Israel lifted a ban on Friday on Palestinian fishing boats operating off the Gaza Strip, ending a measure imposed during a deadly flare-up of violence earlier this month.
The fishing union in the Gaza Strip confirmed the lifting of the ban, saying the new limits imposed by Israel were 12 nautical miles in the southern half of Gaza and six nautical miles in the north.
Zakaria Bakr, an official with the fishing union, said a number of boats began fishing on Friday, the first in the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.
The measure is seen as a first step in implementing a fragile truce meant to avert a new conflict between Israel and Palestinian armed factions.
Palestinian fishermen unload their catch at the Gaza City seaport [File: Mohammed Salem/Reuters]
“Friday, the Gaza Strip fishing zone is expected to reopen at a range of up to 12 nautical miles,” COGAT, the Israeli military body responsible for the Palestinian territories, said.
“Application of the measure is conditioned on the Gaza Strip fishermen respecting the agreements.”
Four Israelis and 25 Palestinians, including two pregnant women and three children, were killed in the two-day flare-up as Israeli air raids pounded the besieged enclave and rockets were fired from Gaza.
COGAT closed the fishing zone and border crossings for both people and goods between Israel and Gaza in response to the rocket fire.
Under the Oslo Accords signed in 1993, Israel is obligated to permit fishing up to 20 nautical miles, but this has never been implemented.
In practice, Israel only allowed fishing up to 12 nautical miles until 2006, when the fishing zone was reduced to six and later to three.
A tentative truce was reached on Monday with Palestinian officials saying Israel had agreed to ease its crippling decade-long blockade of the impoverished enclave in exchange for calm.
Hazem Qassem, a spokesman for Hamas – the group that governs the Strip – said Egyptian mediators, along with officials from Qatar and the United Nations, helped reach the ceasefire deal.
Israel did not publicly confirm the deal.
A Hamas official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said he considered the reopening of the fishing area “the first step the (Israeli) occupation must take as part of the implementation of the understandings.”
An Egyptian security delegation arrived in Gaza late on Thursday to monitor implementation of the Cairo-brokered truce, he said.
COGAT’s statement late on Thursday did not mention any reopening of the border crossings between Gaza and Israel.
Israel maintains a heavy naval presence, restricting any traffic in and out of the enclave as well as the distance Gaza’s fishermen can travel to fish, severely affecting the livelihoods of some 4,000 fishermen and at least 1,500 more people involved in the fishing industry.
Around two million Palestinians live in Gaza, the economy of which has suffered years of Israeli and Egyptian blockades as well as recent foreign aid cuts and sanctions by the Palestinian Authority, a rival of Hamas that governs the occupied West Bank.
When I was a kid, Pokémon was more than just a thing I liked. It was a world that I wanted to live in. I wished Pikachu was real. I wanted to have a real Pikachu, and I wanted to find Pokémon in the wild and catch them.
Detective Pikachu is the first piece of Pokémon media to scratch that itch.
A delightful tale of intrigue set in the world of Pokémon, the film marks the first live-action Pokémon property in the two-and-a-half decades since Pokémon first debuted on the Game Boy. While the games and anime helped imaginations run wild with what it would be like to be in the Pokémon world, they also led fans to imagine what Pokémon would be like in our world.
In an early scene in the movie, human protagonist Tim Goodman sets off with a friend to try to catch a Pokémon. After walking through some trees, there was a Cubone, dramatically wailing in the middle of a field.
It immediately reminded me of being a kid, growing up amidst the zenith of Pokémania, walking around outside with my brother and our friends pretending we were Pokémon trainers looking for Pokémon.
Image: warner bros.
Pokémon was an inescapable force and we surrounded ourselves with it: playing the games, watching the show, collecting and trading cards.
Detective Pikachu, with its cascade of different Pokémon popping up on screen, felt like it was fulfilling a wish I had since I was kid, showing what it would be like to live in a world where Charmanders help street food vendors heat up their pans, Machamps direct traffic around sleeping Snorlaxes, and you can chance upon a small army of Bulbasaurs in the wild.
There’s always a bit of a disconnect when something is animated and cartoony, but to see Detective Pikachu put real-ish looking Pokémon inside a very real world makes it feel much closer to reality.
During the movie, I was sitting in front of a couple of kids who came to the movie with their parents. They couldn’t help but excitedly whisper the names of all the Pokémon that were popping up on screen.
Normally I’d be annoyed by noise in a movie theater but this was different. I could remember me and my brother begging our parents to take us to see Pokémon: The First Movie in 1999 and how much the franchise meant to me back then.
I’m glad Pokémon can still make kids excited, and I’m glad Detective Pikachu could light up my imagination again.
Need a gift for your Marvel universe-obsessed friend/family member/yourself? Oppo has a pretty nice option: An Avengers-themed variant of its F11 Pro phone.
Oppo sent me a unit to check out, and it’s just what I expected: A beautiful device with just enough Avengers-related details to appeal to fans of the series. But its best feature is the price.
First, the basics: The Oppo F11 Pro Marvel’s Avengers Limited Edition (yes, the full name is a handful) is technically the same phone as the F11 Pro, which I’ve tried out in March. The F11 Pro comes in several variants; the Avengers edition is the same as the most powerful of those, with 6GB of RAM, and 128GB of storage. For more details about how it performs and its features, check out that article.
Quick highlights: The phone performs well despite not having a top processor. Its camera is mostly alright, though bokeh shots are awful (in a recent update, the camera got several important upgrades, including HDR mode). Its biggest strength is the 4,000mAh battery, which charges super fast and lasts forever.
To use the case or not to use the case, that is the question.
Image: Stan Schroeder/Mashable
The Avengers edition, however, is all about that Marvel bling. The phone has a glossy finish on the back, with a cool hexagonal pattern and (part of) a red Avengers logo. With phones these days being quite similar, I’ve seen lots of attempts of making a phone’s design stand out, and not many have succeeded. Oppo, however, has nailed it — the back of the phone really looks cool.
The Captain America shield isn’t just for aesthetic purposes — its ring flips to become a kickstand.
Image: stan schroeder/Mashable
In fact, it’s so cool that you’ll likely be hesitant to use the included case, which has a nice Captain America shield-styled kickstand but is otherwise quite bland. Perhaps a see-through case would’ve been a better fit.
On the front, the Oppo F11 Pro Avengers Edition is all screen, with a 16-megapixel selfie camera that pops up from the top. On the back, the phone has a 48-megapixel camera that’s not up there with the best of them, but will still be alright in most situations.
Image: Stan schroeder/Mashable
Other details include an Avengers-themed box which also contains a collector’s badge, and a special software theme for the phone (which is just alright). Check out my quick unboxing below.
Generally, it’s hard not to recommend the F11 Pro Avengers Edition. It costs Rs. 27,990 ($400) in India, which is a decent price for this phone even without the Avengers branding. The phone is currently unavailable, though; there’s no word on when (or if) it might be back in stock.
In her directorial debut Wine Country, Amy Poehler gathers some of her talented Saturday Night Live buddies to conjure up a fun movie set in Napa Valley. The entire cast is a goldmine of comedy — Maya Rudolph, Ana Gasteyer, Rachel Dratch, Paula Pell, Emily Spivey (who co-wrote the script), and even Tina Fey shows up from time to time.
You’d expect a film with these ladies to be cackling with humor and heart but sadly, Wine Country falls short of both to quite an extent.
There are still times you’ll laugh out loud; Poehler’s direction is remarkable because she sets the scene well, and you’ll definitely want to guzzle wine after (or during to maybe enjoy it more). That’s about it.
Wine Country’s biggest flaw is that it’s predictable. It’s just another conventional story about a girls weekend trip gone wrong (and then right again post-confrontations).
A group of friends decide to spend a weekend in Napa to celebrate Rebecca’s (Dratch) 50th birthday but she’s not the one excited about it; it’s her pal Abby. Poehler plays Abby as a low-key Leslie Knope but it works. She’s a divorcee who directs her pent up organizational skills into planning the weekend minutely.
The rest of the group comes with baggage of their own. Naomi (Rudolph) is a tired mom with a secret, Catherine (Gasteyer) has a demanding job and thinks she’s not wanted here, Val (Pell) spends her time trying to get together with a millennial waitress they met named Jade (played by Pen15’s Maya Erskine), and Jenny (Spivey) would rather just chill at home, which, relatable. Tina Fey’s Tammy pops up when needed because the ladies are spending their weekend at her AirBnB-style home.
From here on, the group attempts to keep up with Abby’s precise schedule while coming to terms with their issues — individual and the ones they have with each other but this happens at their own slow pace.
The problem with this slow-build narrative is that the audience has been aware of the characters’ circumstances for a while now. It’s not easy waiting for them to catch up in between jokes and interactions that just don’t land. You’re just waiting for that one major outburst to happen as the group struggles to air their grievances, patch things up, and move on.
As great as their chemistry is, for some reason it’s hard to buy their closeness as friends in a movie that literally depends on it. The ladies think they’re bonded for life because they worked at a pizzeria several years ago. Despite their apparent strong friendship, they hide pivotal life truths and opinions from each other. No one likes Rebecca’s idler husband Brian but says nothing to her for all these years?
The only reason a movie like Wine Country would work is because of the cast. They take a subpar script and turn it around to make it downright enjoyable for the one and only time you’ll watch it.
Everyone is excellent in their own way but Rudolph is a scene-stealer for the most part. Her physical comedy skills have been well-documented over the years so it’s no surprise she brings that side of her. But she also shines in the mellow, more emotional scenes (much like she did in last year’s Forever).
When will Maya Rudolph get her long-due awards?
Image: courtesy of netlfix
Poehler gets a stand-out scene which she shares with Jason Schwartman by delivering the most exquisite deadpan of all time. You’ll know it when you see it. Pell and Spivey are wonderful but they’re put on the back burner. It’s bound to happen in a cast this vast.
Wine Country’s stumbling block is that everyone involved has delivered better projects. Besides their own popular and award-winning TV shows, Poehler and Fey embraced the chaos in their 2015 movie Sisters.
Co-writers Spivey and Liz Cackowski have written marvelous things for Last Man on Earth and the short-lived Up All Night (which starred Rudolph).
So it might not meet the high creative expectations that were previously set, but it’s a perfect movie for a weekend with no plans, lots of wine, and a few friends to laugh with. It won’t surprise you but it won’t fully disappoint you either. Just think of it as the temperate “house wine” presented by your regular and reliable bar.
In the abstract, Season 8 sounds like Game of Thrones‘ female-friendliest yet.
The struggle for the Iron Throne has come down to Cersei and Daenerys. Arya slayed the Night King. Brienne got knighted and got laid. Lyanna Mormont is this season’s breakout fan fave. And Sansa, much-abused, much-maligned Sansa, has emerged as one of the smartest players in the game.
So why does it all ring so hollow?
From the beginning, Game of Thrones has distinguished itself through its female characters. Unlike so many other prestige dramas, fantasy sagas, and (pseudo) historical epics, it considered seriously how women and girls might fit into this patriarchal, misogynistic world, how they might be shaped by it, and how they might shape it in turn.
It was a show as interested in how Catelyn guided her son’s ascension to King in the North, as it was in any of the military campaigns he waged to get there. It drew Cersei, the conniving queen to a boorish king, as a compelling figure in her own right. It demonstrated how a sweet girl like Sansa might learn to wield her words as weapons, or a shrewd lady like Margaery might exert soft power through feminine charm. And we got to see how characters as different as Arya, Brienne, and Daenerys bucked their society’s gender norms, or didn’t.
Even in its iffiest moments, though, the show’s saving grace was its commitment to character.
True, Game of Thrones‘ feminism was never perfect. (Remember when Dany got raped in the very first episode? Or those ridiculous sexposition scenes in Littlefinger’s brothel?) Even in its iffiest moments, though, the show’s saving grace was its commitment to character. Through the first four (or so) seasons, the series’ refusal to sort its characters into simple archetypes, its insistence on drilling into their thorny psychologies, its prioritization of slow burns and long games over quick and easy payoffs, yielded some of the most thrillingly complicated female characters on television.
But Game of Thrones has been on a creative decline for years now, basically ever since the show ran out of books to adapt. Storylines have been stripped down to their most basic beats, to be rushed through as quickly as possible, as with the zombie-capturing expedition last season or the Jon-Dany romance this season. Characters have been whittled down to a single defining personality trait, and the relationships between them simplified to the point of nonsensicality: Does it really make sense for Sansa and Arya to share such an easy sisterly bond? Even the visuals have been robbed of color, detail, and light, though Game of Thrones insists that part is your fault.
Sansa reassures the Hound in “The Last of the Starks.”
Image: Helen sloan / HBO
This is true of all things Game of Thrones at this point, not just its female characters. But watching Sunday’s “The Last of the Starks,” it’s apparent that, for all the girl-power posturing we’ve seen lately, the women of this show have suffered most of all.
Cersei and Daenerys have lost any nuance either one of them had, turning into reckless, ruthless, power-mad despots. Brienne’s lovely relationship with Jaime was reduced to a few quick fucks and then a teary goodbye. Sansa summed up years of sexual assault and psychological torment by explaining that if it weren’t for “Littlefinger and Ramsay and the rest, I would have stayed a little bird all my life.”
Arya’s ugly past as an assassin has been wiped clean, leaving her as a purely heroic figure. Melisandre died unceremoniously once the show ran out of stuff for her to do. Missandei, one of the few women of color ever to exist on this show, was beheaded for shock value.
The thing is, any one of these storylines could have worked. (Well, maybe not Missandei getting fridged — that one’s bullshit, through and through.) Brienne’s emotional journey has been one of slowly opening up; it makes sense that she’d be devastated after getting dumped by the first person she’s ever let herself be vulnerable with. Sansa has been changed by her trauma, and it’s worth exploring how she’s processed it. Dany’s Targaryen tendency toward tyranny was seeded back in Season 1, so it’s hardly a surprise that it’s coming up now.
But that would have required a level of patience and attention that Game of Thrones doesn’t have anymore. In its rush to resolve these years-long arcs, the show has relegated them to the same lazy archetypes this show once tried to avoid: the ambitious bitch, the brokenhearted girlfriend, the “empowered” rape survivor.
We were all rooting for you!
Image: Helen Sloan / HBO
The men, at least, have better — more active, more essential, more flattering — tropes to return to, because men have always had better tropes to return to in stories like these. Jon is your classic noble hero, and just in case you’re not convinced, Season 8 has propped him up by throwing Dany under the bus — not least by emphasizing how little he really wants power. (Strangely, Jon’s frequent insistence that he does not want to get promoted has never led to him actually turning down a promotion. But that’s a rant for another day.)
Jaime seems poised to do something stupid and noble once he’s reunited with Cersei. Euron gets to be the bad boy, felling dragons and seducing queens. Tyrion and Varys are still the guys behind the guys, pulling all the strings from the shadows.
There are still two episodes left of Game of Thrones, and it is theoretically still possible that the show will turn it around. Perhaps Sansa will ascend to the throne, or Dany will prove to be a just ruler, or Brienne will wipe away her tears and jump back into the fray — though doing so in a way that undoes all the fuckery of recent seasons seems more than this show is up for these days.
But from here, I’m guessing that, like so many other Game of Thrones twists, this latest disappointing turn was foreshadowed long ago. Maybe Jaime had it right, last season, when he mused, “It really is all cocks in the end.”
NOTE FOR 2019 READERS: This is the seventh in a series of digital time capsules for the next century. The series marks a little-known chronological milestone. According to UN data, life expectancy at birth in 27 countries now exceeds 81 years — which means babies born in 2019 are more likely than not to be alive in 2100.
What will life be like at the other end of these kids’ lives? The latest science, science fiction, and Silicon Valley all offer glimpses. But ultimately, it is our present-day hopes and fears that shape what the future will become.
Dear 22nd Century,
All of a sudden, out of the dreams of geeks and the potential of technology, an entire new economy explodes into being.
There are new networks full of new kinds of behavior to be cultivated or exploited. The rising tide of money lifts many startups upwards; some sink. The world is awash in a sense of abundance and fear — this could save us, this could destroy us. Some argue this new economy is saving the planet from the carbon economy. And at the apex of the revolution, a small number of foresighted people with famous names acquire wealth greater and faster than any tycoon in human history.
This is the story of the internet economy in the early 21st century. (Arguably, it’s the story of every great market leap since the railroads). It is also, I confidently predict, the story of the space resources economy in the early 22nd.
The main difference is this: Internet pioneers become billionaires; many, many asteroid mining pioneers will become trillionaires. The early 21st century thinks it’s seen a wealth gap; it ain’t seen nothing yet.
At the words “asteroid mining,” a contemporary reader would likely roll their eyes. We are still decades away from the orbital future where a vast semi-automated operation harvests the bottomless wealth of our solar system — the platinum, the gold, the diamonds, the rare earth metals that lay under layers of dust, there for the taking in ridiculous quantities.
How much, exactly? We’re only just beginning to guess. Asterank, a service that keeps track of some 6,000 asteroids in NASA’s database, prices out the estimated mineral content in each one in the current world market. More than 500 are listed as “>$100 trillion.” The estimated profit on just the top 10 asteroids judged “most cost effective” — that is, the easiest to reach and to mine, subtracting rocket fuel and other operating costs, is around $1.5 trillion.
In Arizona, NASA tests a concept vehicle designed for astronauts stationed on asteroids — the The All-Terrain Hex-Limbed Extra-Terrestrial Explorer (ATHLETE).
ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images
Is it ours for the taking? Well, here’s the thing — we’re taking it already, and have been doing so since we started mining metals thousands of years ago. Asteroid strikes are the only reason rare metals exist in the Earth’s crust; the native ones were all sucked into our planet’s merciless iron core millions of years ago. Why not go to the source?
As a side project, space mining can grab water from the rocks and comets — water which, with a little processing makes rocket fuel. Which in turn makes even more currently unimaginable space operations possible, including ones that could give the planet all the energy it needs to avert climate catastrophe. Cislunar space — the bit around us and the moon, the local neighborhood, basically — is about to get very interesting.
It’s hard, even for the most asteroid-minded visionaries, to truly believe the full scope of this future space economy right now. Just as hard as it would have been in 1945, when an engineer named Vannevar Bush first proposed a vast library of shared knowledge that people the world over would access via personal computers, to see that mushroom into a global network of streaming movies and grandmas posting photos and trolls and spies who move the needle on presidential elections.
No technology’s pioneer can predict its second-order effects.
The space vision thing is particularly difficult in 2019. Not only do we have plenty of urgent problems with democracy and justice to keep us occupied, but the only two companies on the planet to have gone public with asteroid-mining business plans, startups that seemed to be going strong and had launched satellites already, were just bought by larger companies that are, shall we say, less comfortable executing on long-term visions.
Planetary Resources was founded in 2012 in a blaze of publicity. Its funding came from, among others, Larry Page, Eric Schmidt, Ross Perot, and the country of Luxembourg. It had inked an orbital launch deal with Virgin Galactic. And it was sold last October to a blockchain software company. (To 21st century readers, this paragraph would look like I’m playing tech world mad libs.)
In January, the other company, Deep Space Industries, also partly funded by Luxembourg (way to get in the space race, Luxembourg!), was sold to Bradford Space, owned by a U.S. investment group called the American Industrial Acquisition Corporation. Maybe these new overlords plan on continuing their acquisitions’ asteroid mining endeavors rather than stripping the companies for parts. Both companies have been notably silent on the subject.
“The asteroid mining bubble has burst,” declared The Space Review, one of the few online publications to even pay attention.
That’s also to be expected. After all, anyone trying to build Google in 1945 would go bankrupt. Just as the internet needed a half-dozen major leaps forward in computing before it could even exist, space industry needs its launch infrastructure.
Currently, the world’s richest person and its most well-known entrepreneur, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, respectively, are working on the relatively cheap reusable rockets asteroid pioneers will need. (As I was writing this, Bezos announced in an email blast that one of his New Shepherd rockets had flown to space and back five times like it was nothing, delivering 38 payloads for various customers while remaining entirely intact.)
Jeff Bezos’ New Shephard booster rocket, May 2, 2019: none the worse for wear after going to space and back five times.
blue origin
Meanwhile, quietly, Earth’s scientists are laying the groundwork of research the space economy needs. Japan’s Hayabusa 2 spacecraft has been in orbit around asteroid Ryugu for the last year and a half, learning everything it can. (Ryugu, worth $30 billion according to Asterank, is the website’s #1 most cost-effective target.) The craft dropped tiny hopping robot rovers and a small bomb on its target; pictures of the small crater that resulted were released afterwards.
Officially, the mission is to help us figure out how the solar system formed. Unofficially, it will help us understand whether all those useful metals clump together at the heart of an asteroid, as some theorize. If so, it’s game on for asteroid prospectors. If not, we can still get at the metals with other techniques, such as optical mining (which basically involves sticking an asteroid in a bag and drilling with sunlight; sounds nuts to us, but NASA has proved it in the lab). It’ll just take more time.
Effectively, we’ve just made our first mark at the base of the first space mineshaft. And there’s more to come in 2020 when Hayabusa 2 returns to Earth bearing samples. If its buckets of sand contain a modicum of gold dust, tiny chunks of platinum or pebbles of compressed carbon — aka diamonds — then the Duchy of Luxembourg won’t be the only deep-pocketed investor to sit up and take notice.
The possibility of private missions to asteroids, with or without a human crew, is almost here. The next step in the process that takes us from here to where you are? Tell us an inspiring story about it, one that makes people believe, and start to imagine themselves mining in space. How would you explain the world-changing nature of the internet to 1945? How would you persuade them that there was gold to be mined in Vannevar Bush’s idea? You’d let the new economy and its benefits play out in the form of a novel.
As Hayabusa dropped a bomb on Ryugu, Daniel Suarez was making the exact same asteroid the target of his fiction. Suarez is a tech consultant and developer turned New York Times bestselling author. His novels thus far have been techno-thrillers: his debut, Daemon, a novel of Silicon Valley’s worst nightmare, AI run rampant, made more than a million dollars.
So it was a telling shift in cultural mood that Suarez’s latest thriller is also a very in-depth description of — and thinly-disguised advocacy for — asteroid mining. In Delta-V, published in April, a billionaire in the 2030s named Nathan Joyce recruits a team of adventurers who know nothing about space — a world-renowned cave-diver, a world-renowned mountaineer — for the first crewed asteroid mission.
Elon Musk fans might expect this to be Joyce’s tale, but he soon fades into the background. The asteroid-nauts are the true heroes of Delta-V. Not only are they offered a massive payday — $6 million each for four years’ work — they also have agency in key decisions in the distant enterprise. Suarez deliberately based them on present-day heroes.
The mission is essential, Joyce declares, to save Earth from its major problems. First of all, the fictional billionaire wheels in a fictional Nobel economist to demonstrate the actual truth that the entire global economy is sitting on a mountain of debt. It has to keep growing or it will implode, so we might as well take the majority of the industrial growth off-world where it can’t do any more harm to the biosphere.
Secondly, there’s the climate change fix. Suarez sees asteroid mining as the only way we’re going to build solar power satellites. Which, as you probably know, is a form of uninterrupted solar power collection that is theoretically more effective, inch for inch, than any solar panels on Earth at high noon, but operating 24/7. (In space, basically, it’s always double high noon).
The power collected is beamed back to large receptors on Earth with large, low-power microwaves, which researchers think will be harmless enough to let humans and animals pass through the beam. A space solar power array like the one China is said to be working on could reliably supply 2,000 gigawatts — or over 1,000 times more power than the largest solar farm currently in existence.
“We’re looking at a 20-year window to completely replace human civilization’s power infrastructure,” Suarez told me, citing the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the coming catastrophe. Solar satellite technology “has existed since the 1970s. What we were missing is millions of tons of construction materials in orbit. Asteroid mining can place it there.”
A NASA concept for a space-based solar energy system: the Solardisk.
NASA
The Earth-centric early 21st century can’t really wrap its brain around this, but the idea is not to bring all that building material and precious metals down into our gravity well. Far better to create a whole new commodities exchange in space. You mine the useful stuff of asteroids both near to Earth and far, thousands of them taking less energy to reach than the moon. That’s something else we’re still grasping, how relatively easy it is to ship stuff in zero-G environments.
Robot craft can move 10-meter boulders like they’re nothing. You bring it all back to sell to companies that will refine and synthesize it in orbit for a myriad of purposes. Big pharma, to take one controversial industry, would benefit by taking its manufacturing off-world. The molecular structure of many chemicals grows better in microgravity.
The expectation is that a lot of these space businesses — and all the orbital infrastructure designed to support them — will be automated, controlled remotely via telepresence, and monitored by AI. But Suarez is adamant that thousands if not millions of actual human workers will thrive in the space economy, even as robots take their jobs in old industries back on Earth.
“Our initial expansion into space will most likely be unsettled and experimental. Human beings excel in such environments,” he says. “Humans can improvise and figure things out as we go. Robots must be purpose-built, and it’s going to take time and experience for us to design and build them.”
Which is another way startups back on Earth will get rich in the new economy: designing and building those robots, the nearest thing to selling picks and shovels to prospectors in the space gold rush. Thousands of humans in space at any one time will also require the design and construction of stations that spin to create artificial gravity. Again, this isn’t a great stretch: Using centrifugal force to simulate gravity in space was first proposed by scientists in the 19th century. NASA has had workable designs for spinning cislunar habitats called O’Neill cylinders since the 1970s. We just haven’t funded them.
But the trillionaires clearly will.
NASA concept art for an O’Neill Cylinder, 1976.
NASA
In short, Suarez has carefully laid out a vision of the orbital economy that offers something for everyone in our divided society. For Green New Deal Millennials, there’s the prospect of removing our reliance on fossil fuels at a stroke and literally lifting dirty industries off the face of the planet. For libertarians and other rugged individualists, there’s a whole new frontier to be developed, largely beyond the reach of government.
For those who worry about asteroids that could wipe out civilization — though luckily, this isn’t likely to happen any time soon — here is a way for humanity to get proficient in moving them out of the way, fast. Indeed, the National Space Society has offered a proposal to capture the asteroid Aphosis (which is set to miss Earth in the year 2029, but not by a very comfortable margin), keep it in orbit, and turn it into 150 small solar-power satellites, as a proof of concept.
For the woke folks who care about the bloody history of diamond production, there’s the likelihood that space mining would wipe out Earth’s entire diamond industry. “They will be found in quantities unattainable on Earth,” claims Suarez, with good reason. We are starting to discover that there is more crystalized carbon in the cosmos than we ever suspected. Astronomers have identified one distant planet made entirely of diamond; there may be more, but they are, ironically, hard to see.
We don’t have diamond planets in our solar system (and we can’t do interstellar missions), but we do have diamond-studded asteroids. Mine them for long enough and you will wear diamonds on the soles of your shoes.
For the regular guy or gal with a 401K, there’ll be a fast-rising stock market — inflated not by financial shenanigans this time, but an actual increase in what the world counts as wealth.
For workers, there is the promise of sharing in the untold riches, both legally and otherwise. It would be hard to stop miners attaining mineral wealth beyond their paycheck, under the table, when your bosses are millions of miles away. Then there’s the likelihood of rapid advancement in this new economy, where the miners fast gain the knowledge necessary to become moguls.
“After several tours in space working for others, perhaps on six-month or year-long contracts, it’s likely that some workers will partner to set up their own businesses there,” says Suarez. “Either serving the needs of increasing numbers of workers and businesses in space, marketing services to Earth, or launching asteroid mining startups themselves.”
All in all, it’s starting to sound a damn sight more beneficial to the human race than the internet economy is. Not a moment too soon. I’ve written encouragingly about asteroid mining several times before, each time touting the massive potential wealth that seems likely to be made. And each time there’s been a sense of disquiet among my readers, a sense that we’re taking our rapacious capitalist ways and exploiting space.
Whereas the truth is, this is exactly the version of capitalism humanity has needed all along: the kind where there is no ecosystem to destroy, no marginalized group to make miserable. A safe, dead space where capitalism’s most enthusiastic pioneers can go nuts to their hearts’ content, so long as they clean up their space junk.
(Space junk is a real problem in orbital space because it has thousands of vulnerable satellites clustered closely together around our little blue rock. The vast emptiness of cislunar space, not so much.)
And because they’re up there making all the wealth on their commodities market, we down here on Earth can certainly afford to focus less on growing our stock market. Maybe even, whisper it low, we can afford a fully functioning social safety net, plus free healthcare and free education for everyone on the planet.
It’s also clearly the area where we should have focused space exploration all along. If we settle on Mars, we may disturb as-yet-undiscovered native bacteria — and as the character Nathan Joyce shouts at a group of “Mars-obsessed” entrepreneurs in Delta-V, Mars is basically filled with toxic sand and is thus looking increasingly impossible to colonize. (Sorry, Mark Watney from The Martian, those potatoes would probably kill you.)
Interstellar colonization, as we’ve already noted, is out. Cislunar space and near-Earth asteroids are where it’s at. And it’s almost certainly where you’re at.
Hope you’re having a blast up there, and that you’re inspired to come up with new geek dreams that we, down in the gravity well of the past, cannot even begin to imagine.
AMES, Iowa—The presidential run of Beto O’Rourke is a profoundly personality-driven exercise, his charisma and Kennedy-esque demeanor the topic of one profile after another, so it’s surprising to listen to his speeches on the stump in which he doesn’t talk a whole lot about himself. In Iowa recently, over several days in a rainy, foggy, uncertain stretch of spring, O’Rourke delivered a series of speeches and held question-and-answer sessions in which he spoke at length about unity, civility and inclusivity, and only rarely touched on his personal story. There was one notable exception: When he did offer up bits of his biography, he leaned most heavily on his run last year against Ted Cruz for a spot in the United States Senate.
He recounted for the crowds tales of the places he went and the people he met during his barnstorming, freewheeling, attention-getting campaign, coming back to two numbers: 254, the number of counties in gargantuan Texas, all of which he visited … and the percentage-point margin by which he was defeated.
Story Continued Below
“We lost by 2.6 percent,” he said in a basement music venue here at Iowa State University.
“We lost that Senate race in Texas by 2.6 percent,” he said in a downtown greasy spoon in Storm Lake.
“We came within 2.6 percentage points of defeating Ted Cruz,” he said in a community college cafeteria in Fort Dodge.
“So close,” the local party leader said in introducing O’Rourke one morning at a brewpub in Carroll. “So close.”
The part of his past that he talked about the most, by far, was a race that he lost.
O’Rourke, 46, campaigns with the wanderlust of the wannabe punk rocker he once was and the vigor of the regular runner, hiker and cyclist he still is. His hair is somehow simultaneously boyish and salt-and-pepper-streaked. He drives himself around in rented Dodge minivans, dressed almost always in plain brown shoes, Banana Republic chinos and blue oxford shirts with no tie and the sleeves rolled up just so. He often dons locally appropriate dad hats, from a maroon Iowa State cap at Iowa State to an orange Clemson cap at Clemson and so on. He holds microphones with his right hand kind of like a singer, and he extends his left arm into the air kind of like a preacher, and he punctuates his points with grins that flash perfectly imperfect teeth.
After Iowa, I dropped in on O’Rourke on the trail in South Carolina and Virginia, listening to him rat-a-tat-tat through his airy, often alliterative talking points about “common cause” and “common ground” and “common good” and “conscientious capitalism” and “our aspirations” and “our ambitions” instead of the “pettiness” and the “partisanship” of politics today, along with planks of a nascent platform like a new voting rights act, citizenship for Dreamers, “world-class public education” and “guaranteed, high-quality, universal health care.” And almost always, when he did talk about himself, it would be back to the time he fell just short. “We lost by 2.6 percent,” he said to a small, low-key gathering in rural Denmark, South Carolina.
Celebrating defeat is unusual for a politician, and doing so makes O’Rourke notably different from the rest of the unwieldy field of Democrats running for president. In contrast to the 20 or so other 2020 candidates—all of them in various ways overachievers who tout the litanies of their successes—O’Rourke instead presents his loss to Cruz as a prominent selling point. More than his ownership of a small business. More than his six years on the city council in his native El Paso. More than his next six years as a back-bench House member in Congress. His near-miss against a prominent Republican in a red state was such a high-quality failure, so epically heroic, he seems to suggest, that it should be considered something of a victory.And he’s not wrong to do it. His failed Senate bid, after all, is singularly what made him famous, what got him an interview with Oprah, what put him on the cover of Vanity Fair—and what’s put him in the top handful of aspirants angling for a shot to topple President Donald Trump.
But while it might be his most spotlit miss, it’s not an aberration.
There’s a reason his biography doesn’t feature much in the campaign. For O’Rourke, the phenomenon on display in that race—failure without negative effects, and with perhaps even some kind of personal boost—is a feature of his life and career. That biography is marked as much by meandering, missteps and moments of melancholic searching as by résumé-boosting victories and honors. A graduate of an eastern prep school and an Ivy League rower and English major, the only son of a gregarious attorney and glad-handing pol and the proprietor of an upscale furniture store, the beneficiary of his family’s expansive social, business and political contacts, O’Rourke has ambled past a pair of arrests, designed websites for El Paso’s who’s who, launched short-lived publishing projects, self-term-limited his largely unremarkable tenure on Capitol Hill, shunned the advice of pollsters and consultants and penned overwrought, solipsistic Medium missives, enjoying the latitude afforded by the cushion of an upper-middle-class upbringing that is only amplified by his marriage to the daughter of one of the region’s richest men.
“With a charmed life like his, you can never really lose,” an ad commissioned by the conservative Club for Growth sneered last month. “That’s why Beto’s running for president—because he can.”
“A life of privilege,” David McIntosh, the president of the Club for Growth, told me.
It’s not just Republicans who think this. “He’s a rich, straight, white dude who, you know, married into what should politely be called ‘fuck you money,’” Sonia Van Meter, an Austin-based Democratic consultant and self-described “raging feminist,” told me. “His biggest success is by definition a failure,” she added. “He’s absolutely failed up.”
Even by the experience-light standards of the most recent occupants of the White House—a first-term senator followed by a real estate scion and reality TV star—the notion of O’Rourke’s uneven résumé blazing a path to the presidency is new and remarkable. For the moment, he is trailing and slipping in the polls, but it’s early, and he is still attracting besotted fans. The support O’Rourke built that even allowed this run in the first place did not depend on traditional concepts of meritocracy and diligent preparation. To look deeper into his past, to talk to his friends from his teens and his 20s, to read distant clips from money-losing media ventures, and to talk to voters, too, is to see a different kind of claim to excellence. In the end, O’Rourke’s best recommendation that he can win might be that he knows how to fail big—and then aim even higher.
O’Rourke’s ascent in some sense started more than 20 years back. In the summer of 1998, he made the choice to quit New York. He had graduated in 1995 from Columbia University, then spent most of the next three years playing, listening to and talking about music, reading the Economist and the New Yorker, drinking Budweiser, riding in cramped subway cars. He had worked for short periods as a nanny, a copy editor, a hired-hand mover of art and antiques, and in a series of odd jobs around the city that let him split cheap rent in a sparsely furnished Brooklyn loft where he liked to jump on a rooftop trampoline. Now, though, he wanted out, and so he bought a used pickup and drove home, steering toward more open road. He was, he has said, “young” and “happy” and “carefree.”
This decision to leave New York, his longtime friend Lisa Degliantoni told me recently, was and remains O’Rourke’s biggest, most consequential accomplishment—not just a learning experience or a tail-between-his-legs withdrawal, she believes, but an accomplishment. In her mind, it unleashed O’Rourke, allowing him to be “transformational”—first for his city, then for his state, and now potentially for his country.
Trading the bright lights and the bustle for the relative ease and isolation of the desert by the Mexican border, Degliantoni said, was risky, “because as soon as you’re there, you’re off all the radars.” That risk was mitigated significantly, however, by what he was heading home to, according to interviews with nearly two dozen people who have known him or worked with O’Rourke. Riding shotgun in the cab of that pickup was Mike Stevens, another one of his best friends, and when they logged the last of those 2,200 or so miles, Stevens told me, waiting for O’Rourke in El Paso was far from certain success but also “a pretty large safety net.”
He used it. Upon his return, he worked at first in the warehouse of his mother’s store. That fall, he was arrested after driving drunk in his Volvo at 3 a.m. and sideswiping a truck at “a high rate of speed” on Interstate 10. He went to “DWI school,” finishing the next spring.
It was his second arrest. Three years before, he had been apprehended by the police at the University of Texas El Paso after tripping an alarm trying to sneak under a fence at the campus physical plant while “horsing around” with friends. Prosecutors didn’t pursue the charge. (“No consequences,” said McIntosh from the Club for Growth.)
The next year, in 1999, O’Rourke started the Stanton Street Technology Group, an offshoot of which was StantonStreet.com. The website covered the arts and food and local politics and endeavored to be “the most comprehensive, interactive, and entertaining home page in the Southwest.” In the summer of 2000, it was registering 32,000 monthly “impressions,” according to O’Rourke at the time, a figure whose impact is hard to gauge given the early era of the internet and the size of El Paso—but the site also was bleeding money, taking from the coffers of the web design business. Even so, in January 2002, he launched a weekly print version. Bob Moore, the former editor of the El Paso Times, told me he used to rib O’Rourke that one of his few advertisers was his mother—“his only advertiser,” he said, “for the longest time.” It lasted 15 issues.
The newspaper was, said Degliantoni, who worked on it with him, O’Rourke’s “love letter to his hometown” but also “probably in hindsight not the best move.” Even O’Rourke joked about it recently in his remarks in Storm Lake. “In a brilliant stroke of genius, just as print newspapers were in decline,” he told the standing room only, shoulder to shoulder, coffee shop throng, “I started a print newspaper.”
The result? “We bankrupted the operation,” O’Rourke said to what sounded like good-natured, forgiving titters.
No matter.
He had run the website and started the paper “to be as engaged as I possibly could,” he later explained. “The logical conclusion,” he continued, “was to run for office.”
He ran for City Council in 2005 and won, and won again in 2007, backed by El Paso’s business elite, and then he ran for Congress in 2012, challenging in the primary Silvestre “Silver” Reyes, an eight-term incumbent who would have the endorsements of a pair of presidents (Bill Clinton and Barack Obama) and never before had had even a close call in a reelection. It was, political analysts in the area agreed at the time, a bid that smacked of audacity and risk. “It’s close to impossible to get a sitting member of Congress out of office because of the privilege and power,” O’Rourke said early on in his campaign.
But O’Rourke, of course, had a share of both as well, hailing from “an old El Paso political family,” as a local columnist pointed out, calling O’Rourke “just as ‘household’ around here as the stately congressman himself.” A company owned by his father-in-law, the real estate tycoon Bill Sanders—he’s worth at least an estimated half a billion dollars—gave $18,750 to a PAC that supported O’Rourke’s campaign. Reyes threw around the words “family wealth” and charged that O’Rourke was “a show pony” and “part of the 1 percent.”
In the end, though, painting Reyes as an aging Washington insider, and employing block-by-block door knocking, O’Rourke won with 50.5 percent of the vote.
Friends and admirers say O’Rourke is nothing if not a hard worker, wearing out shoes and racking up miles. “I think he’s the hardest-working man in U.S. politics,” said Steve Kling, a Democrat who lost last year running for the Texas state Senate. They describe him as an exceptional listener.
In his three terms in Washington, O’Rourke compiled a moderate to centrist voting record, which in this left-leaning primary could become problematic. He was known in D.C. as sufficiently affable but also something of a loner, say Capitol Hill staffers, a floating, unthreatening member who had undercut his clout by pledging to stay no more than four terms.
When he began his race against Cruz, it’s easy to forget, O’Rourke was close to unknown—even in Texas. Cruz, on the other hand, was one of the most prominent Republicans in the nation, and no Democrat had won a statewide campaign since 1994. Texas Senator and Majority Whip John Cornyn dubbed it “a suicide mission.”
But what, strategists and operatives say now, did O’Rourke really have to lose? He had engineered his own congressional exit, anyway, 2018 was shaping up to be a favorable year for Democrats, and Cruz was a legendarily unpopular foil against whom he could rally support. And the worst-case scenario? Something O’Rourke had done before. Just go home. Go back to El Paso. Failure, in fact, was an option.
“Beto,” Southern Methodist University political scientist Cal Jillson toldTexas Monthly in March 2017, “lives life with a cushy net beneath him.”
“It wasn’t that big of a risk,” Texas-based GOP strategist Brendan Steinhauser told me.
The biggest risk he took in the Senate bid, in the estimation of politicos in Texas and beyond, was to listen to people who lived in all 254 of the counties in Texas more than he did to people who could have armed with him with more targeted data. He tended to rely on feelings more than numbers. It was a root of his populist allure—and also perhaps the reason he didn’t win.
In his concession speech, he positioned himself at the center of a stage decked out with floodlights and speakers and drums, a scene evocative of a rock concert more than a convening of the dejected supporters of a failed candidate and campaign.
“I’m so fucking proud of you guys!” he hollered, eliciting squeals from his fans.
They chanted his name.
“Beto! Beto! Beto!”
After O’Rourke’s recent event in Sioux City, Iowa, I talked to two people who had traveled from different states to see him specifically because of that night. Because they had been inspired by how he spoke about losing. Chris Untiet, 35, had come from California. He works for Habitat for Humanity, and he told me he had watched the speech on the screen of his phone while on a trip to build houses in Vietnam. “I was really moved to tears,” he told me. The other was Claire Campbell. She’s 17. She saw the speech sitting in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and will vote for the first time in next year’s presidential election. And she hopes she can pick O’Rourke. “I literally love him,” she told me. In the question-and-answer session, she raised her hand and asked him to her prom.
“So, he had to lose the Senate,” Kim Olson, a Democrat and staunch O’Rourke ally who last year lost her bid to be Texas Commissioner of Agriculture, was telling me as I hurtled ahead on a ribbon of road slicing through flat fields, from one Iowa campaign stop to the next. “He had to get the nationwide name recognition. He had to do the hard work. And let me tell you: It’s fricking hard work running as a statewide candidate—as it’s going to be countrywide … grind, every day, all day—and here he is, after losing in a hard-fought race, he said, ‘I’m still going to serve, I’m still going to go, and I’m going to run for president.’ So, yeah, you could say his greatest accomplishment was to lose by, you know, 300,000 votes to a guy who almost won a primary for the president. But that wasn’t his greatest accomplishment. It wasn’t the loss—it’s how he did it—that was his greatest accomplishment. It was going to everywhere, all the time, speaking to people, getting out there, not being afraid of anybody or anything and doing that hard grind that it takes. That’s why it makes him an incredible candidate for president, I think.”
Olson, affable and voluble, in essence attempted to redefine the idea of failure. O’Rourke hadn’t failed. Because he had tried and worked so hard. Because the experience had opened other doors.
At many of the dozen or so O’Rourke events I attended of late, most of the people I talked to knew not a whole lot about him—hardly anything, really, about what he had done, or not done, before the race against Cruz. Maybe they had seen what he said about the kneeling National Football League players in a clip that lit up the internet. Maybe they had seen the Oprah interview. Maybe they had seen the Annie Leibovitz shot on the cover of Vanity Fair. The conversations were a reminder that most people not in Washington or even Texas have basically just met him.
“Is he a lawyer?” 70-year-old Ruth Lux from little Lidderdale, Iowa, asked me after O’Rourke’s pit stop in nearby Carroll.
“No,” I said.
“What did he do before he got into politics?” she asked.
I provided a speedy rundown to the Cruz race.
“I think the fact that he came so close to unseating Cruz, that’s pretty important,” Lux said. “A lot of people are relating to what he’s saying, you know.”
I asked her if she was bothered by O’Rourke’s lack of experience compared with other candidates in the Democratic field. She wasn’t. “I don’t know that Obama had much more,” she said. “Did he really have much more experience than this guy? Really probably not.”
The man who introduced O’Rourke at Iowa Central Community College in Fort Dodge responded similarly. “I heard the same thing in 2008 when I was supporting Obama,” David Drissel, a professor of social sciences, told me. O’Rourke, he pointed out, has not only more congressional experience than Obama but “more congressional experience than the past four presidents combined.” I did the quick math. Trump. Obama. The second Bush. Clinton. True enough.
Obviously, the bar for the requisite experience for the Oval Office has been recalibrated over the past decade or more of presidential campaigns, and doesn’t necessarily run through Congress at all. But voters haven’t entirely abandoned their desire for a candidate to win—and then actually do something. For all the shrugging over his résumé, people at O’Rourke’s town halls clearly, too, were pressing for specifics. I listened to multiple people ask him explicitly to put meat on the bones of his ideas.
Their questions to him often boiled down to one word: How?
Then, when I asked them if they had heard from him what they had wanted to hear, their answers often boiled down to one word as well: No.
Jason Levick, 27, who had driven from Omaha to see O’Rourke, wanted to know how he would cut down on wealth and income inequality.
“A little bit rambling and not really to the point or concrete,” Levick told me.
Brendan Grady, 26, asked O’Rourke in Denison how he would address the “lack of social cohesion.”
“Didn’t really address it,” Grady told me.
Mike Poe, 64, asked O’Rourke in Marshalltown how he would manage to enact meaningful gun control.
“Vague,” Poe told me.
I heard the same thing in South Carolina. In Denmark, at O’Rourke’s town hall in a threadbare auditorium on the campus of tiny Voorhees College, Sailesh S. Radha from Columbia stood up and expressed his frustration that so many presidents can’t seem to make good on their promises after they get elected. How would O’Rourke, Radha wondered, turn his words into actions? Into accomplishments?
After the event, when I asked him what he thought of the answer, Radha shook his head and made a face. “I need to hear more from him,” he said.
And yet, and in spite of a stage of the campaign that’s started to feel more like an ebb than a flow, if I had to divide every crowd into two groups—the squinty, not-quite-satisfied versus those inspired by O’Rourke’s table-hopping battle cries and open to the viability of his candidacy—there was no shortage of dewy-eyed believers.
Many people were struck by his energy and his charisma and his gauzy optimism. They heard echoes of iconic Democrats from the past and saw, they said, a possible path forward—a potential winner—somebody who might be the one to take on Trump. “I’m thinking back to the first encounter with President Obama here at Morningside College,” retiree Mike Goodwin told me after the event in Sioux City.
Lux, meanwhile, the woman in Carroll who thought maybe O’Rourke was a lawyer, waited in line after the event and shook his hand and told Robert Francis O’Rourke he reminded her of … Robert Francis Kennedy. O’Rourke told her thank you. He told her RFK is one of his heroes.
“The charisma,” Lux said when I asked her about the comparison. “The compassion for people at the bottom. Actually, even the physical appearance—the hair, the rolled-up shirt sleeves.”
She told me she had entered 2007 enthused to vote for Hillary Clinton in the caucuses and then for president. But she ended up going for Obama.
“You know, always, it comes down to: How do you present yourself? How charismatic are you?” Lux said. And she said something I heard from many others as well. She was less interested in policy proposals than she was in the possibility of victory. Especially now. “I am more interested,” she said, “in who can unseat Trump.”
It’s one of the few things, it seems, all Democratic voters seem to agree on. “I think that what caucus-goers are looking for is to defeat Donald Trump,” said Norm Sturzenbach, O’Rourke’s state director in Iowa. “That’s ultimately what’s driving it.”
Steinhauser, the GOP strategist from Texas, agreed. “I wouldn’t want to run a campaign against O’Rourke,” he said. He pointed to what he was able to do in … almost beating Cruz. “Look back at what just happened here. It’s pretty incredible. Who else out there on the list really excited people in that way and is the young-looking guy? He reminds a lot of people of Obama or John F. Kennedy or those kinds of candidates.”
Even with his thin résumé? His hazy policies? Steinhauser cut me off.
“Nobody cares,” he said.
“Donald Trump’s policy positions did not matter,” he added, although it should be noted that his visceral pitches in areas like immigration mattered a lot. “I think Democrats want to beat Donald Trump. I think that they’re smart enough to know they need somebody who can win, whatever that means.”
Whether the failed-upward O’Rourke can be that “somebody,” of course, very much remains to be seen. The Iowa caucuses are nearly nine months away, and there’s a long year and a half to go between now and November 2020.
But one recent morning at a seafood restaurant in Ladson, South Carolina, all the booths jammed full, people standing in the back and all the way toward the door, an O’Rourke aide handed the microphone to 69-year-old Stephen Johnson from Mount Pleasant for the last question of the event.
“Congressman O’Rourke,” Johnson said. “I really like you a lot. But there’s one thing I want to know. If you get the Democratic nomination, will you beat Trump?”
O’Rourke answered the question almost before Ladson could finish getting it out of his mouth.
Lots of people want to be James Corden’s best friend. And two people in particular want the title so badly that they’re prepared to do pretty much anything to lock it down.
In the sketch above the The Late Late Show, Anne Hathaway and Rebel Wilson compete for the elusive BFF crown.
It starts with Wilson bringing out a portrait of a particularly chiselled Corden, then ends with a full-on musical number.
There are no real winners, but Anne Hathaway’s dance moves definitely deserve some points.
A free text line for anyone suffering a mental health crisis has launched in the UK, backed by the royals.
The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, William and Kate, and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Meghan and Harry, have helped to bring a version of the U.S.-founded Crisis Text Line to the UK, investing £3m in an offshoot service called Shout.
Launched in 2013 by Nancy Lublin, former CEO of social change organisation DoSomething.org, the Crisis Text Line aims to reduce stigma around mental health and provide aid with its free messaging service.
You can send a message to the 24/7 text line in a moment of need — they’ve processed over 100 million messages — and a trained volunteer crisis counsellor will respond, usually within five minutes depending on traffic. To send a message, text 85258, and while the first two responses are automated, you’ll then be connected to a volunteer for a chat.
Prince William appears in a new video about the service, in which he details how Shout will work.
“As texting is private and silent, it opens up a whole new way to find help,” he said. “It provides instant support. You can have a conversation anywhere, at anytime: at school, at home, on the bus, anywhere.
“I am incredibly excited to be launching this service, knowing it has the potential to reach thousands of vulnerable people every day.”
The Duke of Cambridge said the service had been in development over the last year.
“Catherine, Harry, Meghan, and I have been able to see the service working up close and are very excited for its future,” he said, before taking the opportunity to invite people in the UK to apply as a volunteer crisis counsellor.
“It is not for everyone. There are some very difficult conversations, and you need to be able to listen without judgement on a range of issues, from suicidal thoughts to bullying, abuse, sexuality, self harm, and relationships.”
According to the BBC, Shout launched a 12-month pilot last year, which saw the sign-ups of 1,000 volunteers, and 60,000 conversations.
The royals have spent many years working to end the stigma around mental health. William, Kate, and Harry launched the Heads Together initiative to encourage speaking openly about mental health in 2017. It’s part of The Royal Foundation, which encompasses all their charitable work.
Shout is available in the UK, including England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
The Crisis Text Line team expects to launch in Ireland next, then Australia and South Africa before the end of 2019, then Latin America early 2020.
The more tools at our disposal, particularly within our regular means of communication, the better.
If you want to talk to someone or are experiencing suicidal thoughts, text Shout at 85258 or call 999 for emergency help in the UK. You can also contact theSamaritanson 116 123 orChildlineon 0800 1111. If you’re in the U.S., text theCrisis Text Lineat 741-741 or call theNational Suicide Prevention Lifelineat 1-800-273-8255. Alternatively, a further list of international resources is availablehere.
At an event in Washington on Thursday, Bezos’ spaceflight company Blue Origin unveiled Blue Moon, a lunar lander that can deliver large payloads to the moon.
According to Blue Origin, Blue Moon can land multiple metric tons of payload on the lunar surface, including infrastructure payloads that could be used to prepare for future missions. It can land anywhere on the moon, and has enough power for long missions. A larger variant of the lander, currently in development, can land an ascent vehicle which will allow the company to send humans to the moon and bring them back by 2024.
The year 2024 coincides with the U.S. government’s goal to bring astronauts to the moon. NASA still hasn’t publicly announced a detailed plan on how to do that, and Bezos’ announcement may be a path to a partnership.
We’ll likely see Blue Moon in action before that date; Bezos said the company would test it with an uncrewed mission before sending humans to the moon.
Elon Musk, whose SpaceX company also plans to take humans to the moon (though without landing) and, eventually, Mars, said on Twitter that “competition is good” but also took the opportunity to crack a joke at Blue Moon’s branding.
But putting the word “Blue” on a ball is questionable branding
Blue Origin is not the only private company to develop a lunar lander. Last month, Lockheed Martin announced plans to build a lunar lander of its own, also within the 2024 time frame.