No one agrees on what iMessage Tapbacks actually mean

They are instruments of chaos.

Image: Vicky Leta / Mashable

By Chloe Bryan2019-05-22 11:00:00 UTC

In September 2016, Apple released iOS 10. With it came the iMessage Tapback, the convenient and highly ambiguous reaction feature that — nearly three years later — no one quite knows how to use.

Tapbacks were created, one assumes, to make texting more convenient. It’s true that they’re nearly effortless to employ: Simply press on a message until you’re presented with the Tapback options — a heart, a thumbs up, a thumbs down, a HAHA, a double exclamation point, and a question mark — and pick the one you want. Easy, right? You didn’t even have to type anything!

Here’s the trouble, though. There’s no practical consensus on what, exactly, Tapbacks are supposed to be, or mean. Thus, no implicit code of etiquette has emerged around their use. In our already anxiety-ridden texting culture, that’s a recipe for chaos.

The main question appears to be whether Tapbacks are meant to function as actual messages or as social media reactions. (Before you ask: Yes, iMessage is a social network.) Apple’s blurb on the subject calls Tapbacks a way to “quickly reply” to texts. But the mechanics and appearance of the feature are more similar to, say, a Twitter like, which is decidedly not a reply. A reply is (generally) meant to move a conversation forward; a reaction, which often marks the end of an exchange, reflects on messages already sent.

So when someone reacts to your question with a thumbs up Tapback, you just don’t know: Are they reacting to the message (“Thanks for asking me to go to the beach”) or are they replying affirmatively to the message’s contents (“Yes, I will go to the beach”)? If someone sends you a heart Tapback in lieu of a reply, are they saying “I’m into that” or “OK, but I would like the conversation to end?”

These questions don’t apply to every conversation. If you’re texting your best friend, for example, one Tapback probably won’t matter to you at all. But if you’re texting a more casual acquaintance — or worse, a crush — each message takes on a lot more weight.

Let’s say you’re texting a newish friend. You are having a pleasant exchange. You text them that you heard a song on the radio (in this scenario, you listen to the radio) that you think they’d like. You do not name the song. They respond with an exclamation point Tapback. No message. Oh god, what?

Depending on how you’ve metabolized the role of Tapbacks in the texting world, this response is up for a pretty wide range of interpretations. When I asked several people to share their thoughts on Tapbacks, the lack of any clear protocol showed.

Twenty-six-year-old Anna, for instance, would view that heart Tapback — sent without an accompanying message — as passive-aggressive. “It’s the new K bomb,” she told me via text. “It’s kinda signaling, ‘OK cool, I’m done with the convo now.’” If you receive an isolated Tapback from someone, that person wants your conversation to be over, she thinks.

WHAT THE TAPBACK TEXTING EMOJIS REALLY MEAN :

Thumbs up = great now shut up

Thumbs down = plain shut up

Exclamation point = you’re insane

Question mark = I’m passive aggressive

Heart = these words are like the siren’s song and I, a lonely sailor

— Karen Kilgariff (@KarenKilgariff) October 21, 2018

Tara, 31, takes it a step further. She views the Tapback as insulting. “That’s a fuckboy move,” she said. “It’s not like you’re texting [them] for your own health. You’re facilitating a conversation.” To her, a Tapback in lieu of a traditional reply indicates laziness at best and outright rudeness at worst. Typing out a short reply isn’t that much more effort, after all. Even sending a single emoji, while still not super-riveting, feels a bit more personalized.

But not everyone views Tapbacks negatively. Olivia, 26, explained that she utilizes them as a “nonverbal” way to keep conversations going — not as a way to end them.

“I feel like I have so little time for texting these days, so I don’t mind at all if someone responds with a reaction and I do it myself all the time,” she said. “It’s an easy way to say ‘got it,’ but also a way to further a conversation.”

Here’s an example from her recent memory. “If [a friend] texted me, ‘OK, so I made out with someone last night,’ I might respond with just the [exclamation point Tapback] prompting them to tell me more,” she said. “But also maybe I am a horrible texter.” (She’d probably interpret our hypothetical friend’s exclamation-point Tapback as “Send over the song!”)

“It’s an easy way to say ‘got it,’ but also a way to further a conversation.”

It’s important to note that ending a conversation is not bad. We can’t be communicating with every single person we know all the time. In fact, we absolutely should not be, and it’s perfectly defensible to let an exchange end at a natural stopping point. This is where Sam, 24, finds the Tapback useful.

“I love them as a way to quietly and nicely end a text convo, instead of just like, not responding at all and feeling guilty about it,” she said. “Here’s confirmation that I liked your message but it doesn’t really warrant a response, we’re still friends, I’ll talk to you later.”

There’s where the confusion comes in. If Sam sent a Tapback meant to convey, “Talk to you later, pal,” Tara or Anna might interpret that Tapback as a slight. No one would be wrong.

A lot of the confusion is likely due to Apple’s lack of clarity around Tapbacks in the first place. (To start with, the term “Tapback” is the least helpful name imaginable.) On the support page, even the example used to explain Tapbacks is deeply confusing: The recipient responds to “Are you ready for the party?” with a heart Tapback. I’m sorry — are they ready for the party or not? What the hell does that mean?

The best thing about iMessage tapbacks: You can end the conversation with a mutual understanding that the conversation is in fact over.

— Eddie Cmehil (@yeddie13) November 16, 2018

The Tapbacks available to users are also a little too weird to be genuinely useful. The heart’s a little too romantic, the thumbs up a little too flippant. The exclamation point is … excitement? Screaming? Any strong emotional response? Fine, the question mark is pretty straightforward, but you can see how we weren’t exactly set up for success here.

There is one area, though, where people seem to love Tapbacks: Fast-paced group threads. Several people mentioned that Tapbacks are great for acknowledging unanswered messages after the chat has moved on to a different topic. This does come with challenges — like the annoying converted “loved an image” text everyone gets when one person in the chat has an Android — but it’s also the one place where the message is distinctly, “I can’t respond to this in the regular way, but I want you to know I saw it.”

As with most facets of texting culture, it’s cool to take the Tapback’s ambiguity with about a cup and a half of salt. If you really aren’t sure what a person means, the best route is to simply ask for clarification. You’ll find out if it was a response or a reaction soon enough.

The only hard-and-fast rule is to never, under any circumstances, use the thumbs down Tapback. You will look like an asshole every single time.

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2VTEPp7
via IFTTT

Why powerful thunderstorms look like they’re boiling from space

The most potent thunderstorms roil and churn, like a pot of boiling water.

With the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) latest weather-imaging satellites, this aggressive storm behavior is easily visible from space. Such dynamic thunderstorm activity was on full display Monday, when conditions ripe for severe weather and tornadoes swirled over the Southern Plains. NOAA’s GOES-16 satellite captured the action from some 22,000 miles above Earth.

“It looks like a big bomb going off,” said Jeff Weber, a meteorologist with the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.

The roiling storms here are supercells, a type of violent thunderstorm that can spawn tornadoes. And indeed, many of these May 20 supercells did form twisting columns of air that swept the ground in the region, noted Weber.

The key elements of this cloud churning appearance are updrafts — potent winds shooting up through a thunderstorm. “The ‘boiling appearance’ you are seeing is due to the strength of the updraft of the storm,” said Kristin Calhoun, a research scientist at NOAA’s National Severe Storms Laboratory.

“It looks like a big bomb going off.”

The very nature of thunderstorms is to rapidly transport heat and moisture up from the ground and into the sky. “It rises six to eight miles in the atmosphere in a pretty short amount of time,” noted Brian Tang, an atmospheric scientist at the University at Albany. These rising winds travel at 30 to 50 mph, but have hit speeds of up to 100 mph, Tang said.

Eventually the warm air and water-rich clouds reach the top of the thunderstorm where it “billows out,” explained Weber. Gravity then pulls the clouds back down, creating the roiling effect.

“That’s indicative of a very powerful storm,” said Weber.

Impressive view of severe thunderstorms moving from Texas into Oklahoma from GOES-16 1-min visible imagery over 1.5 hr time period. Rapid initiation to development of OTs and AACPs. #txwx #okwx pic.twitter.com/5xCq9x4s6W

— Bill Line (@bill_line) May 20, 2019

In severe-weather prone places, like the U.S. plains, a calm cloud can rapidly transform into a fuming supercell thunderstorm. That’s why, when viewed from space, these storms sometimes appear to burst out of the atmosphere. “On these really violent days we can see a cloud go from a normal cloud to a severe thunderstorm in a matter of 20 minutes,” said Stephen Strader, a severe weather expert at Villanova University who chases these storms through the U.S. plains. “Within 30 minutes [the storm] could have a tornado warning.”

When we view NOAA’s satellite imagery, though, we’re seeing a sped up version of what’s transpired on Earth. It’s a time-lapse of detailed satellite photography. But the boiling motion is the same. “It’s moving,” said Tang. “Just like a pot of water on a stove.”

Today, this boiling atmospheric behavior is now clearly visible because NOAA’s newest weather imaging satellites, GOES-16 and GOES-17, can take highly-detailed images every 30 seconds. GOES-16, which captured the roiling storms above the Texas Panhandle, is situated over the equator and can see the entire U.S.

On May 20, a number of powerful supercell thunderstorms formed because the right ingredients were available and then mixed together. There were bounties of moisture, colliding masses of warm and cool air, and amplified atmospheric instability as air within the developing storms twisted and changed direction while rising even higher.

Severe weather pummeled the region, infrastructure was mangled, trailer homes demolished, and people hurt — but there weren’t as many supercell storms as forecasters projected, explained Strader. “The models indicated that this would be a historic event,” said Strader. “That’s what didn’t unfold. Society got luckier than we thought was possible.”

That’s because in Oklahoma a cap of warm air suppressed one of the primary storm ingredients, instability, explained Strader. This cap, born in Mexico, sat over the thunderstorms, keeping a lid on some of the storm activity, Strader explained.

But many roiling storms still formed. And some 20 twisters were spotted in the greater region.

“It certainly was not a busted forecast,” said Weber

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2HNmujz
via IFTTT

British Steel collapse: 25,000 jobs at risk as assets liquidated

British Steel has been ordered into compulsory liquidation after talks with the government failed to secure a bailout, threatening the jobs of about 5,000 employees, with another 20,000 jobs in the supply chain.

The steelmaker had requested an emergency $38m bailout loan from the British government following dwindling European sales amid Brexit uncertainty, and an ill-fated decision to sell off excess carbon credits earlier this year.

Just three weeks ago, the government had given a $150m loan to the company.

“The government can only act within the law, which requires any financial support to a steel company to be on a commercial basis,” Business Secretary Greg Clark said in a statement emailed to Al Jazeera.

“I have been advised that it would be unlawful to provide a guarantee or loan on the terms of any proposals that the company or any other party has made.”

The company’s 5,000 workers are mostly at a giant plant in the northern town of Scunthorpe, and a further 20,000 jobs are dependent upon its supply chain.

“This is devastating, awful news for steelworkers and their families, and for everybody related to the community and the area,” Nic Dakin, MP for Scunthorpe, told the BBC.

“What’s really important is that steps are taken to retain steelmaking in Scunthorpe and the other areas affected because this is crucial to our future as an independent, modern economy, modern nation.

“If it’s necessary for the government to take a public stake in the future of this industry, that’s what the government should do. Let’s take one step at a time,” he said.

Unions had urged the government to hammer out a deal after the beleaguered manufacturer asked the government for a $95m loan last week.

The loan was refused, and the steelmaker’s owners, Greybull Capital, agreed to put up some of the money themselves, reducing the loan request to $38m.

“This will be a deeply worrying time for the thousands of dedicated British Steel workers, those in the supply chain and local communities,” said Clark.

“In the days and weeks ahead, I will be working with the Official Receiver and a British Steel support group of management, trade unions, companies in the supply chain and local communities, to pursue remorselessly every possible step to secure the future of the valuable operations in sites at Scunthorpe, Skinningrove and on Teesside.”

Brexit blamed

The company, whose assets now face compulsory liquidation, has blamed Brexit uncertainty for a thinning order book.

Three weeks ago, the government agreed to provide a $150m loan so that the company could make its payments to a European Union environmental scheme and avoid a $630m fine from European regulators.

Under the scheme, companies are awarded a certain number of “carbon credits” based on their target emissions outputs.

If they perform well and emit less carbon, as British Steel did from 2013 to 2018, they can sell their remaining credits to those companies emitting more carbon into the atmosphere. British Steel sold off its remaining credits when Britain was expecting to leave the EU at the end of March.

Then Brexit was delayed by six months and the manufacturer faced a huge shortfall in its credits, facing a huge fine.

On Tuesday, pro-Brexit politicians in the House of Commons urged their colleagues to pass Theresa May’s EU Withdrawal Agreement when it returns to parliament in order to give some certainty to businesses.

The steelmaker told The Guardian last week that its EU orders had dried up. In the event of a “no-deal” Brexit, WTO tariffs on steel would be 20 percent – a significant disincentive for European buyers.

About 70 percent of British Steel’s products are exported to either the EU or Turkey and North Africa, according to the Financial Times.

But British Steel’s problems go back further still. Formerly part of Tata Steel’s European operations, a deal to sell off the division fell apart in 2015, with would-be buyers citing China’s dumping of steel onto global markets causing unpredictable price fluctuations as a major reason for abandoning the purchase.

In 2016, Greybull Capital, a private investment firm, bought Tata’s steel division for a token amount of £1 ($1.27 at the current rate) – and renamed it British Steel, saving thousands of jobs.

Now, Greybull itself is facing additional scrutiny. In the two years following the acquisition, Greybull charged British Steel more than $20m a year in interest on loans it had itself provided, the Financial Times reported.

The newly owned British Steel also made a $50m investment in a French steelmaker.

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2VWkC24
via IFTTT

DJ Khaled will get you there as the new voice on Waze

By Sasha Lekach2019-05-22 10:00:00 UTC

If it feels like DJ Khaled is everywhere in the transit world, that’s because he is.

Popping up on Lyft scooters, ride-share driving undercover, and owning a ridiculous car collection, the hip-hop star is all about getting around. Now he’s helping you get where you’re going as a new navigation voice option in the Waze app.

Sure, his voice giving directions is part of a six-week promo with streaming music service Deezer for his new album. But that doesn’t mean you can’t embrace the advice-filled phrases the performer is known for. Here’s a sense of what it’ll be like to have him guiding your drive starting Wednesday and available until June 30.

Waze, Google’s driving direction app, is used worldwide with 115 million users and has featured other celebrity voices for navigation such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, Kevin Hart, T-Pain, and Shaq. Bringing in known voices to give you driving directions is a feature that’s been incorporated into the app for years. A popular request was actor Morgan Freeman a few years ago.

One of the songs on his newest album Father of Asahd features singer John Legend, who is the latest voice option on Google’s digital assistant platform, Google Assistant. Legend’s AI voice launched last month.

To turn on the We The Best label producer on your Waze app go to Settings > Voice Directions > DJ Khaled.

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2EnoY7s
via IFTTT

10 questions for King Bran after that ‘Game of Thrones’ finale

We called it. That doesn’t mean we buy it. Still, let’s try to make more sense out of it.

The way Tyrion Lannister told it in the Game of Thrones finale, Bran Stark has the best story in all of Westeros — a story that will help the common folk and the nobles unite behind King Bran the Broken. Ironically, and perhaps in part to keep the ending a surprise, Game of Thrones itself became utterly disinterested in telling Bran’s story — relegating him to season 8’s most persistent background character.

By the time the finale rolled around, then, it was hard to remember that Bran was far more than the kid who overcame adversity, learned to fly and became the nation’s institutional memory, to use Tyrion’s participation-trophy language. The reaction to that kid’s elevation to the throne, therefore, was a collective “meh” when it could have been a collective “holy crap, they put an actual time-traveling psychic in charge of six kingdoms! And he knew it was going to happen! Did he somehow make it happen? There’s a lot to unpack here!”

Whatever else you made of the grand sweeping arcs of Seasons 7 and 8 — personally, I felt the showrunners stuck the (King’s) landing on the compelling tale of a doomed dragon queen and the men who loved her, and grew impatient with entitled calls for a different ending — we can at least agree that Bran was given short shrift.

As with the U.S. in 2016, we’re really not sure what kind of creature this electoral college just handed power to, or what he’ll do with it next. Could whatever force of fate that put him on the throne still be working to some sinister purpose, perhaps involving Drogon?

We may never be able to score an actual interview with him, but here are 10 key questions for the new leader of the Six Kingdoms.

1. What’s it like in your head?

In Seasons 1 through 6, we saw all Bran’s visions. We saw his early dreams, haunted by the Three-Eyed Raven he was to become. We traveled to the past with him, and saw how he could use then to influence now. Through his eyes, we saw the origin of the Night King. We shared the heartbreak of Hodor’s origins and the drama of Jon Snow’s birth.

But as soon as Bran returned to Winterfell at the start of Season 7, the showrunners made a conscious decision to shut us out of his head. According to the actor Isaac Hempsted-Wright, they were going for a Dr. Manhattan-from-Watchmen vibe for his character: He knows and sees everything now, so that’s going to make him seem distant and unconcerned with human affairs.

What kind of things was Bran seeing, though? We had only his minimalist, stalker-ish statements to go on. “I saw you at the crossroads,” he told Arya. He unnerved even Littlefinger by quoting a key line from his past: “Chaos is a ladder.” But there were no more attempts to represent the kind of chaos going on inside Bran’s head. None of the Watchmen-style back and forth across time that made readers sympathetic Dr. Manhattan, no Kubrickian vision in trippy colors. The only message was: You wouldn’t understand.

No wonder we all settled into a routine of deriding Bran as the creepy college kid who got too deep into drugs. Is that what it’s like, your grace? Are you an acid casualty? For that matter …

2. Are you immortal?

Neither the audience — nor, apparently, Tyrion and the rest of his small council — have the first clue about King Three-Eyed Raven. Or as fans of the dark historical fantasy Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell might now call him, The Raven King. (That character brought ill-understood magical forces to an alternate-history Britain; if putting Thrones‘ Raven on the throne is the showrunner’s deliberate nod to Susanna Clarke’s best-selling novel, the BBC adaptation of which is available on Netflix, I doff my geek cap to them.)

One thing we don’t really know about him, but which the George R.R. Martin books suggest: is this Raven immortal? In A Dance With Dragons, Bran learns that the greenseer in the tree north of the Wall with this title is named Brynden “Bloodraven” Rivers — a Targaryen bastard and an expert in dark magic who has lived at least 125 years.

So could Bran live that long? Could his powers help him live forever (presuming he isn’t killed by White Walkers like the last Three-Eyed Raven)? Did the nobles of Westeros accidentally elevate a ruler who will never vacate the throne? Will there never be another election for king?

That may not be a bad thing in itself. It could hasten the development of Westeros’ nascent democracy, once people get used to the idea, perhaps with the Hand of the King becoming an elected Prime Minister. Bran would offer some serious Queen Elizabeth II-style continuity.

Then again, he could be a dictator who intends to remain the only person who selects his Hand. That’s why it’s good to find out these things before you elect someone!

3. Can you warg into dragons?

Warging, in Game of Thrones‘ language, is the ability to jump into the mind of other creatures, discover their location and (sometimes) control their actions. Bran has done it with direwolves and he’s done it with Hodor. Fans have long wanted to know if wargs like Bran could enter the consciousness of a dragon. A throwaway line at the end of the Small Council meeting suggests that he can. If so …

4. What do you want with Drogon?

Dany’s remaining dragon, now orphaned, was last seen flying her corpse out beyond the sea. He may have returned to Dragonstone, the ancient Targaryen home, or to his birthplace in Essos. Presumably, Bran is about to find out.

But what then? Having a dragon at your disposal seems to be the Thrones equivalent of Tolkien’s Ring — a powerful, highly corrupting influence. Will Bran be content to just keep one eye on Drogon, making sure he remains far from Westeros? Or is there some magical power moving through him that intends to control this dragon and lay waste to more cities?

Speaking of which …

5. Why didn’t you tell anyone about King’s Landing?

This issue has been raised before: Bran knew exactly where he needed to be in the Battle of Winterfell. He seemed to be proceeding according to a plan. Did so many people need to die in order to fulfill it? Okay, maybe Theon needed to sacrifice himself in order to give Arya time to stick the Valyrian blade in, but what about all those Unsullied and Dothraki?

The question becomes even more urgent when we consider that Bran probably knew in advance that Dany was going to burn King’s Landing and its civilian population to the ground. He had plenty of opportunity to talk to Jon about it, who would have told Tyrion and Varys.

Between the three of them, surely they could have reined in the dragon queen’s worst tendencies one last time; not overtly plotted against her as Varys did alone, but certainly made extra sure she knew that the plan involved no firebombing of innocents. Even if fate is sealed

If you know in advance that a crime is about to be committed but you don’t tell anyone, you are just as guilty under the law. Does Bran have the blood of King’s Landing on his hands?

6. When did you know you were going to be King?

So Bran knew he was going to be king before he traveled to King’s Landing for the post-Dany leadership conference. When was the first time he saw it?

Does his time-travel greenseeing have limits, or was he simultaneously living his future on the throne when he returned from beyond the Wall? That might help explain why he was such an asshole to Meera Reed.

7. Do you understand the magic that made you?

Enough of the (relatively) softball questions. Time to get down to the philosophical nitty-gritty. Bran was lured north of the Wall by the Three-Eyed Raven, who haunted his dreams. He was groomed to take over the role, and the Children of the Forest were on board. But why him, and to what end?

Considering that the Children of the Forest created the Night King in the first place as a way to punish the world of men, should we perhaps be a little concerned that they were mixed up in your creation? Not for nothing did the “Bran is the Night King” theory refuse to die.

8. Do you have free will?

I’ve always wanted to ask this unanswerable late-night-dorm-room question in an interview setting. King Bran would be the only interviewee for whom it would truly make sense. If there is some sinister Children of the Forest plan at work here, then of course Bran’s going to claim he has free will, or give one of his usual zen-like noncommittal answers. Still, let’s get him on the record.

9. Is there another reason you chose Tyrion?

Bran’s very first act as king was to ensure that Tyrion Lannister served as his Hand. “He’s made many mistakes,” said King Raven. “He’s going to spend the rest of his life fixing them.” That seemed nicely fitting, and apparently it got Tyrion off the hook as far as Gray Worm was concerned.

But this seems pretty damn decisive for a kid who claims he never wanted to be king. Are there other, unspoken reasons? Tyrion happens to be a man with a passion for dragons. He’s one of the few people in King’s Landing who’s seen one up close, and one of the few in the world who has ever petted one. He also has a track record of blindly following Dany, oblivious to the oncoming storm.

If you did have some sinister design that involved Drogon, Tyrion is exactly whom you would want at your side.

10. What’s your tax policy?

Martin wrote the Song of Ice and Fire series in part as a political reaction to Lord of the Rings. What he said in a Rolling Stone interview explains why, and is worth quoting at length.

Lord of the Rings had a very medieval philosophy: that if the king was a good man, the land would prosper. We look at real history and it’s not that simple. Tolkien can say that Aragorn became king and reigned for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But Tolkien doesn’t ask the question: What was Aragorn’s tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine?

None of these questions were answered by the show, either — although it is to the showrunners’ credit that we leave Bran’s Small Council arguing about the kind of piddling issues they’ll confront going forward. In this case, whether the rebuilding of the Westerosi navy should be funded before the rebuilding of the brothels. That’s certainly in the spirit of what Martin meant.

But let’s have more specifics going forward, and let’s not pretend that Tyrion will have all the answers or will never be overruled. Where does King Bran stand on taxation? If the people are going to be taxed, shouldn’t they get something out of it beyond the feudal protection of their liege lords? If the lords of Westeros are going to be taxed, should it be at a greater rate than the people, considering they’re the one-percenters with all the cash? How will he enforce the system while avoiding corruption? What’s his trade policy with the newly independent North?

If Bran actually has the answers, and if whatever system he sets in place works for Westeros, then seven hells — maybe we should think about running him as a presidential candidate in 2020.

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2WSUyRP
via IFTTT

Pelosi preaches caution on impeachment as pressure builds

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly urged her colleagues not to pursue impeachment without bipartisan support. | Zach Gibson/Getty Images

congress

House Democrats hold a closed-door meeting, with the speaker eager to tamp down calls for Trump’s removal.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi is trying to hold the line — no impeachment. At least not yet.

It’s a familiar message for Pelosi, who will deliver it once again at a closed-door meeting of House Democrats on Wednesday morning. But the gathering, which is members-only with no aides allowed, comes at a critical moment as a growing number of Democrats are ready to consider impeaching President Donald Trump.

Story Continued Below

Pelosi has long sought to dissuade her colleagues from trying to remove the president without winning bipartisan support. And as she repeatedly reminds Democrats, that isn’t happening. Only one GOP lawmaker — the libertarian gadfly Rep. Justin Amash (Mich.) — has called for Trump’s impeachment following special counsel Robert Mueller’s evidence of obstruction of justice.

So Pelosi will implore Democrats to stick with her plan of continuing to investigate Trump on multiple fronts, with legal action as the backup when necessary. Pelosi will argue, as she has repeatedly in public and private, that Democrats should gather information that could be used for impeaching Trump, if the threshold for Republican support can be reached, according to Democratic aides and lawmakers.

Of course, it seems unlikely that will ever happen; Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has repeatedly said that the Mueller probe is over and Democrats should move on.

The six committee leaders investigating Trump, his administration and personal finances — including Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) and Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) — will give updates at Wednesday’s meeting, according to a source familiar with Pelosi’s plans.

House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.), Financial Services Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) will also speak.

The senior lawmakers will discuss Monday’s victory for Democrats upholding a subpoena for Trump’s financial records from his accounting firm — which Pelosi will point to as proof that her plan is working — and a court hearing on Wednesday focused on the president’s effort to stop the Democratic investigation into his dealings with Deutsche Bank.

The court hearing comes one day after Senate Democrats berated a top Treasury Department official over reports that Deutsche Bank blocked employees from reporting suspicious activity tied to accounts linked to Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner.

Democrats will also receive updates on their effort to sue Trump over violations of the emoluments clause and the House Judiciary Committee decision to subpoena two former top administration aides on Tuesday: Trump confidante Hope Hicks and White House deputy counsel Annie Donaldson.

Pelosi remains firm that trying to remove Trump from office without any GOP backing is pointless and could backfire on Democrats. They’re mindful of what happened to former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) when he impeached President Bill Clinton in 1998 — Clinton was acquitted by the Senate, Republicans lost seats in the midterm election, and Gingrich lost his job. (Though others note the GOP did win the presidency two years later.)

“In reality, I don’t think you ought to start something if you’re not prepared to finish it,” said House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), a key Pelosi ally. “I don’t think we’re at the point now that we can finish the way we want to finish it, so we ought not start it until we get to that point.”

And while more than 20 Democrats are now calling for Trump’s impeachment or at least the start of an impeachment inquiry to help bolster their legal case against the president, Pelosi’s hold on her caucus remains rock solid. Even impeachment advocates say they aren’t going to go against her decision.

“I don’t think anything happens without the speaker,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), a member of the House Judiciary Committee and co-chief of the progressive caucus, who came out in favor of opening an impeachment inquiry this week.

“We really want to keep people united. We’re not going to take action if the speaker is not there. I think the speaker is very strategic, very smart. We’ve got to show her where the caucus is,” added Jayapal. Asked about Pelosi’s belief that the caucus doesn’t support impeachment, Jayapal said, “I think that’s what she thinks. We want to see if that’s true, so we’re working on that.”

Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.), one of the first Judiciary Committee Democrats to support an impeachment inquiry, said her conviction has only grown on that front, but said she doesn’t anticipate trying to work around Pelosi’s opposition to impeachment.

“I think a lot of times with leadership, it’s not what you do, it’s when you do it,” Demings said. “In the last two weeks, the president has continued to obstruct justice by not respecting subpoenas for people in his administration and people outside his administration. So we’re running out of options.”

Some Democrats — including members of Pelosi’s leadership team — reached a breaking point Monday after Trump officially blocked former White House counsel Don McGahn, a central figure in the Mueller probe, from testifying before the House Judiciary Committee.

The White House move roiled the Democratic Caucus and sparked a closed-door clash between Pelosi and other top Democrats, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who argued it’s time to open an impeachment inquiry into Trump.

Pelosi and her top deputies, including Clyburn, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (Md.) and Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.) pushed back forcefully. The leadership group later held an emergency meeting with Nadler on Monday night to shut down the brewing revolt within the panel. Nadler followed Pelosi’s order on Tuesday — the topic of impeachment was never raised during a quick committee hearing bashing McGahn and the White House.

Several other Democrats said Tuesday while they were angered over McGahn’s no-show but were not ready to join calls for impeachment. However, these lawmakers said the final straw for them would be if Mueller is blocked from testifying about his two-year probe.

House Democrats are still struggling to secure a public appearance by Mueller after weeks of negotiations. Mueller and his staff are concerned about what public insight he can share, according to several sources.

And even some of Pelosi’s most loyal chairmen, antsy about the ceaseless stonewalling from Trump, are starting to talk more openly about impeachment. Schiff said the case for impeachment is getting “stronger,” while Cummings said he is “getting there” on Tuesday.

“I think what the president has done has put us in a position where we cannot get any information to do the oversight that we need to do. And that basically ties our hands and makes us, with regard to oversight, powerless,” Cummings said on CNN.

“The question now becomes: Do we allow this to continue? And where do we end up if we do that? That is the question,” Cummings added. “And I’m still mulling it over and talking to my colleagues when I get on the floor in a few minutes. But I’m getting there.”

But for Pelosi and other top Democrats, the upcoming Memorial Day recess can’t come soon enough. If Democratic leaders can successfully navigate Wednesday’s meeting and get members out the door on Thursday for a 10-day break, they hope that could help break the impeachment fever spreading within the caucus.

Once lawmakers return from recess, they’re only in the Capitol for three days before dozens of members depart for a trip to Normandy, France, in honor of the 75^th anniversary of the D-Day invasion in World War II.

And the longer Democratic leaders can delay impeachment, the less likely it may become as Washington shifts its focus to the 2020 election, according to multiple members and aides.

“I think if [impeachment] happens this summer, that’s fine,” said House Budget Committee Chairman John Yarmuth (D-Ky.), a supporter of impeachment. “I think if it goes into the fall or next year, I think that’s probably too late.”

Sarah Ferris and Kyle Cheney contributed to this report.

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2EqkbCt
via IFTTT

Al Jazeera launches business site AJ Impact

Al Jazeera has announced an expansion into business and economics news with the launch of AJ Impact, a vertical dedicated to in-depth coverage of the economic forces shaping our world.

Featuring original content produced by Al Jazeera’s journalists and curated content from Bloomberg, AJ Impact will encompass all formats including articles, digital video, podcasts and infographics.

Al Jazeera has established new offices in New York City to house a dedicated editorial team to support the new property.

“AJ Impact introduces a new perspective to the landscape of business news,” Al Jazeera Media Network said in a statement.

“Grounded in Al Jazeera’s mission to give voice to the voiceless and supported by a diverse international news team, AJ Impact will provide unbiased and inclusive reporting that boosts financial literacy and empowers news consumers to create a more just and sustainable global economy,” the statement added.

The business site will focus on four key areas; global economy, inequality, technology and the burgeoning field of impact investing, which seeks to produce healthy outcomes for people and the planet as well as financial returns.

“We see a large unmet need for a new kind of business coverage told from a human perspective, and with global reach,” Yaser Bishr, executive vice president of digital for Al Jazeera Media Network, said.

“In a media landscape that has forced other news organisations to cut back, AJ Impact represents a substantial commitment of new staff and resources to make business coverage more accessible and more relevant to all citizens of the global economy.”

Patricia Sabga, Al Jazeera’s new managing business editor overseeing AJ Impact, said traditional business news focusses on the pursuit of profit, often ignoring negative impacts on people and the environment.

“This approach does not reflect the mission of Al Jazeera, nor does it reflect the values of next-generation news consumers who understand that how they spend and invest money – even as little as a dollar – can help create a more just, prosperous and sustainable global economy.

“By producing and curating stories with a global purview and a human perspective, AJ Impact will boost economic literacy while demonstrating how we all have a stake in every economic policy and decision whether in our own backyards or thousands of miles away,” Sabga added.

In addition to expanding Al Jazeera’s English-language news coverage, AJ Impact will boost the network’s broader portfolio of digital offerings, podcast studio Jetty, and immersive video studio Contrast.

Aljazeera.com will launch the business vertical on Wednesday.

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2Jxotff
via IFTTT

Binyavanga Wainaina, Kenyan author and activist, dies aged 48

Wainaina won the Caine Prize for African Writing for his short story 'Discovering Home' in 2002 [Ben Curtis/AP] — Wainaina won the Caine Prize for African Writing for his short story ‘Discovering Home’ in 2002 [Ben Curtis/AP]

Kenyan author and activist Binyavanga Wainaina has died at the age of 48, the publication he founded announced.

Wainaina, founder of the literary magazine Kwani, passed away following a short illness, the chairman of the Nairobi-based magazine told The Daily Nation on Wednesday.

Tom Maliti said the writer died a few minutes past 10pm (19:00 GMT) on Tuesday at a Nairobi hospital.

Wainaina had won the Caine Prize for African Writing for his short story “Discovering Home” in 2002.

Following the passage of a series of anti-gay laws across Africa in 2014, Wainaina publicly announced that he was gay.

In December 2016, Wainaina posted on Twitter that he was HIV-positive.

The Time Magazine in 2014 included Wainaina in its list of the “Most Influential People in the World”.

SOURCE:
Al Jazeera and news agencies

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2Wgl9eG
via IFTTT

Raptors Have the Firepower to Reach NBA Finals with Hobbled Kawhi Leonard

TORONTO, ONTARIO - MAY 21: Kawhi Leonard #2 of the Toronto Raptors handles the ball during the second half against the Milwaukee Bucks in game four of the NBA Eastern Conference Finals at Scotiabank Arena on May 21, 2019 in Toronto, Canada. NOTE TO USER: User expressly acknowledges and agrees that, by downloading and or using this photograph, User is consenting to the terms and conditions of the Getty Images License Agreement. (Photo by Gregory Shamus/Getty Images)

Gregory Shamus/Getty Images

In the context of the NBA‘s most cited postseason adages, the Toronto Raptors‘ 120-102 victory over the Milwaukee Bucks on Tuesday night doesn’t warrant material reactions.

It was Game 4. The series is tied 2-2. The Raptors won both games at home. They did what they were supposed to do. A playoff series does not start until the road team wins, which it has yet to do in these Eastern Conference Finals.

Yada, yada, yada.

And yet, playoff proverbs in mind, this Raptors win does mean more than the typical victory.

Not only were they in must-have territory, facing an insurmountable 3-1 deficit, but they were playing with a visibly hobbled Kawhi Leonard. He tweaked his left leg early in Game 3, and although he went on to log more than 52 minutes in a double-overtime win, the effects stuck with him through Tuesday night:

Dave DuFour @DaveDuFourNBA

Kawhi can’t push off on that leg at all.

“We were concerned,” Raptors head coach Nick Nurse said after Game 4, per The Athletic’s Blake Murphy. “I think he’s fine.”

Concerned, but not panicked. Fine, but not great. These remain good lines to toe following Leonard’s performance.

He finished with 19 points, seven rebounds, four steals and two blocks on a tidy 6-of-13 shooting. He wasn’t reaching the rim at will, but that’s been the story for this entire series. He continued chasing around Giannis Antetokounmpo and defended his tail off in the half-court.

He dunked on the MVP favorite, too:

Bleacher Report @BleacherReport

Giannis should’ve gotten out of Kawhi’s way https://t.co/dK3vwC3rBU

Still, it quickly became clear that Leonard’s grit and smarts and will were substitutes for his dominance. He wasn’t heavily involved in the offense to start. He didn’t make his first shot until roughly halfway through the first quarter, and his first rest of the game came shortly thereafter—far earlier than usual.

Leonard didn’t look as explosive on either of his two dunks or when trying to create space off the ball. His one-on-one attacks felt slower—not deliberately more methodical, but involuntarily gradual.

That he still cobbled together an essential performance deserves to be commended. He is the Raptors’ championship hopes personified, and he did not disappoint. He thrived amid strategic conservation; a lower-key offensive role and brief respites from Antetokounmpo on defense allowed him to both stand out and bypass his usual exhaustive volume.

But these calculated concessions don’t pan out—or persist for the entire game—if his teammates cannot lift him up.

They did.

William Lou @william_lou

kawhi carried everyone in game 3, everyone returned the favor in game 4. you love to see it.

That wasn’t a given. Toronto’s supporting cast has remained a visceral inconstant for much of the playoffs. Pascal Siakam has been Leonard’s most reliable running mate, with the occasional detonation from Kyle Lowry, Norman Powell, Serge Ibaka or, much less often, Marc Gasol peppered in.

Very rarely, though, has Leonard’s aid come from numerous sources all at once. The Raptors backups were being outscored by 2.4 points per 100 possessions entering Tuesday night, which ranked 10th among all 16 playoff teams. Gasol, Lowry and Danny Green were shooting a combined 40.3 percent (35.4 percent from downtown).

Lowry, to his credit, has found his groove. His 25 points, six assists and all-out defense in Game 4 were an accurate view of all he’s done against the Bucks. He’s now averaging 20.3 points and shooting 48.4 percent from distance on nearly eight deep attempts per game for the series:

Jackson Frank @jackfrank_jjf

Kyle Lowry against the Bucks: 20.3 points, 5.3 rebounds and 4.3 assists on 72.7% true shooting

Kyrie Irving against the Bucks: 20.4 points, 8.0 assists and 5.3 assists on 44.7% true shooting

But his uptick has changed only so much. Nearly everyone else around Leonard has remained a nightly mystery. Figuring out where his help will come from and whether it will be enough has turned into a postseason rite of passage.

Support for Leonard came in droves, from all over, on Tuesday. He didn’t just have Lowry instead of Siakam. He had Gasol, who dropped 17 points and seven assists on minimal hesitation to go along with five rebounds and two blocks.

He had Norman Powell, who offset his extra-thirsty shot selection (4-of-13 from three) with his energy on the glass and at the defensive end. His offensive persistence—at times excessive—helped, as well. He hit a couple of big treys en route to tallying 18 points and a game-high plus-29.

Leonard also had Serge Ibaka, who was exceptional on the glass (13 rebounds) and shot 7-of-9 inside the arc, including 3-of-3 from mid-range. Leonard even got a vintage game from Fred VanVleet. He poured in 13 points and six assists, helped stifle Eric Bledsoe, Malcolm Brogdon and George Hill on defense and was pivotal to the Raptors holding their ground during an opening fourth-quarter stretch in which both Leonard and Lowery were catching breathers:

Josh Lewenberg @JLew1050

See, the thing about Fred VanVleet is he’s not just some fringe NBA player you bench when he’s missing shots. He was one of the league’s most valuable reserves last season (3rd in 6th Man voting) and has earned the benefit of the doubt. Trust paying off tonight.

Some of these good vibes won’t last. Stars and role players alike tend to fare better at home, which is where the Bucks are headed. They will punch back.

Credit the Raptors’ hard double-teams for forcing the ball out of Antetokounmpo’s hands and coaxing him into an uncharacteristically mortal 14-of-33 shooting over the past two games, but he will explode again. Ultra-aggressive Gasol may play Brook Lopez off the court, but Bledsoe, Brogdon and Hill won’t combine for a 5-of-20 clip every night.

Toronto’s non-stars will likewise get worse. Ibaka, Powell and VanVleet won’t combine for nearly 50 points every night. Lowry is a hustle-plays machine, but he and Gasol have ambled in and out of scoring consciousness.

More importantly, Toronto cannot hope to get by with a banged-up Leonard if it cracks the NBA Finals.

TORONTO, ONTARIO - MAY 21: Kyle Lowry #7 of the Toronto Raptors drives to the basket during the second half against the Milwaukee Bucks in game four of the NBA Eastern Conference Finals at Scotiabank Arena on May 21, 2019 in Toronto, Canada. NOTE TO USER:

Gregory Shamus/Getty Images

The Raptors have the depth and ancillary star power to squeak past a Bucks team with which they’re evenly matched on the margins. But in a prospective showdown with the Golden State Warriors, they would need Leonard to be Leonard. Nothing less or in between would suffice.

That’s a matter for another day, and the Raptors would welcome it if they get that far. And they have enough to get that far.

With or without Leonard making a full recovery from his ailing leg, they have enough.

Unless otherwise noted, stats courtesy of NBA.com, Basketball Reference or Cleaning the Glass. Salary and cap-hold information via Basketball Insiders and RealGM.

Dan Favale covers the NBA for Bleacher Report. Follow him on Twitter (@danfavale) and listen to his Hardwood Knocks podcast, co-hosted by B/R’s Andrew Bailey.

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2LXkvyr
via IFTTT

‘Game of Thrones’ finale defended by ‘Seinfeld’ star Jason Alexander

“I know a little something about finales and disappointed fans.”

By Shannon Connellan2019-05-22 04:36:27 UTC

Game of Thrones is done and dusted, wrapping up its polarising eighth and final season with an equally debated finale.

While many have criticised the final episode of the beloved HBO series, there are some who have jumped to defend it.

And if anyone knows a thing or two about polarising TV series finales, it’s the Seinfeld cast.

Star of the legendary sitcom Jason Alexander, better known as your ol’ pal George “Can’t-Stand-Ya” Constanza, has offered up kind words for the Game of Thrones crew on Twitter.

“I know a little something about finales and disappointed fans,” he wrote on Tuesday.

“My advice: live in joy that you are part of something that moves people so. You were all magnificent. My family and I loved it all. Thanks.”

Dear #GOT company, I know a little something about finales and disappointed fans. My advice: live in joy that you are part of something that moves people so. You were all magnificent. My family and I loved it all. Thanks.

— jason alexander (@IJasonAlexander) May 20, 2019

Alexander was quick to clarify his support for the Seinfeld finale, which is still being criticised to this day, even by the likes of Stephen Colbert as “disappointing.”

Even Seinfeld star Julia Louis-Dreyfus joked on the finale of The Late Show with David Letterman, “Thanks for letting me take part in another hugely disappointing series finale.” Jerry Seinfeld rather enjoyed this.

“To be clear, I adored the Seinfeld finale,” wrote Alexander. “I just keep getting crap about it from fans.”

To be clear, I adored the Seinfeld finale. I just keep getting crap about it from fans. I loved that Jerry/Larry found an organic way to bring back all the amazing guests that enriched our show. It was an amazing week together filming it.

— jason alexander (@IJasonAlexander) May 21, 2019

So, did you enjoy the Game of Thrones finale? You didn’t? As Seinfeld creator Larry David said of the crap people dished on his show’s finale, “They’ve already written it, and often they’re disappointed, because it’s not what they wrote.”

One thing’s for sure, signing some petition isn’t the answer.

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2VVLOhc
via IFTTT