Meghan Markle opens up about miscarriage in New York Times article

“In the pain of our loss, my husband and I discovered that in a room of 100 women, 10 to 20 of them will have suffered from miscarriage. Yet despite the staggering commonality of this pain, the conversation remains taboo, riddled with (unwarranted) shame, and perpetuating a cycle of solitary mourning.”

The intimate details shared in the article are strikingly at odds with the usual policy of senior members of the British royal family, who reveal almost nothing about their personal lives.

Harry’s grandmother, Queen Elizabeth, has never discussed her private life in any media interview in her 68-year reign.

Meghan and Harry stepped back from royal duties and moved to the United States earlier this year.

They have been trying to forge a new role for themselves outside the constraints of life in Britain’s strictly codified royal bubble.

Source link

Why your scientific presentation should not be adapted from a journal article

A presentation is not a journal article — so don’t prepare for them in the same way.Credit: Getty

In 20 years of coaching biomedical researchers on presentation techniques, I have continually been frustrated by scientists trying to make presentations as comprehensive as journal articles. Their thinking is understandable: “Better too much than too little, and more detail will demonstrate rigour and reliability.” But the usual result is a confused audience, befuddled by rapid-fire speaking, too much data and too many opaque slides.

Journal articles and slide presentations are different forms of communication with different attributes, drawbacks and potentials. Both have important roles. Scientists need to recognize these differences and make presentations consistent with what they can achieve. Those differences and the steps to manage them are:


Reading a journal article requires a significant time investment and a specific interest in a topic. Presentations, by contrast, are often widely advertised at an institute or at a conference. It is easy for scientists to ‘pop in’ and sample research from different fields. The audience members at a presentation are typically more multidisciplinary and less knowledgeable about a speaker’s specialized content than are those reading journal articles.

To deal with this diversity, you first need to establish your own communication goals for your talk. What is the range of audience members that you hope to reach? Researchers in your subspecialism? Researchers in related disciplines as well? Deans and department heads? Lay people? Once you establish a range, tailor the level of detail to the ‘least expert’ person in that range.


The reader of a journal article determines how fast to proceed and how often to stop and consider the information presented. In a scientific talk, the speaker determines the flow and can make only an educated guess at the optimal pace.

Pacing, like the level of detail, should be tailored to the least-expert attendee you want to reach. And given how hard it is to gauge an audience’s comprehension, too slow is better than too fast.


A journal article can be understood even if it contains digressions and side bars. Slide presentations require a cohesive format. Even in a well-designed presentation, slides speed past audience members who might be distracted by text messages, post-mealtime lows and so on. No listener catches every point. A well-designed presentation is built around a concise narrative that provides context for each slide and continuity when details are fuzzy. To develop such a narrative, prepare a short 2- or 3-minute oral summary before designing slides. Identify a single overarching question for your talk. Limit slides to those that explain the narrative, amplify key points and provide insight into the overarching question.


Journal articles with appendices allow a researcher to present comprehensive data. Presentations are time-limited, and there is also time uncertainty: introductions might take longer than expected, audience members could arrive late, the projector might break or audience questions could need addressing part way through a talk.

The worst (and most common) way that a presenter deals with these surprises is to speak faster. However, if armed with a concise narrative, they can easily summarize the content that can be shortened, leaving time for the most important details.


Many presenters ‘cut and paste’ graphics from journal articles. The fonts are too small, axis labels are unreadable and visuals are too complex. Visuals that contains four, six or eight graphs might work in a journal article, but are incomprehensible in a presentation.

Complex journal-article graphics need to be simplified for a slide presentation. Redraw those multi-graph slides to contain only one, or at most two, graphs that illustrate the overarching message of a particular slide. Use the slide title to help to convey the message of the graphs.


If presentations fall far short of journal articles in providing a reliable degree of proof and data validation, what good are they? A presentation can introduce your work to new audiences. It can excite fellow scientists, motivating them to ask important questions and consider collaborations. It can allow scientists in different disciplines to determine whether their methods are relevant to your research. A presentation can inspire listeners to read your journal article!

Encourage the audience to ask questions and allow time for discussion. It might even help to be a bit provocative. A good discussion is more important than showing every last slide.


Over the long run, journal articles are more likely to build a lasting scientific reputation than are presentations. Still, an effective speaker will be seen as someone who can contribute to a wide variety of scientific forums and will be sought for collaboration. Your reputation among colleagues outside your subspecialism is strongly influenced by your presentations — and these presentations are an important consideration in hiring and promotion decisions.

Presentations and journal articles have different but complementary attributes: the former can be inspirational, the latter comprehensive. An effective scientific presentation will inevitably have gaps and simplifications. The challenge is to include the most crucial information, while honestly acknowledging those gaps and simplifications.

This is an article from the Nature Careers Community, a place for Nature readers to share their professional experiences and advice. Guest posts are encouraged.

Source link

House Judiciary Committee Commits Its Own “Type I Error” By Criticizing Judge Easterbrook Article

The House Judiciary Committee Antitrust Subcommittee’s majority staff report on antitrust takes aim at now-Seventh Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook’s seminal law review article The Limits of Antitrust. In that article, Judge Easterbrook explained the risks with overenforcement of antitrust law. Because of these risks, he urged erring on the side of caution. In statistical terms, he advocated avoiding Type I errors. Today, Judge Easterbrook’s position is considered mainstream.  

Yet the report suggests Congress repudiate Judge Easterbrook’s position. As an alternative, the report urges Congress to say that cautious antitrust enforcement is as harmful as overenforcement. Congress should reject this plea because Judge Easterbrook was right. The Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and courts should continue to recognize that “antitrust is an imperfect tool for the regulation of competition.” Since it is an imperfect science, we should strive to avoid Type I errors.

In the real world, judges and policymakers lack perfect information about markets, competitors, and consumers. Without perfect information, it is impossible to flawlessly enforce antitrust laws. Rather, enforcement agencies make mistakes. Sometimes, a business will get away with anticompetitive behavior because of this imperfect information. Other times, a company will get sanctioned because of pro-competitive behavior. Unless we live in the House Judiciary Committee’s fantasyland, avoiding errors in antitrust enforcement is impossible. The question is which mistakes do we want to avoid? Or should we be indifferent to the types of errors we make? 

The answer is clear: As Judge Easterbrook said, we should err on the side of caution. There are several reasons why this is the best approach:

  • Violating the antitrust laws can lead to more than just civil liability: It also carries criminal penalties. As Benjamin Franklin said, “it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape, than that one innocent Person should suffer.” But if antitrust laws are enforced in the manner suggested by the majority staff, there will be one innocent executive thrown in prison for every one executive that escapes antitrust liability. This goes against well-settled due process principles. 
  • Successful plaintiffs in antitrust suits are entitled to treble (triple) damages. They also get attorneys’ fees and costs. From an economic perspective, this means that—ignoring possible criminal liability—companies will not engage in anti-competitive behavior if the risk of getting caught is higher than about 30%. This is enough to deter companies from engaging in most anti-competitive behavior.
  • Because treble damages—combined with the current level of enforcement—can deter anti-competitive behavior, increasing enforcement will lead to companies shying away from pro-competitive behavior. Even if a company knows that its actions fully comply with antitrust laws, it may decide against engaging in those actions because of the risk of erroneous enforcement activity. In other words, the benefits that the company sees from the pro-competitive behavior may be outweighed by the risk of the company being improperly found to have violated antitrust laws. This risk is especially troubling because firms do not internalize consumer benefits to their pro-competitive conduct. So although the total welfare increase may dwarf the costs of an erroneous antitrust enforcement action, companies care about only that portion the companies realize. This further distorts the market and keeps innovation at bay in the name of political expediency.     
  • The damage from cautious antitrust enforcement is relatively low. The market destroys a monopoly. When other firms see monopoly profits, they enter the market. Eventually, this eliminates monopoly rents. Antitrust enforcement merely speeds up the process of a return to competitive markets. 
  • These reasons do not include the focus of Judge Easterbrook’s article. He explained that the nation’s best economists can disagree about the effect of some competitive activities. The disagreement could stem from different assumptions or different methodologies. Without a crystal ball and perfect knowledge about all firms, it is impossible for Nobel-prize-winning economists to agree on whether actions help or hurt competition. 

If the best economists in the world cannot agree, what chance is there for generalist federal judges and lay jurors? The answer is obvious—none. In many cases, a judge or jury might as well flip a coin to decide whether to hold a company liable. They lack the education and training to understand the theoretical underpinnings of a case. They similarly lack the mathematical background to process the complex econometric analysis that is the staple of today’s antitrust litigation.

The House Judiciary Committee Antitrust Subcommittee’s majority staff report is an anti-capitalist manifesto. The attack on Judge Easterbrook is meant to undermine the Chicago School of Economics. Those pushing for more antitrust enforcement want legal victories that they can use to then push for more anti-capitalist reforms. 

It seeks to destroy entrepreneurial businesses that contribute to Americans’ well-being. The report would prefer companies like Google and Amazon—which have become indispensable during the COVID-19 pandemic—disappear. The subcommittee staff opposes these successful businesses because they recognize the companies are free-market success stories that benefit society.  

The report tries to disguise the attack by dressing it up as antitrust law. Yet it lacks any basis in law or economic reality. It therefore should be seen for what it is—a full-frontal attack on our market-based economy. Courts and governmental regulators must reject it as pure propaganda.

Source link

BJP targets Congress, Gupkar Alliance over their stance on Article 370

New Delhi: The BJP on Monday hit out at its rival parties in Jammu and Kashmir, saying their stand on a number of issues, including the demand to restore Article 370, is the same as that of countries like Pakistan. 

While targeting the Congress over its tie-up with the National Conference and the Peoples Democratic Party, BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra also had a go at its leader Rahul Gandhi over comments of the likes of former US president Barack Obama to RJD leader Shivanand Tiwari and Congress’ Kapil Sibal. 


When Obama got to know him (Rahul) in four-five days, then it is obvious that those who interact with him almost daily would also have realised what he is, Patra told reporters. 

Congress leaders were praising him while carrying a burden of “100 tonnes of stone” on their chest, and now they feel suffocated, he said. 

“The BJP had been saying so for long. Now a friend of Congress like Shivanand Tiwari is saying that he is a non-performing picnicking president,” Patra said. 

Tiwari had on Sunday questioned the campaign run by the Congress and also had taken a swipe at Gandhi for not spending much time electioneering in the state. 


Sibal is part of a group of leaders in the Congress who have demanded an overhaul of the party’s organisation.

Targeting the tie-up of the Jammu and Kashmir parties, known as ‘Gupkar Alliance’, the BJP spokesperson described it as “unholy”, saying that it is aimed at opposing the implementation of laws duly passed by Indian Parliament. 

“This Gupkar Alliance wants exactly what Pakistan and anti-India countries want.  Pakistan has gone to every forum and spoken against the removal of Article 370. The Gupkar Alliance says the same thing,” Patra said. 


The BJP would like to ask Congress president Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi if they stand by the comments made by leaders in the Gupkar Alliance, he said, noting that NC president Farooq Abdullah had spoken about China’s support for Article 370, while PDP’s Mehbooba Mufti had said that she would not raise the Indian flag if Kashmiri flag is not restored. 

He said these parties are nervous as the local polls in the union territory are aimed at taking development to the grassroots.

Source link

Dan Palmer article reveals sexuality, mental health battle

Former Wallabies prop Dan Palmer has opened up on what was a lifelong battle with his sexuality that drove him to the verge of suicide in a powerful article for the Sydney Morning Herald.

Palmer, who made his NSW Waratahs debut at 18-years-old and earned one appearance for Australia in 2012, detailed, in length, the harrowing experiences that underlined his struggles and put him on a path to honesty and transparency with himself, and those around him.

The 32-year-old made clear his choice to write this article was his own, “on the off chance it will help someone who finds themselves in a similar position”.

Watch every match of the 2020 Bledisloe Cup & Tri Nations Live & On-Demand on Kayo. New to Kayo? Get your 14-day free trial & start streaming instantly

Palmer describes his “incredibly frustrated, angry, and desperately sad” state, despite a year in 2012 where he was living out his childhood dream. He had vice-captained the ACT Brumbies and made his Wallabies debut, but cried himself to sleep “most nights”, often “numbed” by opioids.

The prop had “made it”, completed what he and so many other young men could only dream of, but “fantasised about disappearing, changing my name and starting my life all over again”.

Palmer says: “It is not an exaggeration to say my own death felt preferable to anybody discovering I was gay.”

Since starting his studies in 2014, and walking away from his playing career, Palmer has completed a double degree in Science and Psychology, and has achieved first class Honours in Neuroscience, about halfway through his PHD in cellular mechanisms of brain function.

But that’s a world away from his darkest days.

A year in France playing with FC Grenoble transformed Palmer’s life; rock bottom finally forcing his hand into change, he says.

“After overdosing on painkillers and waking up in a pool of the previous day’s food, it was clear to me that I was rapidly self-destructing and that something had to change,” Palmer writes.

A painful conversation with a friend in London followed, but “he was the first person I told that I was gay in my 25 years on the planet. Telling him removed a weight I had been carrying for as long as I could remember”.

Through 25 years Palmer says he had become accustomed to omitting the truth, and moving conversations around so he could avoid the uncomfortable stuff. He made clear that his battles while playing rugby weren’t necessarily a systematically-enforced problem, and instead more a battle with himself. But Palmer believed “it would have been difficult to let my performance speak for itself” if he was honest about his sexuality.

Palmer slammed Israel Folau’s “ignorance”, which pushed him — among other things — to finally write this story.

Folau had his Rugby Australia contract torn up for making homophobic comments on social media, before agreeing on a lucractive settlement with the governing body as he pursued legal action.

“To me, what is more important than the damage he has caused rugby is the deep impact he has undoubtedly had on kids who looked up to him, and who struggle every day with understanding their sexuality,” Palmer says.

“He will never see the impact he has had on these young people, but if he could, I doubt he could live with himself. Thankfully, from my experience in rugby, views like Israel’s are the exception, not the rule.

“It was encouraging to hear a chorus of prominent voices from rugby players and officials globally that condemned his position and continue to push for a more accepting and inclusive sporting landscape.”

Palmer is one of a small group of current or former rugby players to come out as gay. And while he believes progress has been made, the reality is that there’s a long way to go.

“We’re on the right track, but we are not quite there yet,” he says.

Source link

Rugby news: Dan Palmer article reveals sexuality, mental health battle

Former Wallabies prop Dan Palmer has opened up on what was a lifelong battle with his sexuality that drove him to the verge of suicide in a powerful article for the Sydney Morning Herald.

Palmer, who made his NSW Waratahs debut at 18-years-old and earned one appearance for Australia in 2012, detailed, in length, the harrowing experiences that underlined his struggles and put him on a path to honesty and transparency with himself, and those around him.

The 32-year-old made clear his choice to write this article was his own, “on the off chance it will help someone who finds themselves in a similar position.”

Watch every match of the 2020 Bledisloe Cup & Tri Nations Live & On-Demand on Kayo. New to Kayo? Get your 14-day free trial & start streaming instantly

Palmer describes his “incredibly frustrated, angry, and desperately sad” state, despite a year in 2012 where he was living out his childhood dream. He had vice-captained the ACT Brumbies and made his Wallabies debut, but cried himself to sleep “most nights”; often “numbed” by opioids.

Source link

Twitter backtracks, allows users to post previously blocked NY Post article

FILE PHOTO: Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey addresses students during a town hall at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) in New Delhi, India, November 12, 2018. REUTERS/Anushree Fadnavis

October 16, 2020

PALO ALTO Calif/WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Twitter Inc <TWTR.N> on Friday confirmed it reversed its decision to block links to a New York Post article about Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s son, despite reaffirming the ban late on Thursday.

Republicans who had decried Twitter’s earlier actions posted the story freely on the site. “You can now share the bombshell story Big Tech didn’t want you to see,” Arizona Representative Paul Gosar tweeted on Friday morning.

Twitter acknowledged Friday it had stopped blocking links to early versions of the New York Post articles, saying the private information included in them had become widely available in the press and on other platforms.

The company’s policy chief Vijaya Gadde said Thursday night that Twitter had decided to make changes to its hacked materials policy following feedback, but a spokesman told Reuters that the New York Post story would still be blocked for “violating the rules on private personal information.”

“We will no longer remove hacked content unless it is directly shared by hackers or those acting in concert with them,” Gadde said in a series of tweets. “We will label Tweets to provide context instead of blocking links from being shared on Twitter.”

Twitter had initially said the Post story violated its “hacked materials” policy, which bars the distribution of content obtained through hacking, but has provided no details on what materials it viewed as hacked.

Twitter Chief Executive Jack Dorsey said in a tweet Friday morning that “straight blocking of URLs was wrong” and suggested that Twitter instead should have applied tools like labels.

“Our goal is to attempt to add context, and now we have capabilities to do that,” he tweeted.

Tweets of the story successfully published on Friday did not have any labels attached. Twitter declined to answer Reuters questions on whether that was due to an error or a policy decision.

The company had briefly restricted the Twitter account of U.S. President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign after it posted a video that referred to the New York Post story on Thursday.

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham and Republican Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley said on Thursday the committee would vote on Tuesday on sending a subpoena to Dorsey.

Separately, the Senate Commerce Committee confirmed Friday it will hold an Oct. 28 hearing with Dorsey and the chief executives of Facebook Inc <FB.O> and Google parent Alphabet Inc <GOOGL.O> and will look at “how best to preserve the internet as a forum for open discourse.”

The companies previously confirmed the executives would remotely appear at the hearing.

(Reporting by Katie Paul in Palo Alto, David Shepardson in Washington, Elizabeth Culliford in London and Akanksha Rana in Bengaluru; Editing by Sriraj Kalluvila, Cynthia Osterman and David Gregorio)

Source link

The West attacks Russian vaccine against coronavirus after The Lancet article

Last week, one of the most famous and authoritative scientific publications – The Lancet – published an article by penned Russian scientists about the trials of the vaccine against coronavirus. In Russia, this publication was hailed as a proof of the effectiveness and safety of the Russian vaccine. However, criticism is not going anywhere.

After the publication in The Lancet, Russian Health Minister Mikhail Murashko noted that a publication in such an authoritative journal always means a high level of confidence.

“Therefore, I believe, and the entire international community believes, that publication in The Lancet is a sign of quality of the published material,” Murashko said.

A statement released from the Gamaleya Research Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology in Moscow and the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) said that the scientific paper published in The Lancet proves high safety and effectiveness of the Russian vaccine and provides detailed data on the results of clinical trials.”

On August 11, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the registration of the vaccine against coronavirus. The vaccine was developed by the Gamaleya Research Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology in Moscow in cooperation with the Ministry of Defense. Thus, Russia became the first state in the world where such a vaccine was approved for use.

Many publications in the West met the news of the registration of the vaccine with hostility. Many specialists took the news from Russia with a grain of salt as well. Generally, all this shows that such things should be accompanied with powerful promotion and support. It is already obvious that one publication, even in The Lancet, will not be enough to knock the wave of criticism down.

In particular, Italian professors, who read the article in The Lancet, expressed their doubts about the Russian vaccine.

As many as 17 people signed an open letter. In their opinion, nine out of nine volunteers who participated in one of the experiments with the vaccine had identical antibody titers for 21 days out of 28. In many cases, it goes about the repetition of one and the same numbers for different participants in the experiments. According to the authors of the letter, there is too little information in the article to be able to come to any unambiguous conclusions. The available information raises concerns about its unnaturalness, Italian professors said.

Attacks on the Russian vaccine continue. The open letter from Italian scientists is only a beginning.

According to the World Health Organization, as many as 176 vaccines against coronavirus are currently being developed in the world. Eight of them are now in the final (third) phase of clinical trials.

Source link

AFL 2020: Nathan Buckley Mark Robinson, Collingwood, article about not winning a flag, reaction, AFL 360, confrontation

Collingwood coach Nathan Buckley says the word “emptiness” forced him to halt his press conference and respond to a column by Mark Robinson about his career on Sunday night.

Buckley responded unprompted to Robinson’s article in the Herald Sun, which noted the Magpies great had played and coached the most AFL games without winning a flag.

It also referred to comments by Buckley made in 2012 when he said “there is no way I can possibly fill that void” left by not winning a premiership as a player.

Kayo is your ticket to the 2020 Toyota AFL Premiership Season. Watch every match of every round Live & On-Demand. New to Kayo? Get your 14-day free trial & start streaming instantly >

Round 15

“I just want to put on record my life is very far from empty,” Buckley said in his press conference.

Source link

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer sacks Rebecca Long-Bailey over ‘antisemitic conspiracy theory’ article | Politics News

Rebecca Long-Bailey has been sacked from Labour’s shadow cabinet after sharing an article that “contained an antisemitic conspiracy theory”.

“This afternoon Keir Starmer asked Rebecca Long-Bailey to step down from the shadow cabinet,” a spokesman for the Labour leader said.

“The article Rebecca shared earlier today contained an antisemitic conspiracy theory.

Sir Keir Starmer
A spokesman for Sir Keir said ‘restoring trust with the Jewish community is a number one priority’

“As Leader of the Labour Party, Keir has been clear that restoring trust with the Jewish community is a number one priority.

“Antisemitism takes many different forms and it is important that we all are vigilant against it.”

Ms Long-Bailey, who stood in the race to replace Jeremy Corbyn, was chosen by Sir Keir to be shadow education secretary when he became leader in April.

Her sacking comes after she shared, on Twitter, an interview with the actress Maxine Peake, describing her as an “absolute diamond”.

More from Rebecca Long-bailey

In the interview, Ms Peake claimed the US police linked to the killing of George Floyd had learned their tactics from the Israeli secret services.

After attracting criticism for her tweet, Ms Long-Bailey said she “retweeted Maxine Peake’s article because of her significant achievements and because the thrust of her argument is to stay in the Labour Party”.

:: Listen to the Daily podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Spreaker

She added: “It wasn’t intended to be an endorsement of all aspects of the article.”

In a series of messages after her sacking was announced, Ms Long-Bailey said she shared the article from “my constituent and stalwart Labour Party supporter Maxine Peake” because “its main thrust was anger with the Conservative government’s handling of the current emergency and a call for Labour Party unity”.

She added: “These sentiments are shared by everyone in our movement and millions of people in our country.

“I learned that many people were concerned by references to international sharing of training and restraint techniques between police and security forces.

“In no way was my retweet an intention to endorse every part of that article.”

Ms Long-Bailey said she wanted to “acknowledge these concerns and duly issued a clarification of my retweet”, which was agreed in advance with Sir Keir’s office.

“But after posting I was subsequently instructed to take both this agreed clarification and my original retweet down,” she said.

“I could not do this in good conscience without the issuing of a press statement of clarification.

“I had asked to discuss these matters with Keir before agreeing what further action to take, but sadly he had already made his decision.”

Ms Long-Bailey, who became MP for Salford and Eccles in 2015, said she would “continue to support the Labour Party in parliament under Keir Starmer’s leadership, to represent the people of Salford and Eccles and work towards a more equal, peaceful and sustainable world”.

Labour MP Dame Margaret Hodge, who is Jewish, tweeted: “This is what a change in culture looks like. This is what zero tolerance looks like. This is what rebuilding trust with the Jewish community looks like.”

Marie van der Zyl, president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, thanked Sir Keir for his “swift action” and said he was “backing his words with actions on antisemitism”.

Jonathan Goldstein, chair of the Jewish Leadership Council, said Sir Keir’s “decisive leadership and firm action” shows “he understands the severity and harm that antisemitic conspiracies do to our politics”.

But John McDonnell, who was shadow chancellor under Mr Corbyn, made clear that he disagreed with the decision.

“Throughout discussion of antisemitism it’s always been said criticism of practices of Israeli state is not antisemitic,” he said.

“I don’t believe therefore that this article is or ⁦⁦@RLong_Bailey should’ve been sacked. I stand in solidarity with her.”

Source link