big radio observatory .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ off “ the scenario is like trying to see a firefly in the vicinity of the sun .
It would be incredibly bright , ” she says .
In the world of radio astronomy , a satellite beaming internet down to Earth might as well be a floodlight .
At least , though , for radio astronomy , there are established channels to voice their concerns over radio use .
But optical astronomy — which looks at the visible light of the universe — does not have international protections .
“ It doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says Christopher Johnson , a space law adviser at the Secure World Foundation , a nonprofit that advocates for the sustainable and peaceful use of space .
The UN Outer Space Treaty — the world ’ s governing framework for the use of space — says nothing on the topic of the reflectivity of satellites , nor their impact on astronomy .
Even if one country began strictly protecting the night sky from overcrowding , another could ignore those regulations entirely , and spoil the night sky for everyone , Johnson explains .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the cracks , ” Mark Skinner , an astronomer associated with the International Institute of Space Law .
Without regulations , the future could get weird Without stricter regulations , the future could get even weirder .
People could launch bright satellites , to intentionally get the attention of people around the globe .
And they already have : In January 2018 , a New Zealand company launched a satellite called “ humanity star.
” It was basically a disco ball in low Earth orbit .
Its creators hoped the light from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experience for everyone on the planet.
” Many astronomers were not delighted , likening it to “ space graffitti.
” Perhaps the humanity star is just a precursor to even bigger and brighter displays in the night sky .
There ’ s no explicit international ban , Wired reports , on advertising in space .
There ’ s at least one company hoping to arrange satellites in the sky to get people to buy more soda .
The night sky is enormous , and viewable to everyone on the planet .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a huge driver for us to ring the alarm and try to bring some visibility to this now , ” Johnson , of Northwestern , says .
“ This is just the tip of the iceberg.
” Maybe with some more visibility , astronomers can convince the nations of the world to make sure the night sky remains clear for telescopes .
But the fear is , at the end of the day , commercial interests will win over scientific ones .
SpaceX “ might have good intentions , but they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re still out to make money , ” Johnson says .
The astronomers I spoke with for this story all see the merits of Starlink , and satellite constellations at large .
Too much of the world is cut off from internet access .
“ Astronomers aren ’ t asking for there to be no Starlink , and for there to be no satellites , ” Johnson says .
“ But to at least do it in a way that takes into account that other people want a night sky.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group to try to thread this needle .
“ The goal of Starlink is to provide worldwide internet service , an aspiration we do not want to impede , ” working group astronomer Kelsie Krafton writes .
“ We do not want to give up access to optical observations from the ground.
” Then , there are impacts to changing the night sky that go beyond science or the internet .
The night sky , when seen from dark places , represents the ultimate wilderness — a pristine view of nature that humans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that mean ?
“ Every culture throughout time ... has valued the night sky , and many have enormously meaningful ( and sometimes very practical ) traditions of naked-eye observation , woven right into their culture , ” Kathryn Denning , an anthropologist at York University who studies the ethics of space exploration , writes in an email .
Cultural heritage , she says , is “ taken seriously at the United Nations level , but to my knowledge it hasn ’ t translated into rules for satellites yet.
” Even some animals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s hard to know if constellation satellites will have an impact on them , too .
Casey , the UT Austin astronomer , wants the world to know that messing with the night sky removes “ the one thing that all humans have had in the past 200,000 years , millions of years , it ’ s always been there.
” That ’ s not something to be taken lightly .
“ My whole attachment to science and pursuing this as a career dates back to seeing the night sky as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says .
“ Astronomy is a unique science : we can ’ t tinker with things in a lab , experimenting on stars .
The entire science is looking up at the sky , and losing that would be tragic .
”

In the predawn hours of November 18, 2019, Northwestern University astronomer Cliff Johnson noticed a huge swarm of unfamiliar objects streaking across the sky.
That night, Johnson was surveying the Magellanic Clouds — two very dim dwarf galaxies that orbit our own Milky Way galaxy — with the telescopes at the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory in Chile. These galaxies are teaching scientists how stars form, and what happens when two galaxies pass near one another. Johnson was watching them remotely, through a webcam at Fermilab outside of Chicago. “All of a sudden,” he says, “we just start seeing these streaks come across the webcam view. I’ve never seen anything like that.”
The streaks weren’t from the heavens. They were from Earth.
Over five minutes, a train of 19 satellites had crossed into the telescopes’ view, scarring the observation with bright parallel marks, and degrading their scientific value. It didn’t take Johnson and his colleagues long to figure out whose satellites they were: A week earlier, Elon Musk’s SpaceX had launched 60 small satellites into low Earth orbit. Johnson’s colleague, astronomer Clarae Martínez-Vázquez, who was also working that night, vented her frustration on Twitter.
“I am in shock,” she wrote.
Wow!! I am in shock!! The huge amount of Starlink satellites crossed our skies tonight at @cerrotololo. Our DECam exposure was heavily affected by 19 of them! The train of Starlink satellites lasted for over 5 minutes!! Rather depressing… This is not cool! pic.twitter.com/gK0ekbpLJe — Clarae Martínez-Vázquez (@89Marvaz) November 18, 2019
This is what the telescope’s camera caught.
Astronomers are accustomed to satellites occasionally passing into view — one at a time. They don’t ruin observations, per se. But it does take some effort to digitally remove them from the final image.
But 19 satellites? That was unprecedented, leading to 15 to 20 percent of the image being “completely lost,” Johnson says.
What’s more, Johnson worries that the swarm was an omen — of a future where just about every telescope observation conducted at twilight is marred by satellite streaks.
Soon, Earth may be blanketed by tens of thousands of satellites, and they’ll greatly outnumber the approximately 9,000 stars that are visible to an unaided human eye.
This is not some distant threat. It’s already happening. SpaceX has already put 240 of these small satellites, collectively called Starlink, in the sky. Sixty were launched this week. That will be followed by more launches, possibly every two weeks.
In all, the company has approval from the Federal Communications Commission to launch 12,000 satellites, and Musk is seeking approval to launch 30,000 more.
SpaceX’s goal is for Starlink satellites to form into a constellation that will provide internet access, for a price, to remote areas of Earth.
And it’s hardly the only company in this market. OneWeb, a UK-based company that also wants to beam internet access from space, is seeking to launch 650 satellites, beginning this January. Amazon wants to launch 3,200 satellites, in a constellation called Kuiper, also with the goal of selling internet access. In the near future, there could be 50,000 or more small satellites encircling the Earth, and for purposes other than delivering internet. Could some company arrange bright satellites in the sky to spell out the name of a popular soda? Maybe. There’s no global ban on space advertising.
These new satellites are small, mass-produced, and orbit very closely to the Earth to ensure the internet connection they provide is speedy. But that closeness also makes them more visible, and brighter in the night sky. “Satellites launched by SpaceX and others will be brighter than 99 percent of the population of objects of all types currently in Earth orbit,” Patrick Seitzer, an astronomer at the University of Michigan who studies orbital debris, tells me by email. He says Starlinks are brighter than other satellites orbiting at the same height. “So it has something to do with the design and attitude [i.e., orientation] of the Starlinks.”
In the long run, this could diminish our view of the universe, create more space debris, and, potentially, deprive humanity of an unblemished view of the night sky. It’s not that the 19 Starlink satellites ruined the entire night of observations, Johnson says. “The fear is that this is going to become the new normal. If we’re really talking about many thousands to tens of thousands of satellites ... that is no longer a small deal.”
What’s more, some worry it may already be too late to fight back.
What the future of the night sky may look like
The deployment of so many satellites is critical to close the connectivity gap. Starlink and its competitors will be able to connect the most remote places in the world (which are also often very poor) to the internet, and therefore, the global economy. That’s revolutionary. The world will be more connected than ever before.
The systems may also prove useful during natural disasters. When a hurricane takes out communications infrastructure on the ground, rescue crews will still be able to access space-based internet.
But it comes with a cost.
Astronomers have done the calculations, and say many of these satellites will be visible to the naked eye, particularly in the time after sunset and before sunrise, when they’ll most strongly catch the glare of the sun.
When there are 50,000 satellites in the sky, “you’ll see the sky crawling,” says Tony Tyson, a University of California Davis astronomer and physicist. “Every square degree will have something crawling in it.”
The Starlink satellites are most visible after they first launch, when they’re closer to the Earth and orbit in close proximity to one another. So what Johnson saw through his webcam view — the train of satellites passing by in quick succession — will repeat after each launch.
But over time, the satellites will climb into higher orbits, where they’ll be slightly less visible, and will spread out from one another.
When they reach their final orbits, Tyson says they’ll still be “visible by dark-adapted eyes in dark locations,” at twilight (after sunset and before sunrise). But “twilight can last most of the night,” he says, depending on your latitude and the time of the year. (Plus, there are a lot of objects in the space — particularly asteroids that are coming from the direction of the sun — that can only be seen at twilight.)
You may be familiar with the problem of light pollution. Most people living near or in urban areas can’t see many stars because city lights cast a glowing haze that obscures the view of all but the brightest of stars.
But the satellites are not creating light pollution. It’s more like sky pollution. In the darker places of Earth, these satellites will be even easier to spot. “It’s pretty dystopian to me,” Johnson says. “This is a problem that’s going to find you wherever you are.”
In the video below, astronomer Michael Vlasov has a sped-up animation of what the night sky might look like when there are 12,000 Starlink satellites in orbit. Keep in mind, this is a YouTube video, and it may not look all that impressive. But you can see how the early night sky, and predawn sky, is peppered with satellites flying across the sky.
And here’s an annotated animation from Vlasov showing where the satellites would be flying overhead.
Whether you notice them or not in the future may depend on where you live, and your access to a dark sky. “A large percentage of humans living in cities are not going to notice a large difference at all,” Tony Beasley, director of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, says.
There are a lot of other potential concerns about so many satellites in the sky. One is space debris. When a satellite breaks down in space, it just stays up there as junk until gravity pulls it back down to Earth. Already, several Starlink satellites have stopped functioning and are just hanging out up there as debris, where they present a hazard for colliding with other objects in space.
“If you’re going to put up 10,000, or 20,000 or 30,000 satellites, you automatically, instantly intentionally have hundreds of pieces of debris right off the bat,” says Christopher Johnson, space law adviser at the Secure World Foundation, a nonprofit that advocates for the sustainable and peaceful use of space. The more space debris in orbit, the harder it becomes to build and operate equipment there.
More immediately, the constellation satellites are a cause for straight-up alarm among many astronomers. In the next decade, they have been hoping to capture an even wider, deeper view of the cosmos from the Earth. And the satellites will get in the way.
Astronomers are worried they’ll lose important observations
Starlink and similar constellation satellites are different than many of the satellites in orbit in a way that makes them a nuisance to astronomy: They’re very close to Earth. If something is two times lower in orbit, Tyson explains, it’s four times brighter to us on the ground.
Telescopes capture images of the sky with very sensitive cameras. The satellites are so bright, that they overexpose the cameras’ sensors. The effect is like taking an eraser to their images of the night sky, covering their images of the sky with tracts of unusable data.
Along with his work at UC Davis, Tyson is the chief scientist at the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope, which was recently renamed the Vera Rubin Observatory. It’s an observatory under construction in Chile with a huge field of view: Its mirrors will be able to capture an area of the sky 40 times the size of the full moon, and spot objects 10 million times fainter than the human eye could see.
Starting in 2023, the $500 million observatory will embark on a 10-year survey of the entire night sky. The project is called the Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST), which will show the universe in motion, and capture millions of stars evolving over time.
But if there are tens of thousands of satellites in orbit, LSST’s unique view of the universe will be obscured. “There’ll be nowhere where you can take LSST and point it without having one of [the satellites] in the field of view,” Tyson told me in December. “We’re going to see a potentially revolutionary new view onto the transient universe, and instead we’re going to see a haze of streaks.”
SpaceX says it has been working with the astronomy community, and the scientists at the Vera Rubin Observatory in particular, on mitigating the problem. (“Our level of brightness and visibility was a surprise to us,” Patricia Cooper, SpaceX’s vice president of satellite government affairs, told attendees of the recent American Astronomical Society meeting in January.)
Their efforts are being recognized: “SpaceX is setting a very good precedent, I think, trying to do the right thing,” Beasley says. Tyson also believes that SpaceX is “committed to solving the problem” of interference with the Vera Rubin Observatory.
In an experiment, SpaceX deployed a dark coating for the underside of one of its satellites on its previous launch to see if it will be less visible to telescopes. But it’s not guaranteed to work. And meanwhile, the company continues to launch more unaltered bright satellites into space.
It’s not simple to just slap a coat of black paint on the satellites. Too dark, and the satellites will start to absorb excess heat, which could impact their functioning. It still unclear how dark SpaceX will ultimately go. The company is taking an iterative “trial and error” approach, as SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell told reporters in December.
Meanwhile, astronomers don’t have some mandated right to an unobstructed view of the night sky, and don’t have a forum to voice their complaints. I asked Tyson if astronomers are powerless in protecting their view on the night sky. “We’re definitely powerless,” he says.
There are international protections for radio astronomy, but not optical
The pessimism among astronomers is due to the fact that they have no legal — national or international — protections here.
Simply put: “There are currently no regulations, rules, or guidelines of any sort dealing with the brightness of satellites,” Seitzer says. “Not at the international level, not at the national level anywhere.”
Sure, SpaceX might be willing to work with the scientific community in reducing the brightness of their satellites. But another company, in another country, may not.
To some, that’s an outrage. “The fact that one person, or one company, can take control and completely transform humans’ experience of the night sky, and not just humans, but every organism on Earth … that seems profoundly wrong,” Caitlin Casey, a University of Texas Austin astronomer says.
There is some regulation here, administered in the United States by the FCC, and internationally by the UN’s International Telecommunication Union. But it mostly concerned with telecommunications, and decisions over who gets to use which parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, and for what (and also: making sure the satellites don’t crash into one another). They don’t regulate how the satellites look.
“We are aware from press articles that there have been some concerns raised about the effect of Starlink satellites on observations by astronomers at optical wavelengths,” Will Wiquist, an FCC spokesperson, says in an email. But also admits “this issue has not been raised in any FCC proceedings.”
Casey does some of her work in radio astronomy. That’s where scientists look at the night sky at frequencies our eyes can’t see. Radio astronomy has access to some protected wavelengths that communications companies are not allowed to infringe on. Though, as Casey points out, radio astronomers like to look at all sorts of wavelengths outside of that range. Overall, they’ll have to depend on the goodwill of companies like SpaceX to turn off their satellite transmitters when orbiting over a big radio observatory.
If the satellites aren’t turned off “the scenario is like trying to see a firefly in the vicinity of the sun. It would be incredibly bright,” she says. In the world of radio astronomy, a satellite beaming internet down to Earth might as well be a floodlight.
At least, though, for radio astronomy, there are established channels to voice their concerns over radio use.
But optical astronomy — which looks at the visible light of the universe — does not have international protections. “It doesn’t have a voice,” says Christopher Johnson, a space law adviser at the Secure World Foundation, a nonprofit that advocates for the sustainable and peaceful use of space.
The UN Outer Space Treaty — the world’s governing framework for the use of space — says nothing on the topic of the reflectivity of satellites, nor their impact on astronomy. Even if one country began strictly protecting the night sky from overcrowding, another could ignore those regulations entirely, and spoil the night sky for everyone, Johnson explains.
This is a problem “that falls in the cracks,” Mark Skinner, an astronomer associated with the International Institute of Space Law.
Without regulations, the future could get weird
Without stricter regulations, the future could get even weirder. People could launch bright satellites, to intentionally get the attention of people around the globe. And they already have: In January 2018, a New Zealand company launched a satellite called “humanity star.” It was basically a disco ball in low Earth orbit. Its creators hoped the light from the satellite would “create a shared experience for everyone on the planet.” Many astronomers were not delighted, likening it to “space graffitti.”
Perhaps the humanity star is just a precursor to even bigger and brighter displays in the night sky. There’s no explicit international ban, Wired reports, on advertising in space. There’s at least one company hoping to arrange satellites in the sky to get people to buy more soda. The night sky is enormous, and viewable to everyone on the planet. It’s the perfect billboard.
“There’s a huge driver for us to ring the alarm and try to bring some visibility to this now,” Johnson, of Northwestern, says. “This is just the tip of the iceberg.”
Maybe with some more visibility, astronomers can convince the nations of the world to make sure the night sky remains clear for telescopes. But the fear is, at the end of the day, commercial interests will win over scientific ones. SpaceX “might have good intentions, but they’re still a company, they’re still out to make money,” Johnson says.
The astronomers I spoke with for this story all see the merits of Starlink, and satellite constellations at large. Too much of the world is cut off from internet access. “Astronomers aren’t asking for there to be no Starlink, and for there to be no satellites,” Johnson says. “But to at least do it in a way that takes into account that other people want a night sky.”
The American Astronomical Society recently convened a working group to try to thread this needle. “The goal of Starlink is to provide worldwide internet service, an aspiration we do not want to impede,” working group astronomer Kelsie Krafton writes. “We do not want to give up access to optical observations from the ground.”
Then, there are impacts to changing the night sky that go beyond science or the internet. The night sky, when seen from dark places, represents the ultimate wilderness — a pristine view of nature that humans have barely touched. What does changing that mean?
“Every culture throughout time has valued the night sky, and many peoples have enormously meaningful or practical traditions of naked-eye observation, woven right into their culture,” Kathryn Denning, an anthropologist at York University who studies the ethics of space exploration, writes in an email. Cultural heritage issues, she says, “is taken seriously at the United Nations level, but to my knowledge that hasn’t translated into international rules for visible satellites yet.” Even some animals use starlight for navigation, and it’s hard to know if constellation satellites will have an impact on them, too.
Casey, the UT Austin astronomer, wants the world to know that messing with the night sky removes “the one thing that all humans have had in the past 200,000 years, millions of years, it’s always been there.” That’s not something to be taken lightly.
“My whole attachment to science and pursuing this as a career dates back to seeing the night sky as a child and being mesmerized,” she says. “Astronomy is a unique science: we can’t tinker with things in a lab, experimenting on stars. The entire science is looking up at the sky, and losing that would be tragic.”


vox--2020-01-07--The best $1,100 I ever spent: driving lessons as an adult

Despite the bustling LA traffic outside , the interior of my new car ’ s cabin was very quiet .
I was still in a state of mild disbelief the little Honda was mine , and that I ’ d be driving it to work , the grocery store , and wherever else I needed to go .
But when it came time to actually drive the car off the dealers ’ lot , my heart rate sped up .
Now I had to get out there on my own ?
Share the road with the rude , the aggressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distracted ?
Beside me , the salesman gave me a kind smile , sensing my trepidation .
“ We can drive around the block together until you get comfortable , ” he said .
“ This is a big moment for a former New Yorker.
” He sat patiently in the passenger ’ s seat as I made a few loops around the neighborhood , trying to make this momentous occasion less fraught for me with banal small talk .
After about 15 minutes I dropped him off at the dealership and cautiously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apartment .
I took photos of my new car — which I later christened Audrey , after my late grandmother — and texted them to my family and friends .
On the other side of 30 , I had finally hit a milestone many people had reached over a decade before I did .
My mom only tried to teach me to drive once .
It was awful : I was unable to control the vehicle , and she yelled at me in frustration .
When my cousin tried , there was less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he secretly told my mother that he didn ’ t think he could teach me to drive either .
According to him , I was a difficult student with a lead foot and jittery nerves .
He advised taking lessons with a driving school , but that would have cost several hundred bucks my mom couldn ’ t spare .
I took the bus to school , and there was no money to buy me a car , anyway , so I just gave up .
Deep down , though , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overachiever , to not be able to drive .
Even though I was surrounded by many people who couldn ’ t drive either , I felt like someone posing as a capable adult I despise feeling limited , especially if removing a barrier is within my power .
In 2009 , my self-proclaimed “ Year of No Fear , ” I took swimming lessons to conquer my fear of the water .
The class was my own chlorinated hell , but I did it .
My fear of driving , however , was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experience with my mom — how inept it made me feel , along with a minor car accident we got into — was enough to put me off for more than a decade .
For a long time , my lack of driving skills didn ’ t matter .
In college I was able to get around on the city bus .
After graduation , I moved to New York City , where owning a car was a liability .
Still , even though I was surrounded by many people who couldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone posing as a capable adult .
After six years of tiny apartments , packed subways , and a frenetic pace , I ’ d had my fill of NYC and desperately wanted to leave .
Since few other places in the US have a public transport system as extensive as New York ’ s , I accepted that driving was going to be a part of my life .
It still scared the crap out of me .
Learning to drive as an adult can be harrowing , because you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the dangers .
A 16-year-old fears nothing .
In my late 20s , I saw cars as expensive , depreciating steel death cages .
But they are essential for getting around and having a full , unencumbered life in most of America .
I booked my first set of driving lessons , a 10-hour package for around $ 350 , in Boston during the spring semester of my last year in grad school .
My first teacher was a middle-aged white woman we ’ ll call Jackie , with a black lob and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my first lesson , she insisted I get on the road .
I stared at her like she was crazy .
“ You can ’ t learn in a parking lot , sweetie !
” she exclaimed .
“ You drive on the road , you learn on the road .
Let ’ s go !
” Once a week for nearly three months , we drove together through the labyrinthine streets of Boston , practicing smooth left and right turns , proper signaling , and three-point turns .
I drove in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slick aftermath of snowfalls .
We did a night lesson so I could get accustomed to driving in the dark .
I even took a spin around that Massachusetts fixture : a rotary .
They ’ re known as traffic circles or roundabouts in some places , but I called them “ widowmaker wheels ” in my head .
What I wasn ’ t prepared for was the sensory overload .
In the beginning , I gripped the steering wheel like a vise , my mind flitting over the myriad things I had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , pedestrians , cyclists , changing road conditions .
I thought I was good at multitasking , but driving was mentally taxing in a way I underestimated .
The fear of hitting something or someone was ever-present , even as I improved .
Slowly , I became more comfortable behind the wheel .
Driving was still far from my favorite activity , but it was no longer this impenetrable , dreaded mystery .
As I walked to and from class , I visualized myself behind the wheel .
My most important takeaway from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skill just like anything else .
It required time , patience , and practice .
Beyond money , learning to drive was an investment of time and energy that also required me to put my ego on the line and overcome long-held fears But 10 hours does not a competent , confident driver make .
I got an opportunity I couldn ’ t refuse for a one-year fellowship position located in New York City .
Determined to leave NYC for good after my fellowship , I set a goal of getting my driver @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another $ 350 lesson package .
For one hour a week , I zipped around town with a succession of laid-back West African instructors .
My skills sharpened , and I left every class with a goofy smile on my face — I was doing something I never thought I would or even could .
So it was crushing when I failed my driving test .
I screwed up my parallel park , and the hit to my confidence cratered everything from there .
I spent the entire evening wallowing but woke up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anger I ’ d felt years earlier , sick of being afraid of water , roared to life .
I hope you are not shocked that I passed the test on the second attempt .
I looked smug and triumphant in my license photo .
My dogged pursuit of that little plastic card was a long , arduous process , and it wasn ’ t cheap either , ringing up at nearly $ 1,100 when it was all said and done ( I spent another $ 300 on refresher courses and parking lessons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
Beyond money , learning to drive was an investment of time and energy that also required me to put my ego on the line and overcome long-held fears .
As a black woman , the world tries to put so many limitations on me .
I don ’ t want to add to them .
This quest was about smashing barriers , an outright refusal to allow anything to stand between me and anywhere I wanted to go .
Verdell Walker is a writer and essayist based in Los Angeles .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Catapult .

Despite the bustling LA traffic outside, the interior of my new car’s cabin was very quiet.
I was still in a state of mild disbelief the little Honda was mine, and that I’d be driving it to work, the grocery store, and wherever else I needed to go. But when it came time to actually drive the car off the dealers’ lot, my heart rate sped up. Now I had to get out there on my own? Share the road with the rude, the aggressive, the overly daring, and the distracted?
Beside me, the salesman gave me a kind smile, sensing my trepidation. “We can drive around the block together until you get comfortable,” he said. “This is a big moment for a former New Yorker.”
He sat patiently in the passenger’s seat as I made a few loops around the neighborhood, trying to make this momentous occasion less fraught for me with banal small talk. After about 15 minutes I dropped him off at the dealership and cautiously made my way back home to my apartment.
I took photos of my new car — which I later christened Audrey, after my late grandmother — and texted them to my family and friends. On the other side of 30, I had finally hit a milestone many people had reached over a decade before I did.
My mom only tried to teach me to drive once. It was awful: I was unable to control the vehicle, and she yelled at me in frustration. When my cousin tried, there was less screaming but I still sucked. Afterward, he secretly told my mother that he didn’t think he could teach me to drive either. According to him, I was a difficult student with a lead foot and jittery nerves. He advised taking lessons with a driving school, but that would have cost several hundred bucks my mom couldn’t spare. I took the bus to school, and there was no money to buy me a car, anyway, so I just gave up. Deep down, though, it was embarrassing to me, a type-A overachiever, to not be able to drive.
Even though I was surrounded by many people who couldn’t drive either, I felt like someone posing as a capable adult
I despise feeling limited, especially if removing a barrier is within my power. In 2009, my self-proclaimed “Year of No Fear,” I took swimming lessons to conquer my fear of the water. The class was my own chlorinated hell, but I did it. My fear of driving, however, was a tougher nut to crack. That experience with my mom — how inept it made me feel, along with a minor car accident we got into — was enough to put me off for more than a decade.
For a long time, my lack of driving skills didn’t matter. In college I was able to get around on the city bus. After graduation, I moved to New York City, where owning a car was a liability. Still, even though I was surrounded by many people who couldn’t drive either, I felt like someone posing as a capable adult.
After six years of tiny apartments, packed subways, and a frenetic pace, I’d had my fill of NYC and desperately wanted to leave. Since few other places in the US have a public transport system as extensive as New York’s, I accepted that driving was going to be a part of my life. It still scared the crap out of me.
Learning to drive as an adult can be harrowing, because you’re old enough to be fully cognizant of the dangers. A 16-year-old fears nothing. In my late 20s, I saw cars as expensive, depreciating steel death cages. But they are essential for getting around and having a full, unencumbered life in most of America.
I booked my first set of driving lessons, a 10-hour package for around $350, in Boston during the spring semester of my last year in grad school. My first teacher was a middle-aged white woman we’ll call Jackie, with a black lob and a smoker’s voice. In my first lesson, she insisted I get on the road. I stared at her like she was crazy.
“You can’t learn in a parking lot, sweetie!” she exclaimed. “You drive on the road, you learn on the road. Let’s go!”
Once a week for nearly three months, we drove together through the labyrinthine streets of Boston, practicing smooth left and right turns, proper signaling, and three-point turns. I drove in the sunshine, the rain, and the slick aftermath of snowfalls. We did a night lesson so I could get accustomed to driving in the dark. I even took a spin around that Massachusetts fixture: a rotary. They’re known as traffic circles or roundabouts in some places, but I called them “widowmaker wheels” in my head.
What I wasn’t prepared for was the sensory overload. In the beginning, I gripped the steering wheel like a vise, my mind flitting over the myriad things I had to be aware of: other cars, pedestrians, cyclists, changing road conditions. I thought I was good at multitasking, but driving was mentally taxing in a way I underestimated. The fear of hitting something or someone was ever-present, even as I improved.
Slowly, I became more comfortable behind the wheel. Driving was still far from my favorite activity, but it was no longer this impenetrable, dreaded mystery. As I walked to and from class, I visualized myself behind the wheel. My most important takeaway from those lessons was that driving was a skill just like anything else. It required time, patience, and practice.
Beyond money, learning to drive was an investment of time and energy that also required me to put my ego on the line and overcome long-held fears
But 10 hours does not a competent, confident driver make. I got an opportunity I couldn’t refuse for a one-year fellowship position located in New York City. Determined to leave NYC for good after my fellowship, I set a goal of getting my driver’s license by Christmas and bought another $350 lesson package. For one hour a week, I zipped around town with a succession of laid-back West African instructors. My skills sharpened, and I left every class with a goofy smile on my face — I was doing something I never thought I would or even could.
So it was crushing when I failed my driving test. I screwed up my parallel park, and the hit to my confidence cratered everything from there. I spent the entire evening wallowing but woke up pissed the next day. The same anger I’d felt years earlier, sick of being afraid of water, roared to life. I hope you are not shocked that I passed the test on the second attempt. I looked smug and triumphant in my license photo.
My dogged pursuit of that little plastic card was a long, arduous process, and it wasn’t cheap either, ringing up at nearly $1,100 when it was all said and done (I spent another $300 on refresher courses and parking lessons after I’d moved to LA). Beyond money, learning to drive was an investment of time and energy that also required me to put my ego on the line and overcome long-held fears. As a black woman, the world tries to put so many limitations on me. I don’t want to add to them. This quest was about smashing barriers, an outright refusal to allow anything to stand between me and anywhere I wanted to go.
Verdell Walker is a writer and essayist based in Los Angeles. Her work has appeared in Bustle and Catapult.