Kênh Giải Trí 360

Sunday, June 5, 2016

MacArthur Foundation Will Award $100 Million for Solution to a Global Problem

Julia Stasch of the MacArthur Foundation.

Monday, May 23, 2016

Readers’ Turn: The Inventions That Mattered Most

A recent article by Neil Irwin looked at how innovations in technology, medicine and more have changed the lives of Americans and fueled economic growth over the past 150 years or so. In response, readers weighed in with their own ideas of what was truly life-changing. Birth control came up a lot, as did indoor plumbing. The comments were impressive in their range and verve.

But it was a comment by Reasonable Facsimile of Florida that inspired me to take another look through the archives, where I had spent time finding photographs to accompany the article: “Just look at the quality of that image of the Brooklyn Bridge. You can take a magnifying glass and see fine details.” Reasonable is right — it’s amazing.

Here are some of our favorite comments, together with a few more old pictures.

—

Mark of Columbia, Md.:

Control of infectious diseases and parasites, for sure. Look how we freak out today over the threat of anything transmissible. What must it have been like to live in fear of tuberculosis, smallpox, yellow fever, plague, tetanus, etc. Imagine watching half your children die. One of the greatest fears was over a disease we hardly think about today — rabies. The South was plagued with hookworm around 1900, with almost half the population infected. It blows me away when I hear people seriously consider the iPhone as the greatest invention of all time. I put the iPhone well behind the pizza.

In Lancaster, Pa., a girl gets a polio shot in 1955 as others watched apprehensively.Credit

—

Bob Castro of NYC:

You forgot to include the development of the safety bicycle during the late 1800s. Its advanced technology (chain drives, wire spoke wheels, pneumatic tires, etc.) was an essential step before automobiles could become practical. Even aviation (think Wright brothers) was based on bicycle technology. Besides causing a technological revolution, the bicycle also caused a social one — women’s emancipation. As Susan B. Anthony famously said, “I think it has done more to emancipate women than anything else in the world.”

A stylish cyclist in 1898. The arrival of the safety cycle in 1884 helped revolutionize women’s fashion, and women’s lives. It also paved the way for the automobile and the airplane.Credit

—

Ipsa of D.C.:

My grandmother passed away several years ago at 101. She had lived through two world wars, a man on the moon, television, phone (initial and cellular), the polio vaccine, 9/11... I asked her what she thought were the greatest innovations that had occurred during her lifetime. Without missing a beat, she replied electricity and women obtaining the right to vote. Indoor plumbing came in a close third.

Gov. Edwin P. Morrow of Kentucky in 1920 ratifying the amendment giving women the right to vote. Kentucky was among the 36 states to do so, helping end a struggle that had gone on for decades.Credit

—

Kelly:

You are not even close. The biggest advancement in all of human history is effective birth control. It changes every aspect of life: economic, social, day-to-day life, moral. Impacts everyone and every social structure.

Kitty Marion, an actress and activist, endured heckling and arrest (on obscenity charges) for hawking copies of the Birth Control Review, published by Margaret Sanger.Credit

—

Sridhar Chilimuri of New York:

Since the origin of homo sapiens, there was little recording of anything until perhaps 40,000 years ago when they began to paint in caves and on rocks. To me, speech and the ability to tell a story is the greatest innovation ever.

Prehistoric paintings found in a cave in south-central France point to the ancient nature of the human urge toward narrative and artistic creation.Credit

—

Terry Robinson of New York:

The biggest innovation is education and allowing even the poorest girls and boys to reach their full potential. For education to be available, kids have to have time to go to school (so no chores fetching water or firewood) and they have to survive long enough to make it to school (so neonatal care, food for healthy mother, antibiotics and vaccinations). This article didn’t try to cover the social changes in the years 1870-1916, but the biggest was the idea that people should be educated (especially girls) and that everyone should have a chance. That wasn’t the case in 1870, when sprawling families were there to work the land.

At school in London, 1908. Mass education helped transform people’s lives and fuel a rise in productivity.Credit

—

Jay of Florida:

In my view the era that began with Sputnik in the late 1950s and ended with moon landings was the greatest era of innovation. We watched as the first communication satellites were built and launched. Nuclear submarines became the norm. The Concorde was built, as was the Saturn rocket that launched men to the moon. The Lockheed corporation built the world’s fastest aircraft, the Blackbird, and the first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier the U.S.S. Enterprise was also launched. Telstar too was launched in the early 1960s. The New York World’s Fair in 1964-65 demonstrated touch tone dialing, and I.B.M. built the first small computers for schools and business. Many colleges began to offer computer programing courses. The Bell Telephone Laboratories were doing experiments with lasers and other optical-electrical devices. Even the Armalite rifle was built by Eugene Stoner, changing the combat rifle forever. Microwave radio transmissions and color TV technology raced ahead, as did FM stereo multiplexing. And don’t forget the introduction of the Mustang and other pony cars! I’m lucky. I got to live in the most innovative time of all. The time of the Beatles, the

Sputnik III on display at the U.S.S.R. pavilion of the 1958 World’s Fair in Brussels. Where does the space race fit among major technological breakthroughs?Credit

—

Steve from Virginia:

Invention/discovery does not occur over a straight line. Use of a tool for cutting, use of fire for cooking, language and the narrative myth to put these diverse items to use (hunting and eating animals) occurred over hundreds of thousands of years.

Some inventions, like these neolithic arrowheads, seem so simple, until you realize someone had to think of them and figure out how to make them.Credit

—

Joe Smith of Newark:

Express tracks. Whoever thought to build four New York subway tracks on many lines instead of two was brilliant, and still affects the lives of millions of commuters every day.

Cars for the new Eighth Avenue subway line in New York, in 1937.Credit

—

Vulcanalex of Tennessee:

Pretty simple: Indoor plumbing is more important than jet travel or cellphones. Try living without each and see what happens to most people.

Until the arrival of indoor plumbing, outhouses (or their evil twin, chamber pots) were a fact of life for most people.Credit

—

G.P. of Kingston, Ontario:

I know this article has an American bent, but to me from a purely public health point of view the invention of soap and sewers advanced the human cause more than any machine invention. In Europe a long, long time ago, the tradition was for the man to walk closer to the buildings on the street while dating a woman. Why? Because, if anyone living above decided to throw out the day’s household waste out the window, the man took the brunt. A second after the date, scrubbing with soap would be required.

Laying sewer pipes in Kearney, Neb., in 1889.Credit

—

Bill of Fairbanks Ranch, Calif.:

American innovations in commercial banking and finance made all the other innovations possible. Without our financial infrastructure, largely perfected in 18th, 19th and 20th century America by our illustrious robber barons, we would have been unable to produce telephones, aircraft, trains, roads, bridges, a stable food supply, clean water, government services and all the rest. Our entire modern world rests on the bottoms of shiny-pants bookkeepers with green eyeshades and sleeve garters. The accountants and bankers are the modern masters of the universe.

American money from 1777. The introduction of paper money was a crucial development in the history of finance.Credit

—

George Jackson of Tucson:

Sorry to let you know, but there has been nothing truly new for decades. Internet, personal computer, email, cellphone. These are all stemming from one thing: 1947 transistor/semiconductor; integrated circuit, 1958. The theory for these ... 1905-1927 mostly. But electrical systems created lighting, heating, and allowed immense productivity in the workplace and home: washers, dryers, toasters, clocks, factory machinery, automobile plants, aluminum. Vastly more impactful to humankind.

A 1957 transistor, forerunner of the technology that would soon transform the world with ever-shrinking, more powerful computers.Credit

—

Richard Frauenglass of New York:

The greatest era is always now, for it builds on the advances of the past, without which it would have to start from the beginning. The greatest “innovation” was the Roman aqueduct, the knowledge of water, and subsequently, by others, much later, the flush toilet. More important for all — the Gutenberg first and the printing press second.

An aqueduct in northern Spain. Romans figured out how to move water long distances.Credit

—

jb of Brooklyn:

I was promised a flying car by now, and all I got was Facebook.

The funny-looking car on the Grand Central Parkway in 1952 is an Airphibian, which had detachable wings for its airplane mode, and was also capable of water landings. Amazingly, it never caught on.Credit

Could Elizabeth Warren Have Beaten Hillary Clinton?

Is Elizabeth Warren the best choice for vice president? Credit

Each week, Nate Cohn, The Upshot’s politics analyst, and Toni Monkovic, an Upshot editor, will discuss the 2016 race and post a lightly edited transcript of their written exchange. Readers can submit questions for future chats, and we’ll select one or two of the best ones.

Toni Let’s have a little fun speculation. Knowing what we know now — given Bernie Sanders’s strong run from the left — how close could Elizabeth Warren have come to beating Hillary Clinton if she had run? Could she have beaten her?

Nate Oh, God, that’s a good question — I’ve spent a lot of time wondering about it myself. To start, I think it’s worth remembering that Warren would have had the two same challenges as Sanders: winning nonwhite and affluent voters. I think she could have done better among affluent voters, simply because I think someone like her — who is technocratic and policy-focused — would have seemed more reasonable and acceptable than someone talking about political revolution. I’m not sure she would have done much better among black voters, especially in the South.

The second thing I’d note is that the Clinton campaign, especially early on, basically handled Sanders with kid gloves. They didn’t think he was a serious threat. That’s not the way they would have handled Warren. I don’t know how much of a difference it would have made.

But it’s definitely possible. At the very least, Clinton would have spent much more money.

Toni When we’re all done in the Democratic race, with the District of Columbia primary on June 14, how close do you think Sanders will come to Clinton in the white vote? (Understanding that this would purely be an estimate.)

Nate There are a lot of Western states that didn’t hold primaries, and Sanders did well in the caucuses there. My guess is that he will narrowly edge out Clinton among white voters, assuming he would have won many of those predominantly white Western states by a comfortable margin (you kind of have to guess at what would have happened if there were primaries).

Toni I think that would surprise a lot of people. It speaks to the power of the minority vote in the Democratic electorate.

Nate Should it? Obama lost the white vote by a 55-39 margin in the 2008 primaries, according to the exit polls. And he lost Latino voters. All of his victory came from a lopsided margin among black voters.

This year, Clinton matched Obama’s tally among black voters, beat it by a big margin among Hispanic voters and beat it by a comfortable margin among white voters. Hence, a clear Clinton victory.

In the end, it’s really tough to win the Democratic nomination while getting blanked among black voters. They represent almost a quarter of the electorate. You would need to do what Clinton did in 2008 in almost pulling it off: win big among both Hispanic and white voters. Bernie was never poised to do either.

Toni I remember being surprised when Clinton came out against the trans-Pacific trade partnership. It was a rare break from President Obama, and seemed to go against her past support for trade agreements. But looking back (and looking ahead to places like Michigan), it seems she got the politics right. Agree?

Nate Well, I don’t know about that. I don’t think she got much credit for it, and it fit into the narrative that Clinton’s a flip-flopper with no conviction. I do think it’s true that trade was a problem for her in the Midwest, and could continue to be in the general. I’m just not sure whether her T.P.P. switch really helps insulate her from it.

Toni Thomas Edsall wrote that Donald Trump’s strength seems to be underrated in telephone polls because some of his supporters may be ashamed to reveal their support in that format. Trump is doing better in online polls of the general election. The suggestion is that we’re in for a closer race than a lot of people think.

Nate I haven’t investigated it thoroughly. It’s a big question that the survey industry hasn’t totally figured out yet. A few quick observations, though: There are big differences between online and telephone surveys besides the absence of an interviewer. I’d also note that Trump seemed to do better in the online polls throughout the primaries than he actually did. He was earning 40 percent of the vote in the online Morning Consult poll long before he really approached it in the actual tabulated vote.

Toni You made a comment last week that surprised me. Trump essentially dismissed the importance of data in campaigns. (Obama was said to have a sophisticated data operation that helped him win the last two elections, with Clinton poised to receive the baton). And you said, “Eh, I kind of think he has a point.”

Nate I definitely agree with Trump that data is “overrated.” That doesn’t mean it isn’t helpful or that he would be well off to ignore it. But the hype around analytics and data-driven turnout efforts has definitely outpaced the actual effect it has on election outcomes, especially in a presidential election when turnout is bound to be very high.

Toni Can you give a ballpark figure on what percentage of the vote could be affected by an outstanding data operation versus an average or mediocre one?

Nate In a presidential election? Maybe half a point.

I think there’s a chance it represented Obama’s margin of victory in Florida,the closest state in 2012, but it’s hard to be sure.

Toni Looking back at the G.O.P. race, other than Trump’s rise, what was the most stunning development?

Nate The failure of mainstream Republicans to elevate a single broadly acceptable candidate by the end of the primary season.

I think you can blame Marco Rubio’s debate performance in New Hampshire, to some extent.

Toni How damaging was Jeb Bush’s entrance into the race to mainstream Republicans’ chances of elevating a broadly acceptable candidate? In retrospect, he was never going to catch on in that campaign environment, and he took oxygen away from someone like Rubio.

Nate Who knows what would have happened if Jeb doesn’t get in. Does Mitt Romney join? Does that let donors consolidate around Rubio faster, which I think would have been very bad for Trump? I just don’t know. What I will say is that it was very damaging that Bush proved to be as weak as he was. It was enough to block the emergence of another strong mainstream candidate, but he wasn’t able to use those resources to defeat Trump. Instead, he spent millions weakening Rubio in New Hampshire.

Toni Let’s wrap this up by getting back to Elizabeth Warren. There may begood reasons that she won’t be the vice-presidential pick, and she may not even want the post. But from a pure vote-getting perspective (and I realize these picks typically don’t matter all that much for that purpose), would she be the best selection?

Nate I think it’ll be clearer after the primaries have wrapped up. Does Clinton have a real problem on her left? Or does she have a secure left flank, so that she’s free to target moderate Republican-leaners in the suburbs? I think the case for Warren is useful in the former condition more than the latter. I’m also not sure whether Warren helps with working-class white Democratic men. They’re basically Clinton’s biggest vulnerability, and I think there’s a case that choosing Warren could make that worse.

Toni Why do you think she could make that worse?

Nate Because she’s a woman, and I just don’t know whether two women are worse than one for that group.

Last week, Nate and Toni assessed Donald Trump’s potential strengths and weaknesses in each of the battleground states and discussed whether liberals should be worrying about polls showing a tight race. You can see that conversation here.