Category: Culture

The reason behind the human ‘week’.

A fascinating history of our week.

Why are there seven days in a week?

The Conversation published a post on this subject back in 2020 under their Curious Kids title. That may have been the reason I did not republish it.

But on June 5th this year, Kelly Kizer Whitt published on EarthSky an article explaining how the ‘week’ came about.

However, I am going to republish the item, as posted by The Conversation.

ooOOoo

Why are there seven days in a week?

Your calendar dates back to Babylonian times. Aleksandra Pikalova/Shutterstock.com

Kristin Heineman, Colorado State University


Why are there seven days in a week? – Henry E., age 8, Somerville, Massachusetts


Waiting for the weekend can often seem unbearable, a whole six days between Saturdays. Having seven days in a week has been the case for a very long time, and so people don’t often stop to ask why.

Most of our time reckoning is due to the movements of the planets, Moon and stars. Our day is equal to one full rotation of the Earth around its axis. Our year is a revolution of the Earth around the Sun, which takes 365 and ¼ days, which is why we add an extra day in February every four years, for a leap year.

But the week and the month are a bit trickier. The phases of the Moon do not exactly coincide with the solar calendar. The Moon cycle is 27 days and seven hours long, and there are 13 phases of the Moon in each solar year.

Some of the earliest civilizations observed the cosmos and recorded the movements of planets, the Sun and Moon. The Babylonians, who lived in modern-day Iraq, were astute observers and interpreters of the heavens, and it is largely thanks to them that our weeks are seven days long.

The reason they adopted the number seven was that they observed seven celestial bodies – the Sun, the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. So, that number held particular significance to them.

Other civilizations chose other numbers – like the Egyptians, whose week was 10 days long; or the Romans, whose week lasted eight.

Some of the earliest civilizations recorded the movements of planets, the Sun and Moon.
Andrey Prokhorov/Shutterstock.com

The Babylonians divided their lunar months into seven-day weeks, with the final day of the week holding particular religious significance. The 28-day month, or a complete cycle of the Moon, is a bit too large a period of time to manage effectively, and so the Babylonians divided their months into four equal parts of seven.

The number seven is not especially well-suited to coincide with the solar year, or even the months, so it did create a few inconsistencies.

However, the Babylonians were such a dominant culture in the Near East, especially in the sixth and seventh centuries B.C., that this, and many of their other notions of time – such as a 60-minute hour – persisted.

The seven-day week spread throughout the Near East. It was adopted by the Jews, who had been captives of the Babylonians at the height of that civilization’s power. Other cultures in the surrounding areas got on board with the seven-day week, including the Persian empire and the Greeks.

Centuries later, when Alexander the Great began to spread Greek culture throughout the Near East as far as India, the concept of the seven-day week spread as well. Scholars think that perhaps India later introduced the seven-day week to China.

Finally, once the Romans began to conquer the territory influenced by Alexander the Great, they too eventually shifted to the seven-day week. It was Emperor Constantine who decreed that the seven-day week was the official Roman week and made Sunday a public holiday in A.D. 321.

The weekend was not adopted until modern times in the 20th century. Although there have been some recent attempts to change the seven-day week, it has been around for so long that it seems like it is here to stay.

Kristin Heineman, Instructor in History, Colorado State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

ooOOoo

So there we are, the ancient history of the week. Including the fact that the weekend was not adopted until the 20th century. In the 1940’s to be precise.

Problem gambling

It takes all types.

I will admit that I have never been one for gambling. Perhaps a small bet between friends in my earlier English days. I do not know the cause of my resistance to ‘playing the odds’. My guess is that it is a product of being born in London in 1944 when life was pretty tight. I grew up being careful about my finances.

Thus, having a better obsession is not something that I understand.

However, this article about Brazil, published in The Conversation, was interesting enough to warrant me republishing it.

ooOOoo

The next World Cup won’t be only about passion for soccer. It will also be about betting obsession

For most of soccer’s history, fans all around the world cheered for goals and other skillful moves, but now online betting platforms have broken the game into hundreds of small financial bets, changing what soccer means emotionally for many of its fans. aniloracru/Unlimphotos

David Nemer, University of Virginia

In Brazil, the World Cup is far more than a sports event; it’s part of the country’s identity. Brazil has won the men’s tournament five times, and has high hopes of a sixth in the upcoming event taking place in Canada, Mexico, and the United States from June 11 to July 19.

In a country where kids play soccer in the streets, the World Cup is one of the rare times when millions across the nation share in the same excitement. But the way many Brazilians experience that excitement has changed for one big reason: Betting.

For most of soccer’s history, fans all around the world cheered for goals, great saves, skillful moves, comebacks, and wins. Now, online betting platforms have broken the game into hundreds of small financial bets. Fans can bet on the final score, but also on yellow and red cards, corners, throw-ins, shots on goal, saves, fouls, and almost every stat the game produces.

This shift changes what soccer means emotionally for many of its fans. For example, someone might cheer for a corner kick against their own team if it helps their bet. They might hope a defender gets a yellow card, even if it’s bad for their side. Some care less about Brazil’s game style and more about how much stoppage time there is for another chance to win a bet.

This isn’t simply about adding more entertainment. It turns passion into a transaction. Soccer’s magic comes from everyone sharing the same hope for a goal. Betting breaks that bond. Now, a foul isn’t just a foul; it’s a chance to win money. A corner kick becomes a way to cash out.

Betting and social costs

This is especially important in Brazil, where online betting is now part of daily life. Fixed-odds betting became legal in 2018, but real rules came much later. Between 2018 and 2024, companies grew quickly in a regulatory gray area, filling soccer, social media, and ads with betting. By the time Brazil’s regulated market started in 2025, betting was already everywhere.

The numbers reveal how big this has become. In 2025, Brazil ranked fifth in the world for online betting revenue – the United States came first, followed by the U.K., Italy and Russia. Around 26.3% of Brazilian households took part in some form of sports betting. In the past year, 39.5 million Brazilians used betting platforms. In just the first quarter of 2025, betting sites in Brazil had over 5 billion visits — more than 650 every second. Central Bank data showed Brazilians were moving up to R$ 30 billion (US$ 6 billion) each month through these platforms.

The social costs are clear. Nineteen percent of bettors, about 7.5 million people, said they spent money on gambling in a way that compromised their livelihood income. Forty-one percent gave up other purchases to bet. Seventeen percent skipped paying a bill to gamble. Twenty-nine percent ended up on bad-debt lists because of betting. The average monthly spend was R$ 187 (US$ 37.4), and for lower-income bettors, it was R$ 151.98 (US$ 30.4). For poor families, that money could have been better spent on food, transport, diapers, electricity, or rent.

And it’s not an exclusively Brazilian problem. Research in the U.S. found that nearly third of Pennsylvania gamblers are at risk of problem gambling. In Australia, gambling harm is likely underreported, while in the U.K. research showed gamblers don’t understand the true cost of so-called “free bets” – offers like welcome bonus on first deposits and other financial inducements.

Ties with masculinity

In Brazil’s favelas, betting is rarely just a pastime, as I observed during two years of fieldwork in communities in the city of Vitória, capital of Espírito Santo state. People see it as hope — a way to stretch a little money when jobs don’t pay enough. One young man told me he started because a coworker told him an app “made money.” He put it simply: “Who doesn’t want to make money these days?”. Another pointed out that people only share their wins, not their losses. Many knew the odds were arranged against them. As one person said, “the ones who really win are the platform owners.”

Soccer betting is also tied to ideas about masculinity. Many young men I spoke with saw sports betting as a way to show their knowledge, control, and skill. Betting on soccer was proof that you understood teams, form, possession, rivalries, and odds. Barbershops and WhatsApp groups became places where men shared tips and advice. One person told me betting was more common among men because it’s about soccer; another said young men “go deeper”, risking more money for bigger wins.

It’s not that women don’t bet; they do. But soccer betting often carries a masculine image: the man as expert, strategist, and provider. When money is tight, betting tells young men they can turn soccer knowledge into cash, and cash into pride. Losing feels shameful, so wins are shown off, and losses are kept quiet. This show of control hides the fact that the platform is really in charge.

Stronger rules and regulations

The 2026 World Cup will make all of this even bigger. There will be daily matches, national pride, celebrity ads, influencer tips, betting links, instant money transfers, and live in-game markets. The tournament will be promoted as a soccer festival. For betting companies, it will also be a chance to profit.

It’s a harsh irony. Brazilians will pin their hopes on the national team, but many will also risk their rent, wages, and emergency funds on bets about cards, fouls, and corners. In this game, the real winners aren’t the fans; they’re the betting platforms.

This doesn’t mean Brazilians should stop loving soccer. It means they need to protect the game from turning into just another way to make money. Simply licensing companies and collecting taxes isn’t enough. Brazil needs strong rules on advertising, real limits on losses and deposits, restrictions on in-game micro-bets that make every foul a bet, and public health campaigns that don’t blame people for a system built to trap them.

The World Cup should remind us why soccer is important. Its beauty isn’t about how many bets you can place. It’s about the impossible goal, the common excitement, the joy of winning together, and the dignity of losing without losing the money you need to live.

David Nemer, Associate Professor in the Department of Media Studies, University of Virginia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

ooOOoo

I have never been to Brazil but I appreciate it is a very big country. It practically takes over South America (SA). I’m certain that it is the largest country in SA.

I have a follower of this blog who lives in SA and if John reads this post perhaps he will leave a comment. I hope so!

Your dog-proof home

A post from Penny Martin.

Penny sent me this post and I thought that I would be able to post it before now. However, it seems like the perfect item for today.

ooOOoo

How to Design a Stylish Home That Stands Up to Your Dog

Dog owners who care about décor know the daily tug-of-war between stylish pet-friendly interiors and real-life messes. A sofa that looks perfect can turn into a scratch magnet, clean walls collect nose smudges, and “nice” floors don’t always survive muddy paws, spilled water, or surprise zoomies. The heart of dog-friendly home design is balancing aesthetics and functionality without treating every room like a sacrifice zone. With the right mindset, pet damage challenges can become design boundaries that still leave a home feeling pulled together.

Make 7 Upgrades That Survive Paws, Spills, and Zoomies

If you’ve ever tried to keep a home looking pulled-together while living with a dog who treats the hallway like a racetrack, you already know the goal: durable choices that still feel like you. These upgrades focus on the high-impact trouble spots, floors, walls, entryways, feeding zones, and the yard, so your style holds up to real life.

  1. Choose scratch-resistant flooring in the “runway” zones: If you can’t replace every floor, prioritize the routes your dog actually uses, entry → living room → back door. Look for scratch-resistant flooring with a tough wear layer, and use large, low-pile rugs (with a grippy pad) in corners where dogs pivot and launch. Keep nail trims on a 2–4 week rhythm to reduce micro-scratches, especially on stairs and landings.
  2. Create a paw-and-mud landing strip at the entry: Give dirt and water a place to “stop” before it hits your sofa. Add a washable runner, a closed hamper for dog towels, and a hook or basket for wipes right by the door. A shallow boot tray works great as a water bowl “parking spot,” too, especially for sloppy drinkers.
  3. Install a built-in dog feeding station (even a mini version): A built-in feeding station keeps bowls from wandering, helps contain splashes, and makes the feeding area feel intentional instead of cluttered. For a simple DIY approach, dedicate the bottom of a pantry cabinet or a mudroom nook and add a wipeable surface underneath. If your dog is a messy eater, choose deeper bowls and keep a small handheld vacuum nearby for daily 30-second resets.
  4. Protect walls and corners with “invisible armor”: Paint scuffs and body-oil streaks happen right at nose height and shoulder height. Use a durable, wipeable finish on walls, and add corner guards or wood trim where dogs rub and turn. If you’re renting or not ready to build, a narrow console table along a high-traffic wall can act like a stylish bumper.
  5. Set up a safe zoomie zone with flexible barriers: Instead of correcting your dog all day, manage the space. Use baby gates to block off carpeted rooms, kids’ toy areas, or the staircase when you can’t supervise. This is especially helpful during muddy season, post-bath chaos, or when guests are coming and you need a calm, contained zone fast.
  6. Upgrade fabrics to “cleanable by default” seating: Treat your sofa like performance gear: tight weaves, washable covers, and darker or heathered colors hide fur and drool better than flat, light solids. Keep a throw blanket on your dog’s favorite spot and wash it weekly, your couch stays nicer without starting a daily battle.
  7. Design pet-friendly landscaping for safe outdoor dog areas: Skip yard materials that can hurt paws or tempt chewing, and build a clear path where your dog naturally runs. Penn State Extension suggests flagstones or smooth gravel for pathways, which can reduce paw irritation and keep traffic from killing the grass. Aim for one easy-to-clean potty zone, one shaded “hangout” spot, and fencing you can trust, because outdoor durability counts just as much as indoor style.

Plan New-Home Peace of Mind: Ask About Structural Warranties

Those durability upgrades feel even better when your long-term protection matches the care you’re putting into the build. If you’re building a new dog-friendly home, ask your builder about adding a structural warranty or similar long-term protection, specifically, what’s included, how long it lasts, and how claims work. Solid warranty coverage for new builds can help safeguard the home’s underlying integrity if bigger issues show up later, which matters when everyday dog life adds extra wear and tear. It also helps protect the money you’re investing in pet-friendly choices like durable flooring and built-in features, so you’re not left feeling like you upgraded everything except your peace of mind.

Dog-Proof Design Options at a Glance

This quick comparison helps you choose finishes and features that look intentional, not improvised around your dog. Use it to balance durability, safety, and day-to-day convenience across high-traffic floors, outdoor boundaries, and feeding setups.

OptionBenefitBest ForConsideration
Luxury vinyl plank flooringScratch and spill resistance with many modern stylesBusy kitchens, mudrooms, play zonesCan dent under heavy furniture or sharp impacts
Porcelain tile with matte finishVery tough surface; easy cleanupSlobbery drinkers, rainy-paw householdsHard underfoot; use runners for traction
Real hardwood plus washable runnersClassic look with replaceable protectionLiving rooms where warmth mattersMore visible wear; requires routine refinishing over time
Vinyl-coated chain-link fenceDurable, lower cost, secure containmentLarge yards and strong pullersMore utilitarian look; needs thoughtful landscaping
Built-in feeding station in cabinetryKeeps bowls tidy for a seamless polished lookSmall kitchens and design-forward spacesLess flexible if you change bowl sizes or layout

If traction and easy cleanup are your top priorities, start with flooring and add rugs where your dog sprints or turns fast. If curb appeal matters most, fence style and a discreet feeding zone can make pet features feel fully “designed in.” Knowing which option fits best makes your next move clear.

Dog-Friendly Design FAQs Homeowners Actually Ask

Q: Can a dog-friendly home still protect resale value?
A: Yes, when you choose features that read as timeless upgrades, not pet-only add-ons. Think durable floors in classic tones, washable textiles, and clean-lined storage that hides leashes and toys. Keep any pet-specific elements easy to remove or swap so the home still shows well to non-pet buyers.

Q: How do I keep my floors from looking wrecked in a year?
A: Start with prevention: trim nails regularly and place a textured runner where your dog launches into turns. Use felt pads under furniture and wipe up grit fast, since sand acts like sandpaper. A small “paw station” by the door can cut down on tracked-in dirt.

Q: What’s the simplest way to manage shedding and odors without losing the cozy vibe?
A: Choose low-pile rugs, slipcovers, and throws you can wash weekly, then stick to a quick two-minute daily sweep in high-shed zones. A lidded hamper for dog blankets keeps smells contained. Ventilate after baths and rainy walks so fabrics stay fresh.

Q: Should I build in a feeding area, or keep it flexible?
A: Built-ins look polished, but flexibility often wins for real life. Try a wipeable mat and a tray that can move for cleaning, guests, or a new bowl size. If you love the built-in idea, plan for extra width and a removable insert.

Q: Can my dog’s routine really affect how well my home holds up?
A: Absolutely, because calmer dogs tend to do less damage when they are bored or overstimulated. A simple step is choosing the best foods for your dog with your vet, since nutrition can influence energy and behavior. Pair that with predictable exercise and a designated chew zone to protect your furniture.

Make Stylish, Dog-Ready Design Choices That Last

Living with a dog can feel like a constant tug-of-war between a home that looks good and one that can handle real life. The calmer path is a mindset of integrating pets into home life, planning for paws, fur, and play while still aiming for stylish and functional living. When that approach guides confident dog owner design choices, harmonious dog-friendly homes become easier to maintain, not harder to enjoy. Design for the dog you live with, and style will follow. Choose one long-term pet-friendly design change to start this week, and let it set the tone for the rest of your space. A home that supports both of you builds daily ease, deeper connection, and resilience for the years ahead.

ooOOoo

That is an excellent set of recommendations, many of which would not have occurred to me. Neither to Jeannie, who has loads more experience of looking after dogs than I have.

So, thank you, Penny and I look forward to your next ‘guest’ post.

A wonderful poem from Bela

And I am not going to let my words interfere. Just read this.

ooOOoo

Clear the Needle

Who is she,
if she does not even know herself?

Trajectories confuse
when forced
into linear containers..

Like the cosmos —
all spirals and orbits —
we spin and dance,

sometimes skillfully,
sometimes clumsily.

The vinyl record spinning,
fine dust collecting
on the diamond needle.

We must stop
from time to time
and clear it

so that we might perceive sound
more accurately,
truer to itself.

I have collected
more than my share
of detritus.

But I have never been granted
the grace of someone or something
clearing the needle for me.

It remains a reminder
to pause.

Stop the music.
Lift the arm.
Clear the cartridge.

Begin again.

ooOOoo

Not only was Bela’s poem perfect so, too, was the comment left on Bela’s site from Shakti that I am going to share in full.

Hi Bela,

I found in the verse a striking metaphor for the human condition. 

We spend so much of life assuming the music has changed, when often it is the dust on our own needle that has altered the sound. Memory, hurt, ego, assumptions, fatigue—each leaves its fine sediment, subtly distorting how we hear ourselves, others, and the world. 

The most profound act, perhaps, is not to keep forcing the song forward, but to pause with enough honesty to ask: what in me is creating this static? The verse’s quiet power lies in rejecting rescue—no one may come to clear the needle for us. Self-awareness, then, becomes both responsibility and grace. To stop. To clean. To begin again—not as the same listener, but as a truer one

Shakti

To begin again—not as the same listener, but as a truer one

As I said, a perfect comment.

Reflections

There is an art to letting go.

Freedom,

Home, as in being at home,

Trust, as in the predominate feeling,

I AM OK.

Health, good diet and exercise,

Safe – I feel safe,

Love, I am surrounded by love,

Peace, yet another predominate feeling,

Calm, and yet another predominate feeling.

Think about these qualities

There’s an art to letting go.

oooo

I wrote this for Jean on March 22nd, 2026.

I ended it by writing that I loved Jean. Very much!

The unacceptable side of technology

The right to repair one’s own technology products is under attack.

I hadn’t really thought of this before now. I am speaking of an article last Friday that was published by The Conversation.

A large part of me is very open to the ways that technology is helping me. I presume that I am far from being alone.

Here is that article that questions the way things are.

ooOOoo

Today’s bans on DIY repairs of everything from cell phones to tractors grew out of Hollywood’s fear of videotaping

Betamax video recorders like this one helped set off a chain of events leading to bans on repairing your own devices. Steve Jurvetson/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY

Oana Godeanu-Kenworthy, Miami University

If you have ever tried to repair something, realized that it was beyond your financial or technical means, and ended up buying a new one, you are not alone. Repairing electronics and household appliances has not been a real option in the United States for decades now, particularly for items that have proprietary software in them.

Absurd situations have proliferated. It can cost about the same to buy a new printer as it does to replace the ink cartridge. The U.S. Department of Defense cannot repair the weapons systems it purchases because the intellectual property rights remain with the manufacturer. John Deere, the farming equipment company, doesn’t allow farmers to access the software needed to repair their own combines and tractors because, while the purchase covers the physical machinery, it does not cover the software.

One consequence, in addition to cost and frustration for consumers, is environmental harm. The U.S. is the world’s second producer of electronic waste after China, to the tune of about 43 lbs (19.5 kg) of electronic waste annually per person. Only 25% of this e-waste is recycled.

The right-to-repair movement emerged in response, calling for people to be able to repair what they purchase, or have third parties do the repair work, without unnecessary financial, legal or technical barriers. Right to repair seems to be a rare area of bipartisanship in Congress. The Warrior Right to Repair Act – introduced in 2025 by a Democrat – and the Repair Act – introduced by a Republican – are two ongoing legislative initiatives to create a federal legal framework that would make it easy and cheap for American users to repair their devices. Both bills are fiercely opposed by industry groups.

As a scholar of American culture, I found through my research that the origins of the legal and technical obstacles to product repairs lie in debates in the 1980s over new media and copyright guardrails.

Hollywood and VCRs

The rapid rise and popularity of video cassette recorders, or VCRs, in the late 1970s transformed films and TV shows from transient experiences into tangible consumer goods. As I show in my book, “Videotape,” despite the potential for extra revenue, Hollywood was alarmed by the fact that users were now able to copy films on videotape, and tried to stop the technology. Today’s repair bans are part of that story.

The first U.S. copyright provisions were embedded in the 1790 Constitution. Over time, the law was amended to include new technologies, but at the core of future legal arrangements remained the initial intent: to protect the financial rights of creators while giving enough access to information for society as a whole to progress.

Until the second half of the 20th century, the American doctrine of fair use, which allows the unlicensed use of protected works under specific conditions, allowed judges to prevent copyright law from negatively affecting public interest. Organizations such as public libraries, book clubs, universities and news organizations benefited from this legal approach. The concept was codified into American law in the Copyright Act of 1976.

When the film studios took Sony to court to stop the production and sale of video recorders in 1976, they argued that Sony’s product encouraged copyright infringement. But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1984 that taping TV content for personal use did not violate copyright law, expanding the understanding of fair use.

The industry then focused on finding a technological solution to the piracy problem and on securing stricter legal protections for its products.

They identified the digital versatile disc, or DVD, as a safer alternative to the VHS tape. Initially, the DVD was a read-only format. It took a few more years of engineering before affordable recording was possible. Even then, the process was far more complicated for users than videotape recording. In 1997, barely one year after the video disc was launched, all of the Motion Picture Association of America member studios joined the DVD Forum, collectively adopted the new format and started to phase out films released on videotape. https://www.youtube.com/embed/46RDkiy5h3U?wmode=transparent&start=0 Manufacturers use several tactics to block consumers and third-party repair shops from fixing their products.

Copyright and virtual locks

Then came digital rights management. Collectively, the term refers to the battery of technological tools that the industry developed in order to control user access to content. These include encryption software and various forms of authentication or enforcement software that limit which types of digital activities users can perform. For instance, some mechanisms block the option to download or share a digital file.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1998, provided the broad legal framework that allowed these technological locks to expand far beyond entertainment, including to software. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act reflected a new alignment in interests between the entertainment and software industries. It increased existing penalties for copyright infringement online and criminalized any technology used to bypass technological locks. The law was adopted although at the time – and since then – critics warned that it could stifle innovation and increase costs for consumers.

Since 1998, more and more consumer products, from toys to dishwashers, use microchips and proprietary software protected by copyright. Because of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, third party repairers cannot alter or bypass the proprietary software. If they did so, they would be liable for infringing the manufacturer’s intellectual property rights, as is the case for John Deere farm equipment. Some electronics are even designed to make tampering with the product impossible.

Manufacturers maintain that only they or authorized personnel can and should repair their products. These repairs are often quite costly. When getting a product repaired becomes almost as expensive as buying a new one, many consumers will choose to buy and throw repairable items away.

Rising resentment over repair bans

Technology tends to outpace existing legal arrangements. With over 80% of Americans supporting the right to repair, it remains to be seen when or if American law will catch up with the unexpected consequences of a law meant to protect the intellectual rights of the creative industries, but which is now hurting consumers’ pocket books.

Oana Godeanu-Kenworthy, Teaching Professor of American Studies, Miami University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

ooOOoo

The end of that article points out that more than 80% of Americans support the right to repair and, I guess, that support extends far beyond the USA.

Indeed, a quick online search found that in the UK an organisation, Restart, had a website on the subject. Here is a little of what they said;

The last few years have been really exciting for the Right to Repair in many countries outside the UK. Around the world we’ve seen people get access to more repairable and longer lasting products, cheaper repair options and better information about product repairability. As a result, repair is helping tackle climate change, reduce waste, lower living costs, support communities and create green skilled jobs in more places than ever.

Then another search found out that the Eurpoean Commission had a Right to repair law in place. It was introduced in 2024. Here’s how it starts:

“The new rules reinforce the right to repair, aim to reduce waste and bolster the repair sector by making it easier and more cost-effective to repair goods.

So, hopefully, Oana, the teaching professor at Miami University, can establish a new law that will give American consumers the right to replair their technology belongings.

An Internet Passport

This is a brilliant idea.

A Passport is a very important document. I have both a British and an American passport.

For most of my life there has been no World Wide Web (WWW). And being the age I am I do not pretend to know all the lastest advances in the WWW field. But my grandson is an avid user and, presumably, so are millions of other teenagers across the world.

Thus the idea of an Internet Passport is smart, extremely useful, and brilliant.

ooOOoo

The INTERNET PASSPORT Will Advance Civilization, Promote Democracy, Reduce Censorship, Save The Children And Fight Crime. What is There Not To Like?

Question: How could an internet passport, where the identity of an individual would be displayed, not improve security, safety of children, advance civilization, and even promote democracy if associated with completely constitutionally protected free speech?

The INTERNET PASSPORT would enable to control the age and granular exposure of children to the INTERNET. Presumably, the more than doubling of the suicide rate of girls is related directly to WRONGFUL INTERNET EXPOSURE. Not acting on the Internet Passport would be tantamount to complicity in the abuse and deaths of millions of girls.

If one enters a country, one is required by the authorities to produce a document called a PASSPORT informing them of our identity. Otherwise NO entry. The controls are stiffer if a child is involved, as they should: child trafficking is as old as humanity (and was outlawed by the European Queen Bathilde in 657 CE). So why not the same sort of control of who is entering, when entering the Internet?

A huge problem with the Internet has been too much access by children and access to age inappropriate content. Another bad problem has been the usage of the Internet by Organized Crime.

A simple way to prevent ILLEGAL INTERNET USAGE is to deliver INTERNET PASSPORTSA law passed worldwide  would be impossible to access the Internet without an INTERNET PASSPORT  The passports would have a degree of security and control comparable to that of a passport to pass physical ports. I am sure China would have to approve.

Organized Crime, which profits from adopting the latest Internet tech faster than anybody else, will protest (and some politicians on its payroll will listen). It may be objected by individuals who claim to be good citizens, that the instauration of an INTERNET PASSPORT would introduce a worldwide police state. On a personal basis, I am very much against police states… If the policing goes beyond the law enforcement necessary and sufficient to make sure the constitutional laws are respected. But only then. I firmly believe that a substantial population is kept in check only through the knowledge of potentially efficient police action (I have been a victim of serious crimes more than a few times).

To make sure that the INTERNET PASSPORT does not bring a non constitutional dictatorship, PARRHEISIA and ISEGORIA which should be META CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES ought to be enforced by arsenals of laws

Parrheisa and Isegoria basically ensure FREEDOM and EQUALITY of speech, not just by allowing them, and making them constitutional, but by making them CIVIC DUTIES.. Thus constitutional speech and expression and their dissemination would be protected…. Which is certainly NOT the case now.

The usual objections will be raised by the same ones who object to cameras: intrusion on private lives. But that is silly. My main outlet is wilderness exploration. If drones would follow me everywhere, I would feel safer. They can spy on me all day long, but I do nothing wrong, aside from calculated risk[1].

The argument, made for years by many of the world’s wealthiest individuals, like Meta’s Zuckenberg, has been a nebulous “People’s right to privacy”. There is no such a thing because the “Right to Privacy” gets ABROGATED BY THE RIGHT TO SURVIVAL (I learned the abrogation idea in my studies of Islamic law, ironically enough…) As the singularity technology evolves, so does the power of individuals: somebody evil could sneak in with, say, Ebola in a jar… But no doubt planning Mass Destruction would involve Internet usage and could be recognized by LAW ENFORCEMENT AI… As long as distinct sources can be identified.

***

Naturally this simple treatment of an Internet malady has not been suggested. Instead fake news media has insisted on applying censorship on sites they consider “violent”. But of course one of the main ways dictatorships achieve control is through censorship of (what they consider to be) “violence” (the coverup is that only the dictator can use violence to suppress what the dictator calls violence)..

Much of the “culture” that young people are exposed to today is violent and extremely divisive, instead of being informational and collaborative. Why? Well, the established plutocracy has always tried, for keeping in control, to divide (and conquer). The controlling plutocracy has always greater means to adopt the latest tech, as when Hitler adopted air travel and radio to get elected. So naturally, the plutocracy we enjoy adopted Internet control and directing it towards the children was particularly perverse.

Patrice Ayme 

[1] One of my fears is an accident which would leave me crippled and rescue would not arrive in time (I have occasionally been in absolutely gigantic landscapes with no one or no sign of human activity in sight; once in Nevada, a billionaire crashed his plane. Neither he nor the plane were ever found… It’s called Nevada for a good reason… Last year I broke an arm in the mountain consecutive to rock failure and subsequent fall; I took the decision to go down the mountain, waiting for rescue would have meant death from exposure. Being able to tell a drone to fetch rescue, or more precisely blankets and shelter would have been safer. Helis couldn’t fly.)  

***

[2] In 2026 CNN and other plutocratic serving media oligopolies pressured the UK government to shut down entire websites because those sites showed violence. Showing violence somehow causes violence according to CNN (does this theory make CNN into a terrorist organization?). Instead one should behave as if all was for the best in the best of all possible words. 

Paradoxically, the Internet Passport will force much greater democracy, because it could not be an improvement without Isegoria and Parrhesia. Those two are needed because the US First Amendment protects only aspects of free speech addressed to the government (and the situation is even worse in all other countries)…

Patrice Ayme

ooOOoo

Whether or not, governments across the world will implement these changes, this response to the online world we now live in, is terribly uncertain.

I regret that i am not holding my breath.

The ‘Free’ Trial

As you are seeing on the Web.

This article from The Conversation really resonated with me. For as the online world is advancing, so too is the darker side of the Web.

Here is that article.

ooOOoo

Dark patterns on the web are designed to manipulate you – why aren’t they all illegal?

Website designs that try to change your behavior cross a line when they outright deceive. Fizkes/iStock via Getty Images

Gregory M. Dickinson, University of Nebraska-Lincoln; Institute for Humane Studies

You open a free app to do one simple thing. Before you even start, a full-screen message asks whether you want to try the paid version. The “Start free trial” button is large, bright and hard to miss. The option to keep using the free version is smaller, buried at the bottom. The same prompt appears again tomorrow. And the day after that.

A lot of people look at screens like that and think, “Surely this has to be illegal.” We even have a name for them, “dark patterns.” They feel pushy. They waste time. They seem designed to wear you down. But in most cases, they are perfectly lawful.

“Dark pattern” is not a legal term with a clear boundary. It is a broad label for digital designs that nudge, pressure, confuse or trap users. As a legal scholar who studies consumer protection and digital design, I think the most important thing for readers to understand is that the label “dark pattern” covers a broad spectrum.

Some of that spectrum is just annoying. Some of it is aggressive salesmanship. And some of it crosses the line into deception or coercion. Federal and state consumer protection laws are mostly aimed at that last category. They do not ban every design choice people dislike, only those that trick or coerce.

Annoying isn’t illegal

smartphone screenshot of images of a well-dressed young man
The ‘X’ in the upper right corner of this ad, for users to click to dismiss the ad, appears after the ad has been displayed for a moment. The ad also has an ‘X’ in the upper left corner, which is part of the image in the ad. Some users might click the ‘X’ on the left to dismiss the ad but instead be sent to the ad’s website. Possibly annoying but not illegal. Screen capture by Gregory Dickinson

That reality may sound unsatisfying, but it is not unusual. Offline life is full of things that are irritating but not unlawful. Think of the cashier who asks whether you want to sign up for the store credit card, then points out the discount you are turning down, then asks again. Most people know exactly what is happening. They roll their eyes, say no and try to shop somewhere else next time.

The same is true online. A repeated pop-up can be obnoxious. A guilt-inducing button can be tacky. But consumers recognize ordinary annoyance for what it is. In many cases, the market answer is simple: Close the app, ignore the pitch or take your business elsewhere.

Similarly, law does not ban persuasive sales pitches just because they are effective. A car salesperson who keeps steering you toward the upgraded model is trying to influence your choice. So is the airline clerk who offers travel insurance. So is the restaurant server who asks whether you want dessert. Salesmanship is nothing new. Digital design often borrows from familiar techniques.

That helps explain why lawmakers cannot simply outlaw “manipulation.” And so many interfaces are built to persuade, openly and lawfully.

What crosses the line

What the federal FTC Act and analogous state consumer-deception statutes usually care about is not whether a design is annoying. They focus on whether the design is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. That is the core idea in modern consumer protection law.

So a design is likelier to be unlawful when it hides key facts, makes an optional choice look mandatory or tricks people about the effect of the button they are pressing. A fake countdown timer, a disguised ad, a misleading one-click purchase button or a cancellation path that looks finished when it is not are all different from ordinary hard selling. Those designs do not just pressure users; they can deceive them.

That is also why the app maker’s intent is not always the key question. In many consumer protection cases, a company does not get a free pass just because no one said, “Let’s trick people.” The legal question is often about effect: What would a reasonable user likely understand from this screen?

Research on dark patterns reinforces that concern. Even relatively mild designs can push people into choices they would not otherwise make. And regulators have increasingly focused on subscription flows, hidden fees and cancellation obstacles for exactly that reason.

image of a website form with a pop-up box in front of it
The instructions for this web form and the pop-up box that appears when users click ‘Continue’ indicate that the form has required fields. The form uses the word ‘mandatory,’ which could lead some users to believe that the form itself is required in order to continue when it is instead optional. Possibly annoying but not illegal. Screen capture by Gregory Dickinson

Why it feels like dark patterns are everywhere

One reason people might think there are no laws against dark patterns is that they see them so often. But that frequency reflects that the term covers a wide range of conduct, from lawful nagging to outright deception.

It also reflects enforcement limits. Regulators cannot chase every irritating screen on every app and website. They have to prioritize the worst cases. That leaves a lot of borderline conduct in the wild, which makes the whole problem feel bigger and murkier to ordinary users.

So when people ask why there is not a law against dark patterns, the best answer is that there already is, but the law does not prohibit every annoying or high-pressure design. It targets lies, misleading cues and coercive obstacles.

That line can be fuzzy. But the fuzziness is not a mistake. It is what you get when the law tries to separate persuasion from deception in a world full of both.

Gregory M. Dickinson, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Nebraska-Lincoln; Institute for Humane Studies

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

ooOOoo

Gregory Dickinson does us a real service. Especially when the intention is to pass on blatant mistruths.

So many people get sucked into these dark patterns. The legality of these dark matters needs to be re-examined.

Connecting with the natural world

Please, please, let us remember this.

It is my habit to listen to BBC Radio 4 in the early morning. Especially The World at One from 13:00 to 13:45 BST and then, usually, the 15-minute programme transmitted immediately afterwards.

Yesterday, that programme was the start of a new ten-part series called RINSED. Here’s how it is described on the website:

1. The Bridge

Rinsed.

 Episode 1 of 13

After watching their local river grow murky and lifeless, two retired neighbours decide to take on the water industry and its regulators. The unlikely sleuths begin a ten-year battle to clean up our rivers.

On the banks of the River Windrush in Oxfordshire, Kate Lamble meets campaigners Ash Smith and Peter Hammond

Reported and presented by Kate Lamble 
Producer: Elle Scott
Sound Design: Andy Fell
Executive Producer: Joe Kent 
Commissioning Executive: Tracy Williams
Commissioning Editor: Dan Clarke 

Rinsed is a BBC Studios production for BBC Radio 4

Here is the link to the programme.

Geo. Monbiot’s Grim Message

Action regarding the climate crisis.

The following essay from George Monbiot is a difficult read but it is also a necessary read.

With the news that the polar ice caps are retreating, just read yesterday: “Polar ice caps and sheets are shrinking at alarming rates due to global warming, with Arctic sea ice decreasing by over 12% per decade and polar ice sheets losing 7,560 billion tonnes of ice between 1992 and 2020. Greenland and Antarctica are losing hundreds of billions of tons of ice annually, significantly contributing to rising sea levels. [1234]”

ooOOoo

Alternating Current

Posted on 29th April, 2026

If this crucial circulation system shuts down, the civilisational impacts will be irreversible. So why isn’t it a top priority?

By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 23rd April 2026

The poor and middle pay taxes, the rich pay accountants, the very rich pay lawyers – and the ultra-rich pay politicians. It’s not an original remark, but it bears repeating until everyone has heard it. The more money billionaires accumulate, the greater their control of the political system – which means they pay less tax, which means they accumulate more, which means their control intensifies.

They reshape the world to suit their demands. One of the symptoms of the pathology known as “billionaire brain” is an inability to see beyond their own short-term gain. They would sack the planet for a few more stones on the pointless mountain of wealth. And we can see it happening. Last week delivered the biggest news of the year so far, perhaps the biggest news of the century. But partly because billionaires own most of the media, most people never heard it. We might find ourselves committed to a civilisation-ending event before we even learn that such a thing is possible.

The news is that the state of a crucial oceanic circulation system has been reassessed by scientists. Some now believe that, as a result of climate breakdown changing the temperature and salinity of seawater, it is more likely than not to collapse. This system – known as the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (Amoc) – delivers heat from the tropics to the North Atlantic. Recent research suggests that if it shuts down, it could cause both a massive drop in average winter temperatures in northern Europe and drastic changes in the Amazon’s water cycles. This could help tip the rainforest into cascading collapse and trigger further disaster.

Amoc’s shutdown is likely also to cause an acceleration of sea level rise on the east coast of the US, threatening cities. It could also raise Antarctic temperatures by roughly 6C and release a vast pulse of carbon currently stored in the Southern Ocean, accelerating climate catastrophe.

Even when the countervailing effects of generalised global heating are taken into account, a further paper proposes, the net impact in northern Europe would be periods of extreme cold – including events in which temperatures in London fall to -19C, in Edinburgh to -30C and in Oslo to -48C. Sea ice in February would extend as far as Lincolnshire. Our climate would change drastically, with the likelihood of far greater extremes, such as massive winter storms. Rain-fed arable agriculture would become impossible almost everywhere in the UK.

This shift, on any realistic human scale, would be irreversible. Its speed is likely to outrun our ability to adapt. Amoc shutdowns, driven by natural climate variability, have happenedbefore. But not in the era of large-scale human civilisation.

The first paper proposing that Amoc might have an on-state and an off-state was published in 1961. Since then, many studies have confirmed the finding and explored potential triggers and likely implications. Until recently, Amoc collapse caused by human activity fell into the category of a “high impact, low probability” event, devastating if it happens, but unlikely to occur.

Research over the past few years prompted a reassessment: it began to look more like a “high impact, high probability” event. Now, in response to last week’s paper, Prof Stefan Rahmstorf – perhaps the world’s leading authority on the subject – says the chances of a shutdown look like “more than 50%”. We could pass the tipping point, he says, “in the middle of this century”.

So why is this not all over the news? Why is it not the top priority for the governments that claim to protect us from harm? Well, in large part because oligarchic power has championed a model of climate impact that bears little relation to reality: that is, they have a hypothesis about how the world works that is completely detached from scientific findings. This model underpins official responses to the climate crisis.

It began with the work of the economist William Nordhaus, who sought to assess the economic effects of global heating. His modelling suggests that a “socially optimal” level of heating is between 3.5C and 4C. Most climate scientists see a temperature rise of this kind as catastrophic. Even 6C of heating, Nordhaus suggests, would cause a loss of just 8.5% of GDP. Climate science suggests it would look more like curtains for civilisation.

As the eminent economists Nicholas Stern, Joseph Stiglitz and Charlotte Taylor have argued, the mild effects Nordhaus forecasts are merely artefacts of the model he has used. For example, his modelling assumes that catastrophic risks do not exist and that climate impacts rise linearly with temperature. There is no climate model that proposes such a trend. Instead, climate science forecasts nonlinear impacts and greatly escalating risk.

The likely impacts of high levels of heating include the inundation of major cities, the closure of the human climate niche (the conditions that sustain human life) across large parts of the globe, the collapse of the global food system and cascading regime shifts – that is, abrupt transitions in ecosystems – releasing natural carbon stores, potentially leading to a “hothouse Earth” in which very few survive. Never mind a few points off GDP: there would be no means of measurement and scarcely an economy to measure.

Bizarrely, the modelling also applies discount rates to future people: their lives, it assumes, are worth less than ours. In other words, it has taken a method used to calculate returns to capital and applied it to human beings. As the three economists point out, “it is very difficult to find a justification for this in moral philosophy.” Moreover, climate impacts disproportionately affect the poor – but under the models, their lives are also priced down.

Unsurprisingly, models of this kind, Stern, Stiglitz and Taylor note, have been seized on by “special interests” such as the fossil fuel industry to argue for minimal responses to the climate crisis. And it’s not just the oil companies. Bill Gates, who claims to want to protect the living planet, has given $3.5m (£2.6m) to a junktank run by Bjorn Lomborg, who has built his career on promoting Nordhaus’s model, thus helping to downplay the need for climate action. Nordhaus was awarded the Nobel Memorial prize for economics for his pernicious nonsense – and it is deeply embedded in government decision-making.

A billionaire death cult has its fingers around humanity’s throat. It both causes and downplays our existential crisis. The oligarchs are not just a class enemy but, as they have always been, a societal enemy: a few thousand people can destroy civilisations. It’s the billions v the billionaires, and the stakes could not possibly be higher.

http://www.monbiot.com

ooOOoo

Until I came to live in the the USA permanently, in 2010, I used to live in South Devon, near Totnes. Thus the AMOC was very familiar to me and the local population. AMOC stands for Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. Much more information on AMOC may be read on the WikiPedia site.

Although the future of the AMOC is uncertain, many scientists are concerned that the AMOC will weaken.

The above article by George Monbiot is potentially frightening. As Monbiot says at the end; “… a few thousand people can destroy civilisations.

What we need is a few thousand people to make this the number one priority! Not tomorrow but today!