Indian online store has to change its logo

Myntra, one of India's largest and most popular online apparel and accessories stores, is having to change its logo, after successful complaints from women's rights activists.

Looks innocent enough, right? It certainly took me a long time to figure out what might possibly be offensive to anyone. I don't even know if I am right - the website where I found it unfortunately did not spell it out for me - but I assume the problem is that you could see it, if you squint a bit, as the spread legs of a woman (or, I guess, a man)? My first impressions were of flower petals or possibly insect wings, but may that says more about me than about the logo?

But if I have to stop and think about if, can it be that much of a problem? And, even if you can somehow see a woman's legs in the logo, is it necessarily offensive? I can only think that it is offensive to religious fundamentalists more than to women, but that does not play so well in the courts? I don't know, it's all a bit of a mystery to me.

Either way, the company has meekly agreed to change it's logo throughout. Changing its website and app, all its promotional materials and all its packaging, will cost a pretty penny.

Species migration and what makes an invasive species

As I have mentioned, I have been enjoying The Next Great Migration by Sonia Shah. And the book continues to surprise me.

After blowing up some long-held conventional wisdom about how humans came to colonize some of the more obscure parts of the globe in Chapter 7, Chapter 8 made me think long and hard about invasive plant and animal species.

Foe example, the assumption among biologists and ecologists, and certainly among laymen like myself, is that invasive species = "BAD". Period. The name itself says so, and there are whole university courses aimed at "invasion biology". But just how black and white is this issue?

I confess I had always wondered how scientists establish whether a particular species is native or not. Doesn't it depend on when you are comparing it with? Does native mean pre-colonial? Pre-human? Pre-ice-age? Go back far enough and we arrive at the single continent of Pangaea, and then how do we think of native habitat? The species that live in a certain area are constantly changing, and always have done, as rock core samples and fossil records show with great aplomb. 

And the more we research, using GPS trackers, genetic analysis and other technologies, the more - and the more improbable - changes and routes and methods of transportation of plant and animal species we discover. 

And some of them elude us still, such as the highland tamarind trees of Réunion and the almost identical koa trees of Hawaii, 18,000 kilometers away, with no obvious means of transportation between the two. To take another example, the camel is usually considered a Middle Eastern animal, but, in fact, the camel family originally evolved and attained its greatest diversity in North America; it is currently most diverse in South America; and it only actually occurs in the wild in ... Australia!

Another issue, though, is whether what we choose to describe as "invasive" species are wholly and necessarily bad. Recent research suggests that only 10% of newly-introduced species establish themselves, and only 10% of those (i.e. 1% of original number) flourish in ways that can threaten existing resident species. And a surprisingly small number of those actually displace (i.e. cause exinctions in) local species. Indeed, some studies have shown that newcomers can actually INCREASE biodiversity (this one I find a little difficult to believe, and Ms. Shah suggests that the study in question was rejected by Nature periodical (suppressed, she hints at, because of its radicalness, although Nature is not normally so shy and tentative).

Furthermore, she suggests that the economic and ecological benefits of wild migrants are not always included in cost-benefit analyses. For example, zebra mussels are considered wholly bad, but they filter water very effectively and provide food for fish and waterfowl (and it is argued, less convincingly, that they cannot be held responsible for the collapse of native clams, which were struggling anyway).

Other papers have questioned whether European purple loosestrife, which has become so ubiquitous in North America, actually "kills wetlands" or "creates biological deserts", as is commonly claimed. And it is undeniably pretty, and that must count for something, right?

Not all of these arguments seem totally convincing to me, although they are apparemtly based on real papers by real biologists and ecologists. But it's certainly food for thought. Some of our long-held beliefs and presuppositions may be starting to crack.

Blackberry renaissance conjured out of nothing (or possibly an EV bubble)

Remember Blackberry? Clunky black keyboard-based cellphone company that was once the darling of Canada's tech industry?

Well, Blackberry hasn't made cellphones for sometime now, overtaken as they were by better, cheaper and more user-friendly cellphones made by almost every other tech company. But they did try to reinvent themselves as a software company, and they didn't do a half-bad job of it. Now they're getting into autonomous car software and all sorts of sexy things.

Still it came as a bit of a surprise to learn that their share price had tripled in less than a month, from around $8 at the beginning of this year to almost $25 at opening on Monday morning. So, what gives? What bold announcement did they make that I missed?

Well, nothing really. The recent rally seems to have been conjured out of thin air, mainly as a result of a bunch of aspirational posts on Reddit, as far as I can see. (Gaming retailer GameStop Corp was treated to a similar a Reddit-based stock rally - ridiculous as it may seem, Reddit has apparently become required reading for investors and day-traders.) Blackberry did sign a deal with Amazon to work on connected cloud software program for cars, and it did manage to resolve a patent fight with Facebook. But even the company itself cannot explain the sudden investor interest in it, saying it is, "not aware of any material undisclosed corporate developments ... that would account for the recent increase in the market price or trading volume of its common shares".

It may all be part of the unprecedented and inexplicable boom in electric vehicle (EV) stocks over the last year, which some are comparing to the dotcom bubble of the late 90s (and we all know how THAT ended). American EV companies like Tesla, Fisker and Nikola, and Chinese companies like Nio, XPeng and Li, are leading the charge, with British company Arrival snapping at their heels. Hardly any of these companies are making any profits - some have not even started trading yet! - but their valuations are way in excess of anything that traditional financial analysis or commonsense might dictate.

EV stocks, and tech stocks in general, which account for a good proportion of the inexplicably booming stock market indices during this pandemic, look for all the world like the 1999 dotcom bubble. Goldman Sachs even has a Non-Profitable Technology Index for those looking to invest in tech stocks that look shaky in traditional terms, but whose share price is soaring regardless, which I think is hilarious (they also have a Most Shorted Index). Of course, it doesn't necessarilty follow that the bubble is about to burst, at least not anytime soon. Some analysts argue that today's companies are "made of stronger stuff" than the tech unicorns of 20+ years ago. They are certainly much bigger. But, then, the bigger they come...

But the main thrust of Blackberry's spurious revival seems to have come about (like GameStop's and AMC's) through the whole Reddit (r/WallStreetBets) thing. That story continues to make news, particularly after Robinhood and a couple of other major brokerage forms tried to shut down the amateurs and protect the profession short-sellers who had been betting against these struggling tech and media companies. (GameStop, for example, was one of the most heavily shorted stocks on the exchange, meaning that most regular investors only expected its shares to go further down - and that is exactly what the Reddit disruptors were targeting.)

But how bad is it that a bunch of individuals on a social media site legally subvert the system (and make a few bucks - quite a few bucks - in the process), given that the professional hedge funds and investors are doing just that, in a different way, all the time? (If you want a short explanation of conplelicated concepts like short-selling, short-squeezing, options, and a bite-sized summary of how the Reddit crowd managed to beat the system, the Globe and Mail has a good one.)

UPDATE

This little flurry of investment in so-called "meme stocks" was relatively short-lived and, according to the Canadian "free" stock-trading app Wealthsimple's analysis, not particularly effective.

Shares in GameStop, for example, have fallen by 90% since their record highs in early February, and many of these amateur investors got burned: 67% of them lost money, most just a small amount as they only invested small, but 3% lost $5,000 or more.

Those doing this speculative investing were overwhelmingly male millennials and Gen Zers, and 75% of them bought just 5 shares or fewer. So, it seems like most were just interested in playing a little game, and seeing if they could beat "the man" (yes, and no, it seems). But the cumulative effect of all these small investments - inexperienced investors jumping on dangerous trends that have no relationship  financial fundamentals - was still enough to seriously worry the industry.

Signs of (tentative) political evolution in Alberta

Alberta's Conservative Premier Jason Kenney claims to have been completely blindsided by Joe Biden's executive order to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline linking Alberta's oil sands with America's oil refineries. Everyone else saw it coming, and Biden made no secret of it throughout his whole presidential campaign. But Kenney is outraged - outraged, I say! - at this latest slap in the face (or "gut punch", as Kenney would have it) for Alberta and its oil industry. He is especially worried as he spent $1.5 billion of his province's money on an ill-advised gamble on the pipeline just last spring (in full knowledge of an upcoming American election).

A surprising number of other politicians, including Prime Minister Trudeau (albeit with a rather tame and tepid "disappointed"), are also in high dudgeon, although one has to wonder whether they are not secretly heaving sighs of relief. At least they can blame the Yanks for hammering yet another nail (as if more were needed) into the coffin of the oil sands, the bête noir of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions profile. And Trudeau, like most Canadians, just wants to move on.

It's good to know, though, that at least Alberta NDP leader Rachel Notley is an evolved Westerner, and is willing to at least consider facing facts and moving past Alberta's traditional over-reliance on oil and gas. Addressing the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce this week, Ms. Notley took what for Alberta is a very radical and brave stance, and opined that Alberta needs to take advantage of the global investment in renewables and clean tech if it wants to continue to be an energy leader. (Sharp intake of breath all round.)

"We need to take control of our own destiny, and not tie our fortunes to projects outside our jurisdiction, subject to another nation's policies", she intoned. "We have to recognize where the world is going, and move with it". Amen to that. But Alberta has had its head in the (oil)sand for so long, that this necessary restructuring will be a long and painful process. In the meantime, though, Mr. Kenney's (and much of Alberta's) sky-is-falling whining is not helping anyone, least of all Albertans.

This was Ms. Notley's first major speech since stepping down from her position as Premier in 2019. It's good to know she is still kicking. Interestingly, though, she knows where Alberta's limits are, and declared herself unwilling to institute a sales tax of any kind in the province, despite the parlous state of its finances (Alberta is the only Canadian province without - and, until recent years, without the need for - a sales tax. 

This, of course, would be very far from an NDP philosophy in the rest of the country, but Alberta, as it never ceases to remind us, is "special" (read, spoiled and many degrees to the right). And Ms. Notley is a seasoned campaigner, and know that there is little point in being ideologically pure while remaining unelectable.

Canada's home-grown vaccines

Well, who knew? Canada is in the process of producing its own home-grown COVID-19 vaccine.

In a week when Pfizer reneges on its vaccine delivery schedule, and the risk of an EU embargo on vaccine exports raises its head (although this will supposedly not affect Canada), this is bigger news than it might have been.

Now, granted, it's still in its early stages, starting its first human clinical trials this week, with 60 volunteers in Toronto making up its Phase 1 trial. But, hey, that's cool, and it may be a good option for the future in an increasingly uncertain world. Phase 2 trials are  expected to commence in May, and it MAY be ready for mass markets by January 2022, if all goes well.

The vaccine, developed by Toronto-based Providence Therapeutics, is an mRNA vaccine, similar to Pfizer's and Moderna's. And the company has not has a whole lot of assistance in its development, certainly nothing on the level of those competitors, despite having started work on it last March. And, given that we now have other vaccines already being administered, a new csndidate may have some problems finding volunteers for its trials (unless, Heaven forbid, the new British/South African/Brazilian/other variants of the virus prove to be resistant to existing vaccines). But, nothing daunted, Providence has persisted, and it has already invested in mass manufacturing facilities in Calgary in full confidence that its product will come to fruition.

The only other "Canadian" vaccine to have progressed significantly in its development is from Quebec-based Medicago, which began its clinical trials as long ago as July 2020. But, unlike Providence, Medicago's  product, if approved, would base most of its production in North Carolina. A joint Chinese-Canadian vaccine project (CanSino), established early in the pandemic, fell apart last May after communications broke down with the Chinese arm of the agreement. Saskatoon-based VIDO-Intervac is also close to being able to start Phase 1 trials.

So, there is still a possibility that Canada will be able to produce its own vaccines. Just don't hold your breath.

Carl Linnaeus, Father of Modern Racism and general creep

I have mentioned before that I am reading, and enjoying, The Next Great Migration by Sonia Shah. In Chapter 3, she takes a bit of a detour to an area only marginally related to migration, and it concerns the figure of Carl Linnaeus.

I will take a leap of faith and assume that most people are at least superficially familiar with the so-called Father of Modern Taxonomy, the guy who spent his life categorizing and organizing all life into families and species and subspecies, etc, albeit based on the very incomplete knowledge of the 18th century. Science owes a debt of gratitude to the man. However, I was less aware of what an oddball he was, and just how far of the mark on some of his pronouncements.

Linnaeus was very much a product of his time and deeply religious, and his approach to science was shot through with this supremely unscientific underpinning. For example, he was not willing to accept that animals, birds and insects could migrate, as that would have suggested that God's initial plan was in some way incomplete or unfixed. 

Out of his belief - call it faith or call it ignorance - that all of God's creatures were assigned an immutable home region, Linnaeus even divided the human species into several subspecies, assigning each its own characteristic features. Thus: Homo sapiens europaeus, the people of Europe (white, serious, strong, active, smart, inventive, covered by tight clothing, and ruled by laws); Homo sapiens asiaticus, the people of Asia (yellow, melancholy, greedy, severe, haughty, desirous, black hair, dark eyes, covered by loose garments, ruled by opinion); Homo sapiens americanus, the people of the Americas (red, ill-tempered, subjugated, obstinate, contented, free, black straight hair, wide nostrils, harsh face, scanty beard, painted with red lines, ruled by custom); and Homo sapiens afer, the people of Africa (black, impassive, lazy, crafty, slow, foolish, kinky hair, silky skin, flat nose, thick lips, women with large breasts and a "genital flap", anointed with grease, ruled by caprice). 

Still others, Linaeus decided, were not even human. He designated some black people as Homo troglodytes (essentially cavemen), and some as Homo caudatus (referring to the "tailed men" of Borneo and Nicobar). Dwarves, "Patagonian giants", and the Laplanders (Sami) of northern Sweden for some reason, he lumped together under the heading Homo monstrosus.

Wow! Not only was Linnaeus the Father of Modern Taxonomy, he was probably the Father if Modern Racism, especially given the high esteem in which he was held across the civilized world and the outsized influence he wielded. These ideas persisted until the refutations of Charles Darwin in the late 19th century, and even well beyond that in some circles.

And about that "genital flap"... this is a strange one. Linnaeus, as well as several others in the European scientific community of the mid-18th century, was convinced, with no good evidence, that black women had a long flap of skin covering their genitals, which went by the Latin name "sinus pudoris", also known as a "Hottentot Apron" or "genital flap". It's not clear why he and many others believed this to be the case, but he went to great lengths to obtain (often to buy) black women and cadavers so as to be able to inspect and dissect their pudenda.

Now, I know, this was the 18th century. Our knowledge of the world was rudimentary, and the age of reason was just beginning. Many things were different back then, including, it seems, morality. But this, surely, was beyond the pale.

So, which masks ARE considered effective these days?

I notice that France has now officially banned most homemade cloth masks from being used in public on the grounds that they are no longer considered effective enough against the new stains of the coronavirus, as has Germany.

In fact, they have gone so far as to say that they recommend against the use of any homemade masks, although it seems to me that a good homemade mask is surely at least as good as those flimsy pale-blue "surgical" masks, especially given in practice that they often tend to be worn so loosely as to be all but useless (but that's a whole other comversation).

France now only recommnds the use of one of three types of masks: surgical (not described in any detail), FFP2 masks (equivalent to North American N95 masks), and cloth masks made to Category 1 standards (ones that filter out 95% of 3-micrometre particles, not that that helps much, because 99% of masks do not come with this kind of designation).

The World Health Organization has also changed its recommendations recently to a three-layer home made mask for the general public, as well as medical or surgical masks and respirators. But they describe medical masks as being composed of three layers of synthetic non-woven material with filtration layers in between. So, these are clearly not the flimsy blue masks most people think of as medical masks. The US CDC makes it pretty clear that it does not think surgical masks are worth the man-made materials they are made of, as does Healthline.

This is obviously a minefield of known unknowns and unknown unknowns. If even educated and concerned people like us, who read around the subject and strive to do the right thing, are not sure what the deal is, what chance does everyone else have?

I think the best I can do is to continue to use the two-layer reusable cloth masks I have good stocks of (manufactured courtesy of my daughter) in most regular situations, like on a busy street or on a quick visit to a store, and just double them up in more difficult situations, such as when I occasionally ferry a friend to an appointment or have to wait in a waiting room for any extended length of time.

UPDATE

And, guess what, one Anthony Fauci agrees with me, it seems!

How the right-wing routinely misrepresents immigrants

I have started reading The Next Great Migration by Sonia Shah, subtitled (and it seems like ALL non-fiction books these days HAVE to have a wordy subtitle) The Beauty and Terror of Life On the Move, and it's already proving to be a goldmine of information, fact-checking and disambiguation on all things relating to human migration and the movement of refugees. 

For example, Ms. Shah explores the media reporting of several incidents in the period around 2016 and 2017, when migration into Europe and USA was getting a particularly bad press. In early 2016, many women in Germany were reporting sexual assaults and rapes after the usual debauched New Years Eve celebrations across the country, and they were specifically reporting them as occurring at the hands of newly-arrived migrants from Arabic and North African countries. Many news outlets (including right-wing American mouthpieces for newly-elected Donald Trump like Breitbart and Fox News) reported these events in lurid and incendiary terms, as well as the putative burning down of one of Germany's oldest churches by Islamic militants around the same time.

Some time later, it came out (courtesy of NPR reporters) that the rash of rapes and sexual attacks over New Year in Germany was not actually that exceptional. Sexual violence is endemic in Germany, and New Years Eve in particular always provides an opportunity for crimes of all kinds. The purported crime wave had not actually occurred, but had remained pretty much constant from previous years. And that old church? Accidentally set on fire by an errant firework by Syrian migrants celebrating a cease-fire in Syria!

Around the same time, there were reports out of Sweden, which had accepted more immigrants per capita than any other European country in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, of a sudden rise in reported rapes and violence, particularly in the tony Rinkeby suburb of Stockholm, as well as attacks by young migrants on an Australian film crew attempting to film the area. Once again, Donald Trump, Fox News and other right-wing news outlets gleefully covered what they saw as liberal Sweden's well-deserved comeuppance.

Later, it turned out that the documentary that made the claims about Sweden's migrant crime wave was artfully biassed. Sweden turns out to have much lower rape figures that most of Europe, and the "no-go" zones in Stockholm did not actually exist either, with the interviewed police officers confiming that their answers had been edited and deliberately taken out of context. And the Australian news crew turned out to be working for a racist, anti-immigration hate site, and police confirmed there had been no damage or injuries, and all investigations had been dropped.

Finally, government reports in 2016 and 2017, in Donald Trump's heyday, claimed there had been huge increases in attacks on US Border Patrol agents, who suffer the highest level of assaults of any group of federal law officers. Furthermore, it was claimed, fully three-quarters of those convicted of international terrorism were born outside of the USA. Then, the bodies of two Border Patrol agents were discovered at the bottom of a concrete culvert in Texas, apparently the victims of a gruesome attack by illegal immigrants. One officer died soon after in hospital, and the other suffered a brain injury and memory loss. The whole thing was portrayed as just one example of the threat that America faces from the porous border with Mexico.

As so often, the truth paints quite a different picture. The sudden rise in Border Patrol assaults turned out to have been because the Trump administration completely changed the method of counting assaults on immigration officers, so that the figures now show not just the number of officers attacked, but the number of officers times the number of attackers times the number of objects used in the attack (I kid you not!), so that each stick or rock thrown counts as a separate incident! Using more traditional methods of counting assaults would not show any spike in attacks, and would show that Border Patrol actually experience the LOWEST assault rate among law enforcement officers, much less than those who police residents, for example. 

As for the international terrorist figures, a Department of Justice report into the situation concluded that immigration was NOT undermining national security or public safety because international terrorism only makes up a small fraction of total terrorism in America, most of which can not be blamed on immigrants. Oh, and those agents discovered at the bottom of a culvert? Well, the FBI found no evidence of any attack at all. It turns out that they FELL down the culvert in the dark, as the surviving agent confirmed when his memory returned!