Media Search:



Lewis Hamilton will be allowed to continue anti-racism stance and highlight Black Lives Matter by F1 chiefs… – The Irish Sun

LEWIS HAMILTON will be allowed to continue his anti-racism campaign ahead of F1 races this season.

Last year, the reigning world champion used the moments ahead of the national anthems to highlight causes, such as the Black Lives Matter movement.

4

4

4

Hamilton also wore a t-shirt bearing the words "arrest the cops who killed Breonna Taylor" at the Tuscan Grand Prix to raise awareness of the woman who was shot by police in her own home.

Hamilton also chose to take a knee before the races but his decision was not universally copied, with six of the 20 drivers choosing to remain standing.

There was some criticism that it diluted F1's We Race As One campaign, used to promote anti-racism and equality.

The issue was raised by F1's new CEO Stefano Domenicali during testing earlier this month in Bahrain and the sport will make some tweaks to its pre-race procedure.

The rainbow will be dropped from their message and the sport will use time on the grid to raise awareness to a number of issues, such as sustainability and diversity.

However, drivers have been told they are free to express themselves during the message.

That means Hamilton can again take a knee if he wishes to do so.

FREE BETS: GET OVER 2,000 IN SIGN UP OFFERS HERE

Exclusive

LIGHTS OUTBritish GP preparing for huge post-lockdown party with 500k tickets almost gone

seven-th heavenF1 Bahrain Grand Prix: UK start time, TV channel and live stream

WILL POWERRussell reckons Williams 2021 car can score points and move team back up grid

Exclusive

TESTING TIMESF1 blow on eve of season as two Aston Martin staff test positive for Covid-19

F1 CALENDARGrand Prix times, practice and qualifying schedules and venues for whole season

STAR DEADTop Gear star and racing legend Sabine Schmitz dies aged 51 after cancer battle

An F1 spokesman said: "The whole of Formula 1 is united in its support for #WeRaceAsOne and the drivers will all show their own support for the initiative ahead of the grand prix.

"The drivers will be free to show their commitment in their own way before the race and there will be no requirement for them to make a specific gesture.

"The important thing is all of them being together in full support of our initiatives on sustainability, diversity and inclusion and community."

4

Read the original post:
Lewis Hamilton will be allowed to continue anti-racism stance and highlight Black Lives Matter by F1 chiefs... - The Irish Sun

In Reply to Tim Wise: America’s Past on Race Should Not Be …

(Jon Chase)

The toxic consequences of drawing a crude line between Americas past and the state of our modern institutions cannot be understated.

In a blog post this past summer on Medium, progressive activist Tim Wise compared the supposedly self-evident existence of systemic racism in the United States to Isaac Newtons First Law of Motion, which asserts thatevery object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force. Wise suggests that since historical events and patterns leave legacies, the United States legacy of racism has a sort of inertia of its own.

Unfortunately for those such as Wise, the dubious notion that modern racial inequalities are intrinsically tied to a larger historical narrative of endless racism turns out to be at odds with reality.

Of course, the clearest error in thinking is apparent from the very beginning: Why would anyone believe that systemic racism behaves in the same way as a law of physics? Not only is the social reality of American life more complex (and infused with endlessly more variables) than a cosmic principle, there is also extensive evidence to suggest that a variety of institutions have taken steps to eradicate racial bias. Some examples include:

I could go on; however, the main point is crystal clear: Why would a system designed to threaten the well-being of racial minorities also take such concrete and extensive steps to help them?

Furthermore, what is to be said about racial disparities in which black individuals outpace their white counterparts, such as when black applicants for medical schools are accepted at higher rates than white applicants? Does this serve as evidence that such systems were designed to be unfair to whites? Just as it would be absurd to make that claim, it is equally preposterous to deduce that every system in the United States is racist simply because of a. the existence of disparities and b. various historical facts about the country.

On the subject of history, a detailed examination of various American systems and their origins might be of use to those who assert that racisms inertia continues to metastasize in our current institutions. Perhaps the most easily identifiable example is the founding of the United States itself, which, according to many on the Left, ingrained systemic racism into the very fabric of our society. While it should come as no shock that there are explicitly racist clauses within many of our countrys early documents, various other texts were written to prevent the spread of racist practices. Take, for example, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which was purposefully designed to stop the spread of slavery to western territories. As Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen explain in their book, A Patriots History of the United States:

When the individual initiative [to free enslaved people] did not suffice, Northerners employed the law. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the first large-scale prohibition of slavery by a major nation in history, would forbid slavery above the Ohio Rivervirtually all these men [the founders] believed that slavery would some day end

A preponderance of historical evidence suggests that the very men who designed allegedly racist systems in the United States eventually established policies that gave way to the end of slavery, despite living at a time in which slavery was commonly practiced around the world. The fact that the Founders laid the foundation for future abolitionists such as President Abraham Lincoln speaks volumes about the competing intentions of the United States founding. Such facts fly in the face of the racist inertia argument. The origins of Americas institutions are simply too complex to have moved in a singular direction, with such quantifiable and longitudinal consequences.

Additionally, claiming that entire institutions are sinister by design disincentivizes people from using those same institutions to their advantage. This becomes clear when examining the history of relations between ethnic minorities and the police, an institution often accused of being forever inextricably linked to its allegedly racist roots. As Thomas Sowell notes in his book Ethnic America, many ethnic minorities did not make sizable gains until they cooperated with police to lower crime in their towns and neighborhoods. Regarding Chinese Americans in the early 1900s and their interactions with the criminal group known as the tongs, Sowell writes:

The[c]ompanies ordered their member merchants to refuse to pay more protection money to the tongs. Chinatown residents began to cooperate with police in apprehending and prosecuting criminalsChinese festivals and parades received police protection and became civic events attracting large crowds of non-Chinese.

Sowell goes on to explain that the protection of Chinese communities by the police led to greater investments in education, which, in turn, increased the net worth of these individuals in the years that followed. Simply put, if the racist origins of American policing carried some sort of inertia with it, why did low-income Chinese immigrants with little educational background benefit so overwhelmingly from police presence in their communities?

The toxic consequences of drawing a crude line between Americas past and the state of our modern institutions cannot be understated. It is precisely this kind of pseudo-historical logic that legitimizes radical ideas such as the head startmyth, which claims that all white people are the beneficiaries of historical privilege, invoking the image of an unfair foot race between black and white people to make the point. Similar to the inertia argument, this myth falls apart once one realizes just how complex our nations history (or any nations) truly is. To be clear, many white privileges failed to benefit said people and often only exacerbated poverty. A prime example is the Homestead Act of 1862, a land grant that resulted in thousands of white farmers losing intergenerational wealth after failing to produce crops in the West.

When all is said and done, taking time to research the actual particulars of American history reveals something much more profound than a simple story of malignant design. The United States history tells the story of a nations struggle to uphold its own exceptional ideals, while, along the way, confronting evil institutions such as slavery, black codes, and Jim Crow laws. It should be abundantly clear that the burden of proof belongs to those making the claim that the United States is systemically racistand not to those arguing that American history is far too complex to make such broad generalizations.

J. Edward Britton is a composer and essayist. He is a graduate of Oberlin College.

Read more from the original source:
In Reply to Tim Wise: America's Past on Race Should Not Be ...

Advocate named Apptio’s ‘Enterprise Partner of the Year’ for the second year in a row – PRNewswire

"Our thriving partner community encompasses some of the most transformative companies, resellers and consulting agencies in the world," said Dave Scholtz, Vice President of Global Partner Strategy and Operations at Apptio. "Among them, Advocate embodies the agility and inventiveness we value in a partner and has earned this recognition for driving business and technology transformations powered by Apptio solutions. Advocate is an established leader in changing the way our mutual customers effectively manage the business of technology with sound IT financial management principles through the Technology Business Management and FinOps frameworks."

"We're proud to receive the Enterprise Partner of the Year award from Apptio. Having earned this award two years in a row, reaffirms our position as the premier TBM services company. Apptio has been a valuable partner on this journey. We look forward to working together towards even greater future success," said Tim Wise, Co-founder and Co-CEO of Advocate.

"Our TBM services empower CIOs to make smarter technology investments. They satisfy a range of needs from designing new TBM programs to helping mature clients advance their TBM journey," said Scott Fogle, Co-founder and Co-CEO of Advocate. "Plus, our industry-leading TBM-as-a-Service program leverages automation and deep process expertise to accelerate their efforts."

Apptio's global network of partners include more than 200 leading technology companies, systems integrators, solution providers, and consulting and advisory firms. These awards recognize global partners demonstrating growth and innovation through the advisory and ongoing management services they provide, as well as their strategic integration with Apptio to deliver industry-leading solutions for customers with joint go-to-market initiatives.

About AdvocateAdvocate is the "Premier TBM Services Company" within the IT financial management industry. It works with smart companies and experts in their fields to transform technology investments. Advocate leverages its TBM framework to help all enterprise leaders measure ROI in terms of business outcomes. For more information, please visit http://www.advocateinsiders.com.

CONTACT: [emailprotected]

SOURCE Advocate

http://www.advocateinsiders.com

Read this article:
Advocate named Apptio's 'Enterprise Partner of the Year' for the second year in a row - PRNewswire

Who controls the lungs of Earth? – GZERO Media

Those fighting to halt climate change call the Amazon rainforest the "lungs of Earth," and they're frustrated that Brazil's current president has made his country a chain-smoker.

A healthy Amazon is crucial for the global fight against climate change. Human activity is pumping unsustainable amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, trapping enough heat to warm the planet in ways that profoundly disrupt the climate. Trees, and the soils they grow in, store carbon that might otherwise reach the atmosphere, but trees that are cut down or burned release more carbon into the air.

That makes rapid deforestation of the Amazon an urgent problem for the entire planet. Clearcutting of trees in the region has been a problem for decades, but the January 2019 inauguration of Jair Bolsonaro as president of Brazil, home to more than 60 percent of the remaining Amazon tree cover, has made matters much worse.

Bolsonaro has stripped environmental protection agencies of funding and manpower, which flashes a bright green light to those who want to cut and burn trees to open land for farms and cattle ranches. Bolsonaro's bid to use Brazil's military to police the Amazon has failed, perhaps because the president himself and some of Brazil's army brass may not believe in the mission.

The results speak for themselves. In 2019, more than one-third of all destruction of the world's tropical forests took place inside Brazil alone. The Amazon lost more trees in 2019 than at any point in the previous decade, and then, despite the pandemic, beat that record again in 2020. When confronted with evidence that the number of fires in the Amazon has spiked sharply on his watch, Bolsonaro accused "greenies" environmental activists of setting the fires deliberately to "bring problems to Brazil."

Bolsonaro and his supporters in Brazil don't like it when outsiders demand new protections for the Amazon. "OUR SOVEREIGNTY IS NON-NEGOTIABLE," he tweeted last year in response to threats of economic sanctions over the Amazon from then-US presidential candidate Joe Biden.

But outsiders concerned about the climate are increasing their pressure. The EU has warned that failure to protect the rainforest is an important obstacle to completion of a blockbuster trade deal between Europe and Mercosur, a Brazil-dominated South American trade bloc. Institutional investors are pushing too. But Brazil has (so far) been able to resist these pressures, in part because it exports far more to China than to either the US or Europe, and Beijing isn't pushing for change.

That said, economic threats have helped mobilize Brazil's business community. Many companies have promised to cut carbon emissions and to remove products produced via deforestation from their supply chains. An alliance of Brazilian CEOs and scientists has called for investment in sustainable development.

But so far, Bolsonaro has shrugged off external and internal pressure for a change of course, in part, perhaps, because a challenging election campaign next year might depend on the continued support of his political base including farmers and ranchers in the Amazon, who say that their industry is important for feeding Brazil and maintaining the country's position as an agriculture superpower. In particular, Brazil is now the world's top exporter of soy beans.

Joe Biden hopes a mix of carrots and sticks might help. The new US president has asked his climate envoy John Kerry to lead an international effort to raise $20 billion for the Amazon, though there are plenty of debates to come over how that money should be used. The money won't flow unless deforestation is reduced, but the new US president hopes that engaging, rather than threatening, Bolsonaro can produce a better result.

In the end, the size and density of the Amazon is itself part of the problem. The ground it covers is larger than all of Western Europe, so whatever agreements are forged and promises made, it will never be easy to police Amazon deforestation.

But Ibama, Brazil's civilian environmental protection agency, must be given the resources to try, climate experts warn, because those trees are crucial for all of us.

See the original post here:
Who controls the lungs of Earth? - GZERO Media

Inkbit to supply Vision-Controlled Jetting 3D printers to USAF in $1.7M contract – 3DPMN

Inkbit, an MIT spinout that has developed a first-of-its-kind 3D printing platform with vision-based feedback control, has secured a $1.7 research grant from the United States Air Force. As part of the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) contract, Inkbit will build three of its additive manufacturing systems, which will ultimately be installed at USAF bases across the United States.

Since having launched the Inkbit Vista just a month ago, Inkbit has caused quite a stir in the AM industry and has already attracted the interest of the U.S. military. The highly automated polymer AM technology, called Vision-Controlled Jetting (VCJ), is based on inkjet deposition technology, integrates closed-loop feedback control, multi-material capabilities and is powered by 3D machine vision and AI. The system is intended to facilitate the transition from prototyping to full-scale production through the combination of advanced computational techniques and a highly scalable configuration.

The three systems destined for USAF use are some of the young companys first commercial systems. The first to be available will be deployed by the Texas National Guard to facilitate the production of parts. The USAF contract will reportedly also fund the development of technical improvements and software tools to advance Inkbits proprietary technology and vision system. This will specifically draw from research conducted by DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

The Texas National Guard is proud to be the leader in adopting additive manufacturing into the National Guard, said Lt. Col. Alex Goldberg, Chief Innovation Officer, Texas Air National Guard. We are excited to take the technology developed by agencies like DARPA to initiate expeditionary parts production efforts that will greatly reduce costs across the force.

We are thrilled to be awarded this substantial contract from the United States Air Force, added Davide Marini, co-founder and CEO at Inkbit. We are at an inflection point in our business where the technology is undoubtedly making a difference in how additive manufacturing is used to create materials that are appropriate for end-use, pass quality assurance standards, and reduce general production costs from legacy systems. We are looking forward to working with the USAF and are excited to make a difference with additive manufacturing.

Inkbit is also notable for having received substantial funding from a series of high profile investors, including Stratasys, DSM Venturing, Ocado, IMA, 3M and Saint-Gobain. Prior to the USAF contract, the company had raised $15 million in equity investments, and had already received funding from DARPA and NSF. The companys Inkbit system is available for pre-order.

Original post:
Inkbit to supply Vision-Controlled Jetting 3D printers to USAF in $1.7M contract - 3DPMN