I am the Queen of Awesome. My words do not represent my employer, but I bet you already knew that.
16981 stories
·
35 followers

Drivers in expensive cars yield less to people walking

1 Comment and 2 Shares

Drivers of more expensive cars are less likely to stop for people on foot trying to cross the street, a new study found. They also yielded less to men and African Americans, though that difference didn’t reach statistical significance.

The study had a white woman, black woman, white man, and black man all try to cross two streets in exactly the same way at a painted crosswalk in the middle of a block in Las Vegas. Each street was two lanes each way with a center turn lane; the people stepped one foot off the curb when the oncoming car reached a predetermined spot. The study team recorded the crossings and analyzed the driver behavior and estimated the price of their car based on the model and year.

They found that for each $1,000 more of value of the car, drivers were 3% less likely to yield. The study team hypothesized (but certainly didn’t actually test) that this could be because owners of more expensive cars are less familiar with the experience of being a pedestrian in Las Vegas, since walking in that city is more common among people of lower incomes. (However, they did the test near an elementary school in hopes of getting drivers who are more attuned to people walking, and both streets were in lower-income areas.)

Or, they say, the difference could just back up general research from Paul K Piff at UC Berkeley that “higher social-class standing was positively associated with increased feelings of entitlement and narcissism.”

The drivers also yielded more often to the women (31% of the time) versus men (24%), and to the white pedestrians (31%) versus black (25%). However, the paper notes there was a hiccup with the video recording due to the hot Las Vegas weather, and some did not get recorded, including all of the crossings by the black man on the first of the two streets; therefore, they can’t say this difference reached statistical significance.

Sometimes there were multiple cars in a row, and the researchers discovered that “if the first car did not yield, neither did the following cars or vice versa (if the first car yielded so did subsequent cars).” A 2015 study by Texas A&M’s Tara Goddard, cited in this paper, tested multiple cars yielding and found that first cars yielded at the same rate no matter what the gender or race of the pedestrian, but “black pedestrians were twice as likely to have to wait for subsequent cars to yield as the white pedestrian.”

The study, by Courtney Coughenour, James Abelar, Jennifer Pharr, Lung-Chang Chien, and Ashok Singh at the UNLV School of Public Health, was funded by a grant from NIH.

Comment on this article

Read the whole story
angelchrys
3 hours ago
reply
What a shock 🙄
Overland Park, KS
acdha
4 hours ago
reply
Washington, DC
Share this story
Delete

Donald Trump Wants the Courts to Answer Only to Him

1 Comment
Sotomayor smiles next to Ginsburg, with an American flag in the background.

Read the whole story
angelchrys
6 hours ago
reply
You know, like a dictator.
Overland Park, KS
Share this story
Delete

For the Love of Goop

1 Share

Gwyneth Paltrow of Goop (Photo credit: Adam Rose/Netflix)

Dr. Jen Gunter didn’t want to keep criticizing Goop. “She is veering away from Goop, partly because she’s concentrating on things she sees as more important,” a September 2019 interview with the author and OB/GYN in The Guardian reads. “Gunter wants to spend her time helping women understand their bodies, bringing down the patriarchy, and finishing her lunch. In no particular order.” But last week, Gunter learned via a New York Times piece about the firing of longtime Elle magazine advice columnist E. Jean Carroll that a profile about Gunter that was set to be published in the magazine alongside the launch of her book The Vagina Bible: The Vulva and the Vagina: Separating the Myth from the Medicine was killed. Why? Because “Last winter, a profile of Dr. Jen Gunter, the ob-gyn (and New York Times columnist) who has been a critic of Gwyneth Paltrow and Goop, was killed after top editors expressed concern that it might upset Ms. Paltrow and her publicist Stephen Huvane, who represents a variety of celebrity clients, according to three former staffers.”

Gunter tweeted a screenshot of the NYT piece (which notes that Paltrow appeared on a November 2019 Elle cover) and wrote, “The profile in @ellemagazine was a big deal for me. Being in print says a lot and this would have been right before The Vagina Bible came out. Something I am sure Paltrow and @goop understood only too well,” she wrote. ‘Cut for space’ always felt fishy.” In short: Gunter learned last week that a piece that was scheduled to run when The Vagina Bible came out (last August) was killed for a different reason (the magazine not wanting to offend Paltrow) than the official one Elle gave her (lack of space). Gunter didn’t want to build a career out of criticizing Goop, but Goop didn’t stop giving Gunter reason to be critical. Instead, its reach and impact just kept spreading.

Despite being hit with a $145,000 lawsuit for false claims about the health benefits of using jade eggs vaginally, the brand—backed by Paltrow, who has said she simply “doesn’t read the negative press”—has continued to expand. As a cornerstone of the wellness–as–million-dollar-lifestyle-brand and the exemplar of the commercialization of self-care and wellness, Goop has grown over the past decade-plus into a multiplatform empire whose editorial arm, in-person events, online shop, and podcast now includes a six-part Netflix series focused on what Paltrow calls the “optimization of self.” Goop is what most celebrity-backed brands aspire to be given its reach and impact, and it’s increasingly becoming a household name. “I have learned so much,” Paltrow said at Vanity Fair’s recent “New Establishment” summit. “And so much by making such grave mistakes that have cost millions of dollars.”

Embedded rich media on Twitter

These mistakes have cost more than money. They’ve come with substantial criticism, and one of Goop’s best-known critics is Gunter herself. In 2015, Goop published a piece titled, “Could There Possibly Be a Link Between Underwire Bras and Breast Cancer??” Gunter was swift to respond: “That’s a pretty offensive myth,” she told Vox in an interview. “I had a friend who’s had breast cancer and she sent me the article. And I thought, ‘This is terrible, I gotta write about this!’ And then the person who wrote the piece for Goop accused me of being in the pocket of big lingerie. I’m like, ‘What does that even mean?!’ And so the Gunter-versus-Goop battle began. As two people with influence in a similar space—that of women’s bodies, healthcare, and sexual wellness—it’s unsurprising that Gunter and Paltrow would clash.

Gunter uses her social- edia platform to talk about vaginal healthcare, ranging from what pads to use to how to talk about your vagina; Paltrow uses Goop to sell her favorite menstrual supplies and offer advice on learning to love your vagina and advocate for your own pleasure. Where they part ways is, simply put, at the intersection of consumerism and misinformation. In 2017, Gunter wrote an open letter to Goop. Titled “Dear Gwyneth Paltrow, I’m a GYN and your vaginal jade eggs are a bad idea,” the letter expressed frustration with Goop’s prioritization of feel-good woo over scientific facts. “I’ve been reading all about the jade eggs you are selling on Goop for $55-66 a pop,” Gunter wrote, referring to Goop’s recommendation of vaginally inserted jade and rose-quartz eggs that, it claimed, had benefits including regulating menstrual cycles and improving your sex life. “I read the post on GOOP and all I can tell you is it is the biggest load of garbage I have read on your site since vaginal steaming. It’s even worse than claiming bras cause cancer. But hey, you aren’t one to let facts get in the way of profiting from snake oil.”

The understandably harsh post wraps up with a note to Paltrow’s audience: “The only thing your post got right is to check with your doctor before using one. So let me give you some free advice, don’t use vaginal jade eggs.” Goop has responded to Gunter directly. An undated piece in its wellness vertical is titled, “A Note From Dr. Steven Gundry;” in it, Gundry—who has been widely criticized by other medical professionals as a fear mongering peddler of supplements—writes, “I have read Dr. Jennifer Gunter’s recent diatribe online about some of Goop’s advice, and since one of my recommendations was mentioned, and my credentials and motives were brought into question, I believe I have the right and duty to respond.” The piece, which begins with an insult to Dr. Gunter’s parenting abilities (“A very wise Professor of Surgery at the University of Michigan once instructed me to never write anything that my mother or child wouldn’t be proud to read. I hope, for the sake of your mother and child, that a re-reading of your article fails his test, and following his sage advice, that you will remove it.”) follows with paragraphs explaining Gundry’s own qualifications, and then calling Gunter’s piece a “diatribe” and pushing back at the idea that Goop’s version of wellness is laden with inaccuracies.

Get Bitch Media's top 9 reads of the week delivered to your inbox every Saturday morning! Sign up for the Weekly Reader:

“My hope for you,” the piece ends, “if you read my book, is you’ll read it with your eyes wide open! If not, then discourse begins and ends with civility. Think about it. If that still doesn’t work, go show your article to your mother and kids. Really.” While much of the message is simply true to Goop’s voice, with chatty, relatable language throughout (“I won’t bore you,” it says, along with “Not good enough for you?” and “Wow, there are a lot of really stupid cultures out there who go to such trouble over some harmless little proteins called lectins, huh?”) it’s also true that the language itself is biting, unnecessary zeroing in on Gunter’s motherhood.

It’s interesting given that Gunter is far from the only figure to criticize Goop. Beyond the previously mentioned lawsuit, Timothy Caulfield’s wrote an entire book about Goop, titled, Is Gwyneth Paltrow Wrong About Everything, and Britain’s National Health Service chief executive Simon Stephens has warned against Goop’s “dubious” claims, saying “Her brand peddles psychic vampire repellent, says chemical sunscreen is a bad idea, and promotes colonic irrigation and DIY coffee enema machines, despite them carrying considerable risks to health….While the term ‘fake news’ makes most people think about politics, people’s natural concern for their health, and particularly about that of their loved ones, makes this particularly fertile ground for quacks, charlatans and cranks.”

Paltrow may not be new to criticism, but that doesn’t mean she takes it well. “We think that that’s all clickbait and bullshit. People are able to criticise us now in opportunistic ways. It’s a cheap and easy way to try and drive traffic to these sites,” Paltrow told Mashable in an interview earlier this month. “Some of the things we talk about on Goop might be an emerging modality and that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have value. It might just mean it doesn’t have a double-blind study behind it, but it may be making people feel better and closer to themselves.” In an interview published on Elle Canada’s site in August 2019, Gunter explains why she thinks there’s so much mystery and misinformation surrounding women’s health online. “Weaponizing women’s bodies is profitable. It’s profitable politically, it’s profitable for selling products, it’s profitable in page clicks. Historically, women’s bodies have been weaponized. We were commodities—how well could we reproduce? What’s different now is that I’m seeing women profit from misinformation for women as well.”

It’s unsurprising that Paltrow’s publicist wouldn’t want her to see such a statement from someone who has been critical of Goop in the past. But it’s disappointing to see Elle, a magazine for and by women, mask such an important conversation and choose maintaining access to Paltrow and other celebrities a celebrity over something as important as healthcare. Why are we prioritizing lies over truth, especially when it comes to health? It might be a question with an easy answer (read: money), but it’s a question for Elle to sit with, and a question for us all to keep in mind as we turn to women’s media for answers and support, and trust them to keep us in mind as they write those answers.

by Rachel Charlene Lewis
View profile »

Rachel Charlene Lewis is the Senior Editor at Bitch. She has written about culture, identity, and the internet for publications including i-D, Teen Vogue, Refinery29, Glamour, Autostraddle, Ravishly, SELF, StyleCaster, The Frisky (RIP), The Mary Sue, and elsewhere. Her literary work, reviews, and interviews have been published in Catapult, The Los Angeles Review of Books, The Normal School, Publisher’s Weekly, The Offing, and in several other magazines. She is on Twitter and Instagram, always.

Read the whole story
angelchrys
10 hours ago
reply
Overland Park, KS
Share this story
Delete

The 15th Anniversary of Doing Kottke.org as a Full-Time Job

1 Share

Kottke 1996

Fifteen years ago this week, on Feb 22, 2005, I announced that I was going to turn kottke.org, my personal website, into my full-time job.

I recently quit my web design gig and — as of today — will be working on kottke.org as my full-time job. And I need your help.

I’m asking the regular readers of kottke.org (that’s you!) to become micropatrons of kottke.org by contributing a moderate sum of money to help enable me to edit/write/design/code the site for one year on a full-time basis.

It seemed like madness at the time — I’d quit my web design job a few months earlier in preparation, pro blogs existed (Gawker was on its 3rd editor) but very few were personal, general, and non-topical like mine, and I was attempting to fund it via a then-largely-unproven method: crowdfunding. As I wrote on Twitter the other day, attempting this is “still the most bonkers I-don’t-know-if-this-is-going-to-work thing I’ve ever done”.

These days, people are used to paying directly for online media through services like Kickstarter, Patreon, and Substack and kids want to run their own personality-driven businesses online when they grow up. But back then, aside from the likes of the WSJ, websites were either a) free to read or b) free to read & supported by advertising and being an online personality was not a lucrative thing. But I figured that enough of you would pitch in to support the site directly while keeping it free to read for everyone with no advertising.

In order to make it feel somewhat familiar, I patterned it after a PBS/NPR fund drive. During a three-week kick-off period, I asked people to support the site by becoming micropatrons. The suggested donation was $30 (but people could give any amount) and there were thank you gifts — like signed books, software, signed photo prints, a free SXSW ticket — for people who contributed. Several hundred people ended up contributing during those three weeks, enough for me to do the site for a year. I still remember that first day, responding to well-wishes from friends on AIM and watching my PayPal account fill up, and it hitting me that this bonkers scheme was actually going to work and pretty much bursting into tears.

Fast forward to the present day and this little website is still chugging along. In its almost 22 years of existence, kottke.org has never gotten big, but it’s also never gone away, predating & outlasting many excellent and dearly missed sites like Grantland, Rookie, The Toast, The Awl, Gawker, and hundreds of others. I have other people write for the site on occasion, but it’s still very much a one-person production by a reluctant influencer (*barf*) who, as an introvert, still (naively?) thinks about posts on the site as personal emails to individual readers rather than as some sort of broadcast. I’d like to thank those early supporters for having faith in me and in this site — you’re the reason we’re all still here, gathered around this little online campfire, swapping stories about the human condition.

About 3 years ago, I returned to the crowdfunding model with kottke.org’s membership program. Since then, I’m very happy to report, readers like you who have purchased memberships have become the main source of financial support for the site. As I’ve written before, I have come to love the directness of this approach — I write, you pay, no middlemen, and, crucially, the site remains part of the Open Web, unpaywalled & free for everyone to read. If you’ll indulge me in a request on this anniversary, if you’re not currently a member of the site (or if your membership has lapsed) and can afford to do so, please consider supporting the site with a membership today. I really appreciate everyone who has become a member over the past few years — thank you!! — and I hope you will consider joining them.

Note: I have no photos of myself taken around this time in 2005, so the photo at the top of the post is me circa spring 1996. I’d dropped out of grad school & was back living at my dad’s house, spending 10-12 hours a day online (via a 28.8K modem) trying to figure out how to build websites. I applied for jobs & internships at places like Wired/Hotwired, Razorfish, Studio Archetype, and MTV but no one wanted to hire a physics major w/ no art or design education or experience to design websites. kottke.org was still a couple of years off at this point…

Tags: Jason Kottke   kottke.org   webdev
Read the whole story
angelchrys
12 hours ago
reply
Overland Park, KS
Share this story
Delete

T-Mobile’s free MLB.TV offer will return March 24th

1 Share

With MLB Spring Training getting underway, many T-Mobile customers who are also baseball fans have been wondering if T-Mo will offer a free MLB.TV subscription to subscribers like it has for the past several years. Now we know the answer. T-Mobile customers will be able to get a free MLB.TV subscription on March 24th through T-Mobile Tuesdays. That date has been given by a couple of support reps using the official T-Mobile Help account on ... [read full article]

The post T-Mobile’s free MLB.TV offer will return March 24th appeared first on TmoNews.

Read the whole story
angelchrys
14 hours ago
reply
Overland Park, KS
Share this story
Delete

Artist in the World

1 Share

Andre Smits

Andre Smits

Andre Smits

For more than 10 years now, André Smits has been traveling the world taking photos of artists (from behind) in their studios and out in the world. Earlier this year, Smits explained how the project got started:

He laughs, “I realized it was an alibi for getting in their studios, because most artists keep their doors shut and otherwise I would not get to come in. That was the beginning of the project, really. Then artists from other buildings in Rotterdam asked me to come to their place, it was like a snowball, it just started happening,” he recalls.

After Rotterdam, he visited Amsterdam and Antwerp, realizing the strength of the concept could take him all over the world. “So, I sold my house, quit my job, and now I am traveling everywhere, the project was developing in all different directions.”

It’s fun to get a glimpse into so many studios of working artists — they’re all very similar and yet different in the details. (via Noah Kalina, who Smits photographed in 2015)

Tags: Andre Smits   art   photography
Read the whole story
angelchrys
14 hours ago
reply
Overland Park, KS
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories