Fashion’s Millennial Problem – Cathy Horyn September 28, 2017 3:51 pm


Dior wants to reach them, but doesn’t know how. Plus: Lanvin’s decline, and deft touches at Margiela and Dries.

In 1968, France finally paid attention to its youth culture. It had no choice after the student revolution in May, but it didn’t like the idea. “France has never been a nation that encouraged its young to show that they were more free and alive than anyone else,” Gloria Emerson, a Paris correspondent for the Times, observed at the time. Girls didn’t get sweet 16 parties in France back then, and boys didn’t get cars.

But one of the first bellwethers of change was fashion. By 1965, a flock of cool boutiques had opened on the Left Bank, like Dorothée Bis. Yves Saint Laurent was revolutionizing haute couture with his Mondrian and baby-doll dresses. Even earlier, in 1960, he had rattled the old guard by showing a luxe motorcycle jacket at Christian Dior.

I’ve been thinking about the difference between then and now because the Paris spring 2018 collections began with a lot of talk among fashion cognoscenti about what the millennials want. A general concern over how to reach this new generation has been in the air for the last couple of years, but it seems to be reaching a crescendo lately. Everyone wants to skew younger, but what does that mean exactly? The question seemed most urgent at Dior, where Maria Grazia Chiuri filled her runway with jeans, mary janes, sparkly minidresses, and tulle skirts opening in the front over underpants that people afterward said were for millennials.

The clothes were certainly cute, and, in my opinion, this was Chiuri’s best collection since she became creative director of the 70-year-old house a year ago. She won on sheer variety. All those Desperately Seeking Susan skirts were charming, yes, but more interesting were the one-off looks, like a pair of gold Chinese pajamas, a patchwork granny skirt, a sleek red leather coat, and a boxy, Amish-looking pantsuit shown with a skipper. Chiuri is the fourth or fifth designer this season to base her collection on an artist — Niki de Saint Phalle, known for her bulbous sculptures and mirrored mosaics — and, as she has done a couple of times at Dior already, Chiuri attempted to call attention to the inequality of women. She opened the show with a model in a top with the words: “Why have there been no great women artists?” It’s also the title of a scholarly essay by Linda Nochlin which was left on every seat for guests to read at their leisure.

HOW TO USE SIGNAL WITHOUT GIVING OUT YOUR PHONE NUMBER – Micah Lee September 28 2017, 8:17 a.m.


Illustration: Mark Pernice and Élise Rigollet for The Intercept

JUST A FEW years ago, sending encrypted messages was a challenge. Just to get started, you had to spend hours following along with jargon-filled tutorials, or be lucky enough to find a nerd friend to teach you. The few that survived this process quickly hit a second barrier: They could only encrypt with others who had already jumped through the same hoops. So even after someone finally set up encrypted email, they couldn’t use it with most of the people they wanted to send encrypted emails to.

The situation is much better today. A number of popular apps have come along that make encryption as easy as texting. Among the most secure is Signal, open-source software for iOS and Android that has caught on among activists, journalists, and others who do sensitive work. And probably the most popular is WhatsApp, a Facebook-owned platform with encryption setup derived from Signal. For me, the spread of encrypted chat apps means that, with very few exceptions, all of my text messages — with friends, family, or for work — are end-to-end encrypted, and no one even has to understand what a “public key” is.

But there is a major issue with both Signal and WhatsApp: Your account is tied to your phone number.

This makes these apps really easy to use, since there are no usernames or passwords to deal with. It also makes it easy to discover other app users; if someone is a contact in your phone and has the app installed, you can send them encrypted texts with no further effort.

But it also means that if you want people to be able to send you messages securely, you need to hand out your phone number. This puts people who interact with the public in an awkward bind: Is the ability for strangers to contact you securely worth publishing your private phone number?

In this article I explain how to create a second Signal number that is safe to publish on your Twitter bio and business cards, so strangers have an easy way to contact you securely, while your primary phone number remains private. I explain how to obtain a second phone number, how to register it with the Signal server, and how to configure it to use Signal Desktop — even if you’re already using Signal Desktop with your private phone number. I will focus on Signal rather than WhatsApp for reasons I’ll explain further down (basically, WhatsApp appears to block non-cellular phone numbers that make all this possible with Signal).

How to Use Signal Without Giving Out Your Phone Number – Micah Lee September 28 2017, 8:17 a.m.


Just a few years ago, sending encrypted messages was a challenge. Just to get started, you had to spend hours following along with jargon-filled tutorials, or be lucky enough to find a nerd friend to teach you. The few that survived this process quickly hit a second barrier: They could only encrypt with others who had already jumped through the same hoops. So even after someone finally set up encrypted email, they couldn’t use it with most of the people they wanted to send encrypted emails to.

The situation is much better today. A number of popular apps have come along that make encryption as easy as texting. Among the most secure is Signal, open-source software for iOS and Android that has caught on among activists, journalists, and others who do sensitive work. And probably the most popular is WhatsApp, a Facebook-owned platform with encryption setup derived from Signal. For me, the spread of encrypted chat apps means that, with very few exceptions, all of my text messages — with friends, family, or for work — are end-to-end encrypted, and no one even has to understand what a “public key” is.

But there is a major issue with both Signal and WhatsApp: Your account is tied to your phone number.

This makes these apps really easy to use, since there are no usernames or passwords to deal with. It also makes it easy to discover other app users; if someone is a contact in your phone and has the app installed, you can send them encrypted texts with no further effort.

But it also means that if you want people to be able to send you messages securely, you need to hand out your phone number. This puts people who interact with the public in an awkward bind: Is the ability for strangers to contact you securely worth publishing your private phone number?

In this article I explain how to create a second Signal number that is safe to publish on your Twitter bio and business cards, so strangers have an easy way to contact you securely, while your primary phone number remains private. I explain how to obtain a second phone number, how to register it with the Signal server, and how to configure it to use Signal Desktop — even if you’re already using Signal Desktop with your private phone number. I will focus on Signal rather than WhatsApp for reasons I’ll explain further down (basically, WhatsApp appears to block non-cellular phone numbers that make all this possible with Signal).

Why Wouldn’t You Want to Publish Your Phone Number?

When you give out your phone number, you risk opening yourself up to abuse. As freedom of expression activist Jillian York wrote on her personal blog, “As a woman, handing out my phone number to a stranger creates a moderate risk: What if he calls me in the middle of the night? What if he harasses me over SMS? What if I have to change my number to get away from him?”

If you’re a public figure, and especially if you’re a women or person of color, you’re probably used to sexist or racist jerks yelling slurs and threats at you on Twitter, Facebook, and in the comments section under the articles you write. Publishing your private phone number could make this problem worse and could make these people harder to mute.

It could also open up your online accounts to attack. Last year, someone hackedracial justice activist DeRay Mckesson’s Twitter and email accounts by taking over his phone number. The hacker called Verizon and, impersonating Mckesson, asked to change the SIM card associated with his phone number to a new one that they controlled, so they could receive SMS messages sent to his phone number.

Playboy Magazine’s Unlikely History of Abortion-Rights Activism – Sierra Tishgart@sierratishgartSeptember 28, 2017 5:26 pm


Playboy, May, 1963

Much will be said about Hugh Hefner’s legacy, the polarizing man who created Playboy in 1953 and who died Tuesday at age 91, but a largely unknown story is Hefner’s critical role in the fight for women’s reproductive rights. Playboywas the first major national consumer magazine to advocate for legal abortion on demand. Its coverage began in April of 1963 (before even Planned Parenthood joined the abortion-rights movement) when Sex and the Single Girl author Helen Gurley Brown responded to a question about abortion in an interview. “It’s outrageous that girls can’t be aborted here,” she said. “Abortion is just surrounded by all this hush-hush and horror, like insanity used to be.”

You’d assume that Playboy supported abortion rights only to mitigate the consequences of sexual freedom for men. But Playboy first wrote about abortion from a public-health standpoint, publishing letters from women that detailed the emotional and physical pain caused by botched and illegal abortions. Readers debated the issue of abortion in the Playboy Forum, the magazine’s current-events section. Over 350 letters about abortion appeared from 1963 to 1973; women wrote about a third. Many chose to remain nameless as they shared their gruesome stories.

Here’s one from the September 1966 issue, titled “Abortion Butchery”:

“The horror stories about illegal abortion in The Playboy Forum are certainly typical of the butchery that goes on…. I was forced to seek an abortion from the first butcher I could find… Consequently, I wound up in the hospital as a result of the bloody job that was done on me.” — Name withheld by request

And another from the January 1967 issue, “An Easy Abortion”:

“The operation was simple. It took exactly 12 minutes. I had no aftereffects other than normal cramps. Again, I say that I was lucky. But how about the girls less lucky than me, who must go to the butchers and risk their lives? When will this cruel and senseless law be changed?” — Name withheld by request, Coral Gables, Florida

From 1965 to Roe v. Wade in 1973, Playboy covered abortion in almost every single issue, and advocated for the legalization of abortion on demand with no restrictions. This same year, the American Law Institute recommended that a woman be entitled to an abortion if her physical or mental health were endangered, if she had been the victim of rape or incest, or if there were fetal deformities. The restrictive idea of therapeutic abortion gained force. In its December 1965 issue, Playboy published its first official editorial response on the topic, in response to an anti-abortion letter from a reader:

“A pregnant woman is faced with choices—and we think she should be allowed to decide which alternative is preferable under the circumstances—whatever the circumstances happen to be … If the pregnant woman decides to have an abortion in America at the present time — and over 1,500,000 did this year — she must, in most cases, resort to an illicit operation, performed under circumstances conducive to both physical and emotional pain.”

Abortion was a tricky subject for any magazine to take on in the 1960s. Yet the decision was an easy one for the Playboy editorial staff. There was no heated office discussion. No dramatic proclamation by Hefner. The decision to cover such a disruptive topic happened very quietly. “At that time, abortion was controversial, but we all felt the same way and forged ahead,” former Playboy editor Nat Lehrman told me when I interviewed him while studying Playboy at Northwestern in 2011. (He died in 2014.) Lehrman joined the staff of Playboy in 1963 and edited the Forum. “I never really talked about it with Hef, to tell you the truth, but I’m quite sure he was receptive. He would have raised hell if he wasn’t.”

Article continues:

Kid Rock For Senate & The Equifax Cyber Attack: VICE News Tonight Full Episode (HBO) – September 13, 2017, FULL EPISODE of VICE News Tonight on HBO.


VICE News examines the Michigan Republican Party after Trump’s upset win. Outside Michigan, all anyone is talking about is Kid Rock. What’s the conversation inside the state when it comes to 2018? Starting last year under Obama, the army has been delaying shipping dates, and as a result many recruits have fallen out of legal visa status, after being promised citizenship by signing up to serve the U.S. military. They might face deportation once the DOD cancels their contracts. VICE News speaks with two MAVNI recruits from China as they await their fate in Indiana. Also, inside the devastation of the Virgin Islands following Irma and a look at back-row kids and fans of New York Fashion Weekq

Corporate Consolidation: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) – LastWeekTonight   Published on Sep 24, 2017


Big businesses are getting even bigger thanks to a rise in corporate mergers. John Oliver explains why that could make you want to physically destroy your cable box. Connect with Last Week Tonight online… Subscribe to the Last Week Tonight YouTube channel for more almost news as it almost happens: http://www.youtube.com/user/LastWeekTonight

Now We Know Why Poison Frogs Don’t Poison Themselves – By Michael Greshko PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 28, 2017


Suriname’s blue poison dart frog (Dendrobates tinctorius azureus). PHOTOGRAPH BY REINHARD DIRSCHERL, ULLSTEIN BILD, GETTY IMAGES

picture of poison frogs

Suriname’s blue poison dart frog (Dendrobates tinctorius azureus).

Also known as the Amazonian poison frog and the Rio Madeira poison frog, the diurnal poison-arrow frog (Adelphobates quinquevittatus) sits in leaf litter on the rainforest floor.

Photograph by Wild Horizons, UIG, Getty Images

The poison frog Atelopus spumarius.

Photograph by Rodrigo Buendia, AFP, Getty Images

The markings on the arrow poison frog Dendrobates leucomelas vary slightly from frog to frog. This species also has a loud trilling call.

Photograph by Auscape, UIG, Getty Images

An employee at the Latoxan SAS laboratory in Valence, France, shows the fangs on an Easter diamondback rattlesnake before extracting the snake’s venom.

Photograph by Balint Porneczi, Bloomberg, Getty Images

Deep in the forests of South America live poison dart frogs that carry around a toxin 200 times more potent than morphine. While it packs a fatal punch for predators, the poison doesn’t much affect the frogs. How?

Their nervous systems have changed over time to fight off the powerful chemicals—an extraordinary example of evolution in action, according to a new study.

“I’ve been wanting to understand how organisms could acquire neurotoxins, [which] requires an animal to reorganize their nervous system,” says study coauthor Rebecca Tarvin, a biologist at the University of Texas at Austin and National Geographic Society grantee.

“It almost seems unlikely that something like that would evolve.”

Getting on Their Nerves

Poison frogs don’t actually make their own poison: They get it from eating mites and ants. Bright colors then warn any predator foolish enough to take a bite.

Predators such as snakes and scorpions, however, use venom, which must enter another animal’s body by physical trauma to properly work. These toxins don’t have to instantly kill: Instead, predators regularly use venom that paralyzes their prey.

Article continues: