julian nakpil
Cadre Holdings CEO Warren Kanders sells $1.66 million in stock
The Bull Market Keeps Growing: 3 Reasons to Buy Amazon Stock Like There's No TomorrowAfter 8 years, Fiji finally wins in Dubai
Kobe Sanders tied a season high with 27 points as Nevada claimed fifth place in the Charleston Classic with a 90-78 victory over Oklahoma State Sunday afternoon in South Carolina. Sanders helped the Wolfpack (6-1) earn a second win following one-possession games against Vanderbilt and VCU. After hitting the decisive 3-pointer with five seconds left in Friday's 64-61 win over VCU, Sanders made 7 of 10 shots, hit three 3s and sank 10 of 13 free throws Sunday. Nick Davidson added 223 points as Nevada led by as many as 19 and shot 58.9 percent. Brandon Love contributed 11 on 5-of-5 shooting as the Wolfpack scored 46 points in the paint and scored at least 85 for the fourth time this season. Marchelus Avery led the Cowboys (4-2) with 15 points and Arturo Dean added 13. Robert Jennings and Abou Ousmane added 11 apiece but leading scorer Bryce Thompson was held to seven points on 1-of-9 shooting as Oklahoma State shot 42 percent and 73.2 percent (30-of-41) at the line. After Avery's 3 forged a 12-12 tie with 13:41 remaining, Nevada gradually gained separation. The Wolfpack took a 24-15 lead on Chuck Bailey's jumper in the paint with 8:28 left but the Cowboys inched back, getting within 33-31 on a dunk by Avery with 4:11 left. Another Bailey jumper staked Nevada to a 40-33 lead by halftime. Nevada began pulling away early in the second half as it scored eight in a row for a 52-40 lead on a basket by Love with 16:44 left. A 3 by Sanders opened a 62-43 lead with 14:06 remaining before Oklahoma State charged back. After Nevada made eight straight shots, the Cowboys countered with 11 straight points and trailed 62-54 with 11:19 left on a 3-pointer by Avery. Thompson made his first basket by sinking a jumper with 10:37 left to get Oklahoma State within 64-56 left, and Keller's triple cut the margin to 70-64 nearly three minutes later. The Cowboys were within 78-72 on a basket by Avery with 3:56 remaining, but he fouled out about a minute later and the Wolfpack outscored Oklahoma State 12-6 the rest of the way as Sanders sank five free throws. --Field Level Media10-20 cm of snow expected in Ottawa starting Monday
On the Left: Christmas stories have historical roots
Imagine a light bulb that has been burning since 1901. Nestled in a quiet Californian fire station, the Centennial Light challenges today’s disposable culture, offering a glimpse into a past where products were built to last. This historical anomaly sets the stage for a broader examination of how planned obsolescence has become embedded in the fabric of our consumer electronics industry, from light bulbs to smartphones. As we explore the evolution from durable goods to disposable gadgets, we uncover this shift’s economic and environmental implications and the legislative pushback it’s now engendering. This narrative takes us from the Centennial Light’s enduring glow to the heated debates in legislative halls worldwide, advocating for a return to durability. The light bulb that outlasted a century A remarkable piece of history illuminates a local fire station in the quiet town of Livermore, California. Known as the Centennial Light, this bulb has been burning for over a century, almost without interruption. Its longevity is so extraordinary that it earned a place in the Guinness Book of World Records. Originally a 60-watt bulb, its carbon filament has gradually dimmed to the equivalent of a 4-watt bulb today due to the natural degradation of its material. The bulb is encased in hand-blown glass, a testament to the craftsmanship of the late 19th century. The Centennial Light’s continuous operation, now surpassing a million hours, starkly contrasts with modern light bulbs. Today’s bulbs predominantly use tungsten filaments, a shift from the carbon filaments of the past. Tungsten, introduced in the early 20th century, has a higher melting point, which allows for brighter and more efficient bulbs. However, despite these advancements, the average modern incandescent bulb does not approach the lifespan of its historic predecessors like the Centennial Light. The Phoebus Cartel and planned obsolescence The phenomenon of short-lived light bulbs can be traced back to a pivotal meeting in 1924. In Geneva, Switzerland, executives from the world’s leading light bulb manufacturers, including Philips, Osram, and General Electric (which had taken over Shelby Electric), convened to address a growing threat to their businesses: bulbs that lasted too long. This meeting marked the formation of the Phoebus Cartel, named after the Greek god of light. The cartel’s goal was straightforward but impactful: to ensure that light bulbs would not last more than 1,000 hours. This strategy, known as planned obsolescence , involved deliberately reducing the lifespan of light bulbs to boost continuous sales. The cartel established standards that artificially limited the durability of bulbs across the global market. Engineers who once sought to extend the lifespan of bulbs were now tasked with finding ways to shorten it, using thinner filaments and altering the bulb design to ensure compliance with the 1,000-hour lifespan. The impact of the Phoebus Cartel’s policies was profound. By limiting bulb life, they increased the frequency of purchases and set a precedent for manufacturing and business practices prioritizing profit over product longevity and consumer value. Although the cartel dissolved in the 1930s due to external pressures and the advent of World War II, its legacy of planned obsolescence has persisted, influencing various industries and shaping consumer products to this day. Similar strategies can be seen in manufacturing appliances with less durable materials, automobiles with inaccessible parts, and batteries designed to degrade over time. Software companies exacerbate this trend by discontinuing support for older versions, forcing costly upgrades. Together, these practices underscore a widespread economic strategy that shapes consumer behavior and impacts environmental sustainability. How LEDs Changed the Spectrum of Lighting The revolution of light-emitting diode (LED) technology marks a significant milestone in the history of lighting. Since their invention in 1907, LEDs initially provided low power and were available only in red. However, by the 1990s, technological advancements introduced high-efficiency, multi-color LEDs that began to surpass incandescent bulbs in efficiency, transforming the lighting industry. This evolution enabled LEDs to emit a wide spectrum of colors and achieve higher luminosity with significantly less energy consumption. The legislative landscape also played a crucial role in the widespread adoption of LED technology. In Europe, stringent regulations phased out less efficient halogen and incandescent bulbs, with bans fully enforced by September 1, 2018, for halogen and earlier for incandescent bulbs on September 1, 2011. These regulations accelerated the shift toward more sustainable lighting solutions, paving the way for LED technology to dominate the market. Today, LED technology is celebrated for its exceptional efficiency and longevity. Modern LED bulbs can provide up to 50,000 hours of light and boast high Color Rendering Index (CRI) values, typically around CRI98, which indicates superior light quality that closely mimics natural sunlight. These attributes have made LEDs the preferred choice not only for residential and commercial use but also for environmental conservation efforts. Despite these advancements and the legal frameworks supporting them, the specter of planned obsolescence still looms over the LED industry. Unfortunately, some LED light bulbs are designed to be intentionally short-lived to encourage consumers to buy new ones. This practice mirrors broader trends across various industries, including controversial strategies like Apple’s battery management, which involved throttling the performance of older iPhones to prompt users to upgrade. These are just some examples of the ongoing challenge of balancing technological innovation with sustainable consumer practices in an industry where the potential for technological durability is often compromised to stimulate continuous consumer spending. The legal battle for longer-lasting products The push for sustainability and consumer empowerment is crystallizing through global Right to Repair legislation, which affects a broad spectrum of industries, from consumer electronics to medical devices. Notable legislation includes New York’s 2022 Digital Fair Repair Act and Colorado’s 2023 Consumer Right To Repair Agricultural Equipment Act, forcing industries to reconsider their design and repair policies. Companies like Apple have become infamous for their planned obsolescence strategies, often necessitating complete device replacements for issues as minor as a cracked screen. Similarly, manufacturers of gaming consoles, such as Sony and Microsoft , design their systems to discourage user repairs, requiring costly services only they can provide. This movement extends beyond electronics, with implications for critical medical devices like pacemakers and insulin pumps, where repair restrictions can impact costs and patient outcomes. By mandating manufacturers to provide repair documentation and parts, legislation in places like the UK, France, and India aims to curb these restrictive practices, ensuring that products are both maintainable and sustainable. The choice stands clear and consequential for both policymakers and the public: maintain the status quo of quick obsolescence or push for a marketplace enriched with durable and repairable products. Such a decision will steer market practices and significantly influence our environmental strategies. The Right to Repair acts are crucial, challenging us to rethink technological practices and prioritize environmental integrity over short-term gains.
Safety culture is a cornerstone of aviation operations worldwide, and in the United States, it serves as the backbone of the industry’s safety record. While the term "safety culture" may seem abstract, it plays a concrete and vital role in ensuring the wellbeing of passengers, crew, and ground staff. Defining safety culture in aviation Safety culture refers to the collective mindset, behaviors, and values shared by individuals and organizations that prioritize safety above all else. In the context of aviation, safety culture encompasses everything from adherence to protocols and open communication to continuous training and reporting of safety concerns. According to SKYbrary , safety culture refers to: “The way safety is perceived, valued and prioritized in an organization. It reflects the real commitment to safety at all levels in the organization.” The aviation industry operates under strict regulations, but a robust safety culture goes beyond compliance. Here are some key pillars of a strong safety culture in the US: Pillar Description Leadership Commitment Leadership plays a pivotal role in shaping safety culture. Airlines and aviation organizations in the US, from commercial carriers to cargo operators, emphasize top-down commitment to safety. Leaders model behavior, allocate resources for safety initiatives, and create an environment where safety concerns can be addressed without fear of retaliation. Open Communication Open and honest communication is critical to identifying and mitigating risks. Programs like the FAA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) encourage pilots, crew, and ground staff to report potential safety hazards anonymously. This helps organizations identify systemic issues and implement preventive measures. Continuous Training Safety is a dynamic goal that evolves with new technology, regulations, and industry practices. For instance, pilots and maintenance technicians undergo recurrent training to ensure they’re prepared for both routine operations and emergencies. Proactive Risk Management A strong safety culture focuses on identifying risks before they become incidents. Tools such as Safety Management Systems (SMS) are widely used across the US aviation industry to proactively analyze data, assess risks, and implement mitigation strategies. Why safety culture is critical in US aviation The importance of safety culture in US aviation cannot be overstated. US airlines carry millions of passengers annually. A robust safety culture reassures travelers that airlines prioritize their safety above profitability or convenience, thereby fostering trust in the system. Further, with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) leading global aviation safety standards (more on this below), a strong safety culture ensures compliance with domestic and international regulations. This commitment strengthens the US’s leadership in global aviation. It’s important to note that many aviation accidents are attributed to human factors such as miscommunication or failure to follow procedures. A strong safety culture minimizes these risks through training, clear protocols, and proactive risk identification. Lastly, the US aviation industry recognizes that safety and efficiency often go hand in hand. A culture that prioritizes safety reduces disruptions caused by incidents, equipment failures, or regulatory non-compliance, leading to smoother operations and cost savings. Holding FAAST(eam) to safety culture The FAA defines safety culture as an environment where “safety is a core value, and individuals at all levels commit to continuously improving safety.” In simpler terms, it’s not just about meeting regulations but fostering an attitude where safety is ingrained in everyday operations. To uphold this safety culture, the FAA has established the FAA Safety Team (FAASTeam), an educational outreach arm, who are committed to “Lower[ing] the Nation’s aviation accident rate by conveying safety principles and practices through training, outreach, and education; while establishing partnerships and encouraging the continual growth of a positive safety culture within the aviation community”. The FAASTeam is made up of volunteers and industry members, such as companies and associations who have a stake in aviation safety. According to the FAA , it applies a Safety Risk Management approach, using system safety principles, risk prioritization, and new technology concepts. The team uses system safety techniques to shift the safety culture towards the reduction of aviation accidents. Challenges and opportunities ahead While the US aviation industry has made significant strides in fostering a strong safety culture, challenges remain. The increasing complexity of aviation technology, growing passenger numbers, and evolving security threats require constant adaptation. Additionally, a significant challenge lies in the following common barriers to safety culture that are observed not only in the US, but around the world: Fear of Retaliation: Employees may hesitate to report issues if they fear punishment, leading to unaddressed safety risks. Resource Constraints: Insufficient funding or staffing can undermine safety initiatives and training programs. Complacency: Assuming safety is already achieved may lead to lapses in vigilance and protocol adherence. Poor Communication: A lack of open communication channels can result in overlooked hazards and missed opportunities to improve. Fortunately, these challenges also present opportunities to innovate, enhance training programs, and refine risk management practices. Conclusion: a culture of safety for the future Safety culture in US aviation is not just a buzzword — it’s a fundamental element of the industry’s success. By prioritizing safety through leadership, training, open communication, and risk management, US airlines continue to set global benchmarks for safety and efficiency. As the aviation industry evolves, maintaining a strong safety culture will remain critical to ensuring the trust and security of passengers, crew, and all stakeholders.