Emma Brown, The Washington Post ; Jane Goodall, primatologist and friend to chimpanzees, dies at 91: She used her global fame to draw attention to the plight of dwindling chimpanzee populations and, more broadly, to the perils of environmental destruction.
"Dr. Goodall, whose research prompted a transformation in the ways scientists study social behavior across species, has died at 91."
"The Pentagon plans to impose strict nondisclosure agreements andrandom polygraph testing for scores of people in its headquarters, including many top officials, according to two people familiar with the proposal and documents obtained by The Washington Post, escalating Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s war on leakers and internal dissent.
All military service members, civilian employees and contract workers within the office of the defense secretary and the Joint Staff, estimated to be more than 5,000 personnel, would be required to sign a nondisclosure agreement that “prohibits the release of non-public information without approval or through a defined process,” according to a draft memo from Deputy Defense Secretary Steve Feinberg...
More recently, the Pentagon has issued a requirement that reporters covering the military sign an agreement not to solicit or gather any information — even unclassified — that hasn’t been expressly authorized for release, the penalty for which could be press credential revocation. Reporters have until later this month to agree to those terms."
Gabriel Sandoval, ProPublica, with additional reporting by Nick Reynolds and Anna Wilder, The Post and Courier; Yasmeen Khan, The Maine Monitor; Lauren Dake, Oregon Public Broadcasting; Marjorie Childress, New Mexico In Depth; Louis Hansen, Virginia Center for Investigative Journalism at WHRO; Mary Steurer and Jacob Orledge, North Dakota Monitor; Kate McGee, The Texas Tribune; Alyse Pfeil, The Advocate | The Times-Picayune; and Shauna Sowersby, The Seattle Times , ProPublica; Lawmakers Across the Country This Year Blocked Ethics Reforms Meant to Increase Public Trust
"At a time when the bounds of government ethics are being stretched in Washington, D.C., hundreds of ethics-related bills were introduced this year in state legislatures, according to the bipartisan National Conference of State Legislatures’ ethics legislation database. While legislation strengthening ethics oversight did pass in some places, a ProPublica analysis found lawmakers across multiple states targeted or thwarted reforms designed to keep the public and elected officials accountable to the people they serve.
Democratic and Republican lawmakers tried to push through bills to tighten gift limits, toughen conflict-of-interest provisions or expand financial disclosure reporting requirements. Time and again, the bills were derailed.
With the help of local newsrooms, many of which have been part of ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network, we reviewed a range of legislation that sought to weaken or stymie ethics regulations in 2025. We also spoke to experts for an overview of trends nationwide. Their take: The threats to ethics standards and their enforcement have been growing.
“Donald Trump has been ushering a new cultural standard, in which ethics is no longer significant,” said Craig Holman, a veteran government ethics specialist with the progressive watchdog nonprofit Public Citizen. He pointed to Trump’s private dinner with top buyers of his cryptocurrency and the administration’s tariff deal with Vietnam after it greenlit the Trump Organization’s $1.5 billion golf resort complex; and he said in an email it was “most revealing” that the White House “for the first time in over 16 years has no ethics policy. Trump 2.0 simply repealed Biden’s ethics Executive Order and replaced it with nothing.”
Faris Tanyos, CBS News ; Government website blames shutdown on "radical left." Ethics group calls it a "blatant violation."
"Ahead of Wednesday's government shutdown, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development on Tuesday posted a banner in large type on its homepage blaming the shutdown on the "Radical Left," an allegation that an ethics group said was a "blatant violation" of the Hatch Act.
"The Radical Left are going to shut down the government and inflict massive pain on the American people unless they get their $1.5 trillion wish list of demands," the message read. "The Trump administration wants to keep the government open for the American people."
A complaint filed Tuesday with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel by the nonprofit consumer advocacy group Public Citizen alleged that the banner on HUD's website was a "blatant violation" of the Hatch Act, describing it as "highly partisan" and seeking to "idolize the Trump administration … without attributing any blame for the lack of compromise causing the shutdown."
The Hatch Act is a federal law passed in 1939 that "limits certain political activities of federal employees as well as some state, D.C., and local government employees who work in connection with federally funded programs," according to the Office of Special Counsel.
Its purpose, among other things, is to "ensure that federal programs are administered in a nonpartisan fashion," the office explains."
Neal Katyal , Above The Law; The Rainmaker: What 20 Years In Supreme Court Practice Have Taught Me
"The Improv Principle
Ed. note: The Rainmaker is a new Above the Law series highlighting attorneys who have built distinguished practices by excelling not only in the courtroom and at the negotiating table, but also in business development, mentorship, and leadership. Each installment will feature candid reflections on what it takes to succeed as a rainmaker in today’s legal industry. Our first featured rainmaker is Neal Katyal...
For years, I’ve been studying improv comedy, and it’s transformed how I think about legal practice. The cardinal rule of improv is “yes, and”—you accept what your scene partners offer and build on it. You don’t say “no” or shut down their contribution. You make your partners look good, and in turn they make you look good.
This sounds soft. It’s not. It’s the hardest discipline I know.
In a meeting, when an associate offers an idea that seems off-base, the instinct is to correct them, to show why you’re the experienced lead counsel. The improv instinct is different: find what’s valuable in their contribution and build on it. “Yes, and we could take that framework and apply it to the jurisdictional question.” Suddenly, the associate isn’t embarrassed—they’re energized. They’ve contributed something real. They’ll work twice as hard for you, and next time, their idea might be the one that wins the case.
This isn’t artificial, it’s definitely not about giving false praise. A smart associate, after all, will see through that in a second. It’s rather about trying to find the diamond in the rough, the insight that the associate has and that can be built upon. I kind of stumbled upon that idea when I did my first case, challenging Guantanamo. At my side were a dozen law students – and they would all have various writing assignments and my duty was to sort through all their insights and build a coherent product out of it. Many were off-the-wall, to be sure, but many were brilliant, too. It just took work to find those flashes of brilliance and to build upon them. That kind of “bottom-up” strategy is one I have taken to heart – so much so that today I routinely take advice on crafting arguments from my Researcher at Milbank. My Researcher is someone who has graduated from college and yet has not attended law school.
This isn’t just about associates or your internal team, it’s just as much about clients. When a client pushes back on your strategy, you could dig in and explain why you’re right. Or you could listen—really listen—to what’s driving their concern. Usually, they’re telling you something important about their business reality, their risk tolerance, or their board dynamics. “Yes, and given that constraint, what if we structured the argument this way?” Now you’re not just their lawyer; you’re their partner.
Why Clients Return
Twenty-three years ago when I wrote that piece, I thought clients hired you for your legal brilliance. They don’t. They hire you because you make their problems smaller, not bigger.
I’ve represented the same clients through multiple Supreme Court cases, not because I won every time (I haven’t), but because they trust that I’ll listen to what they actually need. Sometimes what they need is an aggressive cert petition. Sometimes what they need is someone to tell them that the case isn’t worth the institutional risk of taking to the Court. The clients who keep coming back are the ones who know you’ll give them the second answer when it’s true, even though it costs you a major case and significant fees.
This requires a specific kind of humility: the humility to know that the client understands their business better than you do, and that your legal judgment is in service of their goals, not the other way around. Supreme Court lawyers can struggle with this because we’re trained to think about doctrinal purity and legal architecture. But clients don’t care about your elegant theory of administrative law. They care about whether they can build the project, launch the product, or avoid the devastating liability.
The best piece of advice I ever received came from Eric Holder, who mentored me at the Justice Department in my first stint there, right after my clerkships. He watched me fail to persuade senior officials of a position that I was absolutely certain was right. Afterward, he pulled me aside. “Your analysis was perfect,” he said. “But you didn’t listen to their concerns. You tried to convince them you were right instead of understanding why they were worried. Next time, start by understanding their perspective.”
That lesson echoes through every client relationship, every oral argument, every brief. Start by understanding their perspective."
Jill Goldsmith, Deadline; Disney Sends Cease And Desist Letter To Character.ai For Copyright Infringement As Studios Move To Protect IP
"Walt Disney sent a cease-and-desist letter to Character.AI, a “personalized superintelligence platform” that the media giant says is ripping off copyrighted characters without authorization.
The AI startup offers users the ability to create customizable, personalized AI companions that can be totally original but in some cases are inspired by existing characters, including, it seems, Disney icons from Spider-Man and Darth Vader to Moana and Elsa.
The letter is the latest legal salvo by Hollywood as studios begin to step up against AI. Disney has also sued AI company Midjourney for allegedly improper use and distribution of AI-generated characters from Disney films. Disney, Warner Bros. and Universal Pictures this month sued Chinese AI firm MiniMax for copyright infringement."
Carla Babb, Military Times; Hegseth blasts ‘fat troops’ in rare gathering with military brass
"The nonprofit Service Women’s Action Network pushed back Tuesday on policies “implying that the focus on diversity and inclusion distracts from the core mission of lethality.”
“Our diversity is not a vulnerability — it is our single greatest strategic advantage, a force multiplier that makes our military stronger, more resilient, and ultimately, more lethal in execution,” the group said in a statement.
The group reiterated the Marines Corps’ findings that diverse teams of men and women from every background are “proven to identify risks and develop more innovative, complete strategies than homogenous teams.” A force that better reflects the global population and diversity of the United States “builds deeper trust and achieves greater operational effectiveness overseas,” SWAN added...
Hegseth also pledged to improve grooming standards in ways critics argue could target the religious freedoms of U.S. service members.
“No more beards, long hair, superficial, individual expression. We’re going to cut our hair, shave our beards and adhere to standards,” Hegseth said.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations called on the Pentagon on Tuesday to clarify Hegseth’s order and affirm that the department would maintain the religious rights of all service members.
“The First Amendment guarantees military personnel the right to practice their faith — including the right of Muslim, Sikh and Jewish personnel to grow beards or cover their hair — as does established Pentagon policy,” CAIR said in a statement.
Another directive Hegseth announced at Quantico on Tuesday is geared toward “overhauling” the Inspector General process, which the secretary said had been “weaponized, putting complainers, ideologues and poor performers in the driver’s seat.”
“No more frivolous complaints. No more anonymous complaints. No more repeat complaints. No more smearing reputations. No more endless waiting. No more legal limbo. No more side-tracking careers. No more walking on eggshells,” Hegseth said.
The IG is currently investigating Hegseth for his use of Signal to share classified or sensitive information about an attack in Yemen earlier this year. Hegseth’s office has called it a “sham” review.
It was unclear Tuesday how this overhaul would affect the investigation."
[Transcript] U.S. Department of War, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth Addresses General and Flag Officers at Quantico, Virginia
[Kip Currier: Pete Hegseth repeatedly denigrated our brave military enlisted members and officers with shameful insults, and then invoked the language of God, Jesus, and the Biblical Gospels to try to legitimize his statements and actions by intentionally situating his derogatory rhetoric within the framework of the Golden Rule. It's a transparent attempt to use scripture as a shield for reprehensible conduct.
It's also wholly inappropriate, disrespectful, and unnecessary to talk to and about our military members in this way.
Moreover, the actions and teachings of the Jesus of the New Testament are in direct opposition to the kinds of derisive and divisive put-downs and slurs that Hegseth utters in this speech.
Thank you to all those serving and who have served in our military branches.]
[Excerpt]
"This administration has done a great deal from day one to remove the social justice, politically correct, and toxic ideological garbage that had infected our department, to rip out the politics. No more identity months, DEI offices, dudes in dresses. No more climate change worship. No more division, distraction or gender delusions. No more debris.
As I've said before and will say again, we are done with that shit. I've made it my mission to uproot the obvious distractions that made us less capable and less lethal. That said, the War Department requires the next step.
Underneath the woke garbage is a deeper problem and a more important problem that we are fixing and fixing fast. Common sense is back at the White House, so making the necessary changes is actually pretty straightforward. President Trump expects it. And the litmus test for these changes is pretty simple.
Would I want my eldest son, who is 15 years old, eventually joining the types of formations that we are currently wielding? If in any way the answer to that is no, or even yes but, then we're doing something wrong, because my son is no more important than any other American citizen who dons the cloth of our nation. He is no more important than your son, all precious souls made in the image and likeness of God.
Every parent deserves to know that their son or their daughter that joins our ranks is entering exactly the kind of unit that the secretary of war would want his son to join. Think of it as the Golden Rule test. Jesus said do unto others that which you would have done unto yourself. It's the ultimate simplifying test of truth.
The new War Department golden rule is this: do unto your unit as you would have done unto your own child's unit. Would you want him serving with fat or unfit or under trained troops or alongside people who can't meet basic standards, or in a unit where standards were lowered so certain types of troops could make it in, in a unit where leaders were promoted for reasons other than merit, performance and warfighting? The answer is not just no, it's hell no."
TESSA STUART , Rolling Stone; SUPREME COURT ETHICS ISSUES TRACE TO JOHN ROBERTS’ ‘ORIGINAL SIN,’ NEW BOOK ALLEGES
"The Hamdan case, Graves argues, was Roberts’ “original sin,” and one that goes a long way toward explaining why Roberts has failed so spectacularly as successive ethics scandals have engulfed the high court. “If you realize what he did to get the job — staying on that case that he had no business staying on, a case where the Supreme Court reversed him ultimately — I think that it reveals that we’ve placed false hope in Roberts being fair, and in Roberts not being motivated by his own desire for power.”"
Reuters; OpenAI's new Sora video generator to require copyright holders to opt out, WSJ reports
"OpenAI is planning to release a new version of its Sora generator that creates videos featuring copyrighted material, unless rights holders opt out of having their work appear, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday, citing people familiar with the matter.
The artificial intelligence startup began notifying talent agencies and studios over the past week about the opt-out process and the product, which it plans to release in the coming days, the report said.
The new process would mean movie studios and other intellectual property owners would have to explicitly ask OpenAI not to include their copyrighted material in videos Sora creates, according to the report."
ELLEN MITCHELL , The Hill; Hegseth declares war on ‘fat’ generals, troops
"Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told the U.S. military’s senior-most officers Tuesday that he no longer wants to see “fat generals and admirals” or overweight troops."
Sabrina Tavernise, The New York Times ; She Was Fired for a Comment on Her Private Facebook Account
"Within hours, Libs of TikTok, a social media account known for transphobic content and smear campaigns against schools, hospitals and libraries, posted it publicly on its popular X account. Ms. Swierc got her first message 19 minutes later. Elon Musk posted about it. So did Rudy Giuliani. Indiana’s Attorney General, Todd Rokita, also mentioned it on X, calling her comments “vile,” and saying that they “should make people question someone’s ability to be in a leadership position.”...
Five days later, Ms. Swierc was fired from her job as the director of health and advocacy at Ball State, one of more than 145 peoplearound the country who’ve lost their jobs for posting negatively about Mr. Kirk. Mr. Rokita, the attorney general, noted the firing approvingly...
The rash of firings, which are raising questions about the limits of free speech, has been supercharged in Indiana, where top officials have been channeling public anger about posts that criticize Mr. Kirk into a kind of internet hotline, where submissions — that can include someone’s name, social-media posts and employer’s contact information — are displayed publicly on a government website.
The portal, called Eyes on Education, was started early last year as a way for parents of school children to submit examples of “inappropriate materials.” The concept spread to public universities later that year, after the passage of a law intended to take on liberal bias in higher education. Ball State University has its own portal, EthicsPoint, where students can anonymously report professors for biased behavior.
Ms. Swierc’s was the first submission in the Charlie Kirk section of Eyes on Education. As of Saturday, 32 others in education were listed as targets for firing. Mr. Rokita declined to be interviewed for this article."
Alexandra Martinez, Prism; Judge’s reopening of ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ raises ethical concerns
"A U.S. appeals court ruled on Sept. 4 to keep Florida’s controversial “Alligator Alcatraz” detention center operating while an appeal plays out, after a district court ruling to shut down the facility. The judge who authored the 2-1 majority opinion was 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Barbara Lagoa.
Some immigrant rights advocates and local leaders argue that Lagoa’s role in overseeing the case, filed in part against Florida’s government, raises ethical concerns. Lagoa is married to attorney Paul Huck, a partner at Lawson Huck Gonzalez, one of Florida’s most politically connected conservative law firms. The firm is earning millions of dollars from contracts tied to the state’s other legal battles. The firm is not involved in the “Alligator Alcatraz” lawsuit."
Matthew Quitoriano , The Daily Pennsylvanian; Former Penn Carey Law adjunct professor John Squires named director of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
"John Squires, a former adjunct professor at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, was named the next director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Squires will serve as the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and advise 1968 Wharton graduate and President Donald Trump and the Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick on intellectual property policy. In the Sept. 22 announcement, Squires wrote that the opportunity to lead a large and influential office was “both humbling and the honor of a lifetime.”...
Squires served as an adjunct professor for Penn Carey Law's L.L.M. program, where he helped lawyers trained outside the country learn about law in the United States.
The director of the USPTO is appointed by the president with the consent of the Senate...
Squires received a Bachelor of Science in chemistry from Bucknell University and received his J.D. from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.
Squires previously served as the chief intellectual property counsel at Honeywell and The Goldman Sachs Group, and has held intellectual property roles at Perkins Coie and Chadbourne and Parker. Prior to his secretarial appointment, Squires was the chair of Emerging Companies and Intellectual Property at Dilworth Paxson."
, The New York Times; I Sued Anthropic, and the Unthinkable Happened
"In August 2024, I became one of three named plaintiffs leading a class-action lawsuit against the A.I. company Anthropic for pirating my books and hundreds of thousands of other books to train its A.I. The fight felt daunting, almost preposterous: me — a queer, female thriller writer — versus a company now worth $183 billion?
Thanks to the relentless work of everyone on my legal team, the unthinkable happened: Anthropic agreed to pay authors and publishers $1.5 billion in the largest copyright settlement in history. A federal judge preliminarily approved the agreement last week.
This settlement sends a clear message to the Big Tech companies splashing generative A.I. over every app and page and program: You are not above the law. And it should signal to consumers everywhere that A.I. isn’t an unstoppable tsunami about to overwhelm us. Now is the time for ordinary Americans to recognize our agency and act to put in place the guardrails we want.
The settlement isn’t perfect. It’s absurd that it took an army of lawyers to demonstrate what any 10-year-old knows is true: Thou shalt not steal. At around $3,000 per work, shared by the author and publisher, the damages are far from life-changing (and, some argue, a slap on the wrist for a company flush with cash). I also disagree with the judge’s ruling that, had Anthropic acquired the books legally, training its chatbot on them would have been “fair use.” I write my novels to engage human minds — not to empower an algorithm to mimic my voice and spit out commodity knockoffs to compete directly against my originals in the marketplace, nor to make that algorithm’s creators unfathomably wealthy and powerful.
But as my fellow plaintiff Kirk Wallace Johnson put it, this is “the beginning of a fight on behalf of humans that don’t believe we have to sacrifice everything on the altar of A.I.” Anthropic will destroy its trove of illegally downloaded books; its competitors should take heed to get out of the business of piracy as well. Dozens of A.I. copyright lawsuits have been filed against OpenAI, Microsoft and other companies, led in part by Sylvia Day, Jonathan Franzen, David Baldacci, John Grisham, Stacy Schiff and George R. R. Martin. (The New York Times has also brought a suit against OpenAI and Microsoft.)
Though a settlement isn’t legal precedent, Bartz v. Anthropic may serve as a test case for other A.I. lawsuits, the first domino to fall in an industry whose “move fast, break things” modus operandi led to large-scale theft. Among the plaintiffs of other cases are voice actors, visual artists, record labels, YouTubers, media companies and stock-photo libraries, diverse stakeholders who’ve watched Big Tech encroach on their territory with little regard for copyright law...
Now the book publishing industry has sent a message to all A.I. companies: Our intellectual property isn’t yours for the taking, and you cannot act with impunity. This settlement is an opening gambit in a critical battle that will be waged for years to come."
Tim Berners-Lee, The Guardian ; Why I gave the world wide web away for free
"Sharing your information in a smart way can also liberate it. Why is your smartwatch writing your biological data to one silo in one format? Why is your credit card writing your financial data to a second silo in a different format? Why are your YouTube comments, Reddit posts, Facebook updates and tweets all stored in different places? Why is the default expectation that you aren’t supposed to be able to look at any of this stuff? You generate all this data – your actions, your choices, your body, your preferences, your decisions. You should own it. You should be empowered by it.
Somewhere between my original vision for web 1.0 and the rise of social media as part of web 2.0, we took the wrong path. We’re now at a new crossroads, one where we must decide if AI will be used for the betterment or to the detriment of society. How can we learn from the mistakes of the past? First of all, we must ensure policymakers do not end up playing the same decade-long game of catchup they have done over social media. The time to decide the governance model for AI was yesterday, so we must act with urgency.
In 2017, I wrote a thought experiment about an AI that works for you. I called it Charlie. Charlie works for you like your doctor or your lawyer, bound by law, regulation and codes of conduct. Why can’t the same frameworks be adopted for AI? We have learned from social media that power rests with the monopolies who control and harvest personal data. We can’t let the same thing happen with AI.
So how do we move forward? Part of the frustration with democracy in the 21st century is that governments have been too slow to meet the demands of digital citizens. The AI industry landscape is fiercely competitive, and development and governance are dictated by companies. The lesson from social media is that this will not create value for the individual.
I coded the world wide web on a single computer in a small room. But that small room didn’t belong to me, it was at Cern. Cern was created in the aftermath of the second world war by the UN and European governments who identified a historic, scientific turning point that required international collaboration. It is hard to imagine a big tech company agreeing to share the world wide web for no commercial reward like Cern allowed me to. That’s why we need a Cern-like not-for-profit body driving forward international AI research.
I gave the world wide web away for free because I thought that it would only work if it worked for everyone. Today, I believe that to be truer than ever. Regulation and global governance are technically feasible, but reliant on political willpower. If we are able to muster it, we have the chance to restore the web as a tool for collaboration, creativity and compassion across cultural borders. We can re-empower individuals, and take the web back. It’s not too late."
Cory Franklin, Chicago Tribune via The Mercury ; The dark reality behind the Chinese president’s hot mic moment about transplanted organs
"During a recent military parade in Tiananmen Square in Beijing, Russian President Vladimir Putin was caught on a hot mic saying to Xi Jinping, his Communist Chinese counterpart, “Human organs can be continuously transplanted. The longer you live, the younger you become, and (you can) even achieve immortality.” Xi responded: “Some predict that in this century humans may live to 150 years old.”
Currently, there is no credible medical basis to suggest that continual organ transplantation can reverse the aging process, but when the two most important totalitarian leaders in the world consider this prospect, we should listen because there may be more going on than meets the ear. The overtones are ominous, and the conversation takes on added significance in the wake of a report by the United Kingdom’s Daily Telegraph that the Communist Chinese Party, or CCP, is opening six medical facilities for organ transplantation in the Xinjiang autonomous region by 2030.
Xinjiang is set to become the organ transplant destination center for privileged CCP members, wealthy Chinese nationals and well-heeled international clients. Transplant teams of surgeons, anesthesiologists and related medical personnel are being recruited to serve the elite clientele, who will pay exorbitant sums to receive an organ — money added to the coffers of the CCP.
Xinjiang is a large remote area in western China, far from the metropolitan hubs of the East. Why was it selected as the organ transplant center? Likely because of a basic principle of organ transplantation: It is far more efficient to bring organ recipients to where the donor organs are rather than transport organs long distances and risk they will not be serviceable. (This is especially true of perishable key organs such as the lungs, liver and heart.) And Xinjiang is home to large numbers of Uyghurs, a persecuted Muslim minority, who are apparently a convenient source of readily available organs."
Liz Cookman , The Guardian; ‘Children thrive down here’: the secret play centre hidden under Ukraine’s most dangerous city
"In an underground shelter in Kherson, probably the most dangerous city in Ukraine, children are chasing each other between plastic chairs. Outside,mortars, artillery and drones fly their deadly paths back and forth across the Dnipro River that separates the city from Russian forces.
This makeshift underground play centre is one of the few places where children can socialise with each other in safety. For a few hours, it can be as though the war is not happening. When the explosions get too close, teachers working at the centre clap louder or turn up the music to drown out the noise.
As children returned to school across Ukraine this month, one in three are having their fourth consecutive academic year disrupted. In frontline areas such as Kherson, where schools have been damaged in attacks, children have to study largely online...
Across Ukraine as a whole, more than 3,000 children have been killed or injured since the start of full-scale war in 2022 – equivalent to about 150 classrooms of children.
With such dangers, families are forced to spend much of their lives underground or indoors, calculating every errand against mortal danger. Stuck indoors, teachers say children now struggle to socialise, and their speech and confidence have been set back without access to their peers, while some have not yet learned to read.
Narmina Strishenets, a conflict adviser with the UK charity Save the Children, says: “Instead of focusing on play, socialising and passions, children are focused on physical survival.
“Many are now one or two years behind in core subjects,” says Strishenets. “Childhood is under attack and they are losing hope.”
The underground play centre, at a secret location in a residential area of Kherson, is one of the few spaces where children get personal support from teachers and psychologists. It was set up last year by the chair of a local housing association, Oleh Turchynskyi."
BENJ EDWARDS, Ars Technica ; Education report calling for ethical AI use contains over 15 fake sources
"On Friday, CBC News reported that a major education reform document prepared for the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador contains at least 15 fabricated citations that academics suspect were generated by an AI language model—despite the same report calling for "ethical" AI use in schools.
"A Vision for the Future: Transforming and Modernizing Education," released August 28, serves as a 10-year roadmap for modernizing the province's public schools and post-secondary institutions. The 418-page document took 18 months to complete and was unveiled by co-chairs Anne Burke and Karen Goodnough, both professors at Memorial University's Faculty of Education, alongside Education Minister Bernard Davis...
The presence of potentially AI-generated fake citations becomes especially awkward given that one of the report's 110 recommendations specifically states the provincial government should "provide learners and educators with essential AI knowledge, including ethics, data privacy, and responsible technology use."
Sarah Martin, a Memorial political science professor who spent days reviewing the document, discovered multiple fabricated citations. "Around the references I cannot find, I can't imagine another explanation," she told CBC. "You're like, 'This has to be right, this can't not be.' This is a citation in a very important document for educational policy.""
