Scientists have recently proved that camping can help you get a better night’s sleep.
It is common knowledge that using phones and tablets or watching TV straight before you go to bed can stop you from sleeping well as it reduces the amount of melatonin which is produced (the hormone which makes you feel sleepy).
Researchers have proved that disconnecting from devices completely for a few days can fix that though. Five volunteers were sent camping in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado and had their melatonin levels monitors regularly throughout the trip. The results showed that melatonin levels rose 2.5 hours sooner than usual meaning that the campers felt tired earlier and slept better. This occurred when the experiment was conducted in both summer and winter.
Not only does camping naturally reset your body clock, it also offers more obvious health benefits such as fresh air and exercise.
For months, President Trump has been saying that his number one priority with regards to health policy is to “repeal and replace” the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). Immediately, questions were raised about what it would be replaced with and how many people might become insured as a result. Last night, the Republicans unveiled the American Health Care Act (AHCA) – the healthcare bill which will replace the PPACA and which may become ‘Trumpcare’.
What immediately strikes me about the bill is how like Obamacare it is. Children can remain on their parent’s plan until the age of 26 still and insurers cannot discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions by jacking up prices. The stark similarities have caused many Republicans to condemn the AHCA as ‘Obamacare 2.0’ or ‘Obamcare-lite’.
Even some of the changes are minor. Under Obamacare, people without health insurance were penalised in the form of a tax. Under the AHCA, although there is no tax for people who go without cover, if they decide to re-enrol after being uninsured for more than 63 days, insurers can add a surplus charge of 30% for the first year of being covered again regardless of their health. The effect of this resemble that of Obamacare: US citizens are better off owning health insurance and keeping it.
Under Obamacare, insurers could only charge old people 3x more than they would charge young people however under the AHCA, insurers can charge old people 5x more than young people. Many predict that this will make health insurance slightly cheaper for young people but slightly more expensive for old people.
Many are pleased that Medicaid (the health care program that assists people on low-income) will continue to expand until 2020. After that, it will ‘freeze’ and be re-evaluated.
However, basic insurance plans will not be required to cover paediatric and maternity care from 2020 onwards.
The changes to tax credits are where things get slightly more complicated and the effects become more unclear. Under Obamacare, any individual with an annual income less than approximately $24,120 would be able to get a midlevel insurance plan for no more than 6.4% of their income. People earning more than that figure would not be entitled to any tax credits.
Under the AHCA, any individual earning less than $75,000 will be entitled to tax credits. The amount depends vastly on age though and varies from $2000 for those under the age of 30 to $4000 for those over the age of 60.
Accurate statistics regarding who will benefit and who will not are still emerging. As are the Congressional Budget Office’s figures showing how much the AHCA will cost the US government.
All of this might not matter anyway, the bill is currently facing intense scrutiny from Senators and congressmen both sides of the aisle and Trump is yet to endorse it. The future of the AHCA/Trumpcare may still look very different to the bill released yesterday.
It has been one week since the final episode of The Grand Tour was released on Amazon Prime Video and since then I’ve had time to consolidate my thoughts on the show.
First, a bit of context. Jeremy Clarkson punched a producer and the BBC had to end his contract. It wasn’t long until Richard Hammond, James May, and Andy Wilman then decided to leave the BBC too and form their own production company with Clarkson. A few months later, Amazon snapped them up to create a car show for their streaming service.
In interviews before the release of the show, Clarkson, Hammond, May, and Wilman attempted to spin a positive view on what they have been making. James May said in an interview with Christian O’Connell, “It’s a relief because it has forced a rethink and it has refreshed us which is something we probably should have done - but which we wouldn’t have done had we stayed where we were because there’d be no incentive to.”
Their new show, The Grand Tour, launched in November and immediately it was far better than Chris Evan’s refreshed Top Gear but far worse than the Top Gear that was relaunched in 2002 by Clarkson and Wilman. Here is what is wrong with The Grand Tour:
Too Scripted
With speculation that Amazon have provided Clarkson, Hammond, and May with a budget far larger than the BBC ever did, they have (presumably) been able to employ new/more writers. Problem is: Clarkson, Hammond, and May are not actors. Jeremy’s opening monologue in each show, supplemented with canned laughter which doesn’t even attempt to appear remotely authentic, is not funny. And, the pseudo-banter exchanged in ‘Conversation Street’ is just awkward. Remember this?
🤗 hello & here's the full richard hammond 'ice creams are gay' piece and yeah, it's awful pic.twitter.com/JhDisRsc1Q
Entertainment First; Factual Second
At least at the BBC they pretended to be a factual show. They justified their crazy trips across India and their races across London and St. Petersburg as pieces mildly resembling public information films. They justified their homemade electric cars, hovercrafts, and emergency service vehicles as possible alternatives to solve the problems of the current ones. Furthermore, they concluded many episodes with ‘Top Gear Top Tips’. Long story short: everything had a point to it. However, on The Grand Tour, hardly anything seems to have a point to it. For example, in episode 2, the boys imitate special forces soldiers for no apparent reason. The cars in the scene feel like they were only added as an afterthought.
4K HDR
Admittedly, shiny red Ferraris do look good, and The Grand Tour will do joys for Amazon’s 4K TV sales figures, however most of the show is three wrinkling, middle-aged men mooching about. Therefore, extremely high picture quality and HDR is certainly necessary. Maybe I’m just bitter I don’t have a 4K TV.
The American
I get he is a Stig replacement but I just don’t get him. Does anyone find him funny?
Midnight Release
The Grand Tour is released on Amazon Prime every Friday at midnight. Online streaming already means that the notion of collective viewing is dead but releasing it at midnight eliminates the hype people have the next day. “OH MY GOD, did you see who/what Jeremy Clarkson insulted last night” is a phrase of the past. I would much rather The Grand Tour be released at 8pm so more people can watch it on release and talk about it straight away – this would probably increase the show’s ratings too. Apart from students, who is up at midnight?
Overall, The Grand Tour is, at best, mediocre light entertainment. I completely agree with a rather scathing Guardian review which singled James May out as the most valuable player but quipped "The Reassembler … is a trillion times better than The Grand Tour."
In other news, the BBC (remember them) released a trailer this week for the new Chris-Evans-less Top Gear. It actually looks half-decent.
On 6 July 2005, the International Olympic Committee announced that Great Britain would be hosting the 2012 Olympics. Although London had hosted the games twice before, the last time was over half a century ago so suffice facilities were non-existent. Therefore, it wasn’t long until development on a 490-acre Olympic park began. Stratford, in East London, was designated to be the place for the development.
The Olympic and Paralympic Games were a success. The organisation leading up to and during the games were highly acclaimed thanks to multiple ‘London Prepares’ events to test the organisers’ abilities, the opening and closing ceremonies were fantastic entertainment for the whole country, and the games themselves ran smoothly - with only a minor hiccup involving empty seats at events. But what about the legacy?
As well as the immediate benefits (such as tourism, facilities for aspiring athletes, etc.), the games in the Borough of Newham have had long term effects on the local area. Residents and businesses in Stratford now benefit from London Overground’s vastly improved East London Line. Additionally, the new Westfield Stratford City shopping centre led to jobs being created and means locals don’t need to travel all the way to Oxford Street for luxury brands. This is where the advantages mostly end though.
The negatives of hosting the games largely outweigh the positives. For one, before the games, businesses in the industrial area that the Olympic park was built on faced eviction and were forced to relocate which caused many businesses to suffer due to the high cost of office space in London. The Evening Standard’s Simon Jenkins wrote “The Stratford site ... lost 300 businesses and 14,000 jobs in its cluster of factories, warehouses and canal-side businesses."
The entrance to the Stratford Centre
Secondly, the flocks of tourists lasted as long as the games did. The small amounts of tourism that do still exist are concentrated exclusively in the Olympic park and Westfield Stratford City shopping centre; nowhere near Stratford High Street and the Stratford Centre. Locals hoped that the £8.77bn, which was the final cost of London 2012, would improve the area in which the author Charles Booth once described the people as “lowest class; vicious, semi-criminal”. However, walking from Westfield to the Stratford Centre feels like walking from one world to another. The A118 divides the old and the new areas thus highlights the stark differences. Westfield and the Olympic Park are spacious, luxurious, and well-maintained areas whereas the Stratford Centre and high street are aged, rundown, and cramped. The Guardian’s Tom Wilkinson writes "the old shopping centre clearly didn’t fit with the image Newham council wanted to project to the world. As the Games approached, the council tried to hide the building behind a particularly egregious piece of public art”.
Westfield Stratford City shopping centre opened in 2011
When I visited, residents in Stratford High Street revealed that they were dishearten with the Olympic legacy. Instead of opportunity and prosperity, the lack of new houses has forced many out of the area and small companies struggle to make business. One market stall owner said that Westfield had forced him to reduce his prices in fear that he would lose customers.
Moreover, there was a promise of new housing following the Olympic games; 31% of which is supposed to be affordable housing. Lots of the construction work is still underway however experts say this 31% figure is extremely optimistic because of large amounts of attention the area is getting from private foreign investors.
Building the Olympic stadium allegedly cost the taxpayer around £537m and a further £272m to convert into a Premier League football stadium. West Ham, the football team who won the bid to play in the stadium, currently only pay rent of £2.5m per annum (with a £15m up-front fee) meaning they would need to be in the stadium for the next 318 years for the public money to be replenished. Some justify this ‘steal’ of a deal by looking at Greece’s Olympic stadium from 2004 which has been abandoned and is sat gathering dust.
As for the future of Stratford, experts predict large growth in the area with the creation of new office space and new housing. However, I suspect that growth is likely to go unnoticed by the current residents who are still suffering from the Olympic and Westfield developments. The mostly unused Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park (as it is now called) appears to be the consequence of incompetent legacy planning by the organisers of London 2012 and now it is the local working class people and small business owners who are paying the price.
Above: a horribly executed face-swap of
Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May
Yesterday, Andrea Leadsom withdrew her candidacy in the Conservative leadership contest leaving Theresa May as the last woman standing. Theresa May became leader of the Conservative party with immediate effect and yesterday afternoon David Cameron announced that he would step down as Prime Minister after PMQs on Wednesday. Quite rightly, there has already been plenty of speculation on what kind of Prime Minister May will be. Some have been bold enough to compare her to Margaret Thatcher. But is she going to be the next ‘Iron Lady’?
Obviously, they are similar in the sense that they are both women Prime Ministers (a rarity UK history) but, in terms of policy, May seems to be less radical on many issues.
Margaret Thatcher was conservative through and through. She took a hard-right social and economic stance; promoting privatisation, introducing poll tax, and doing nothing whilst inequality and poverty rates grew throughout the 1980s. Meanwhile, May is pro-hunting, pro-smoking in public areas, and has an inconsistent record when it comes to civil rights and liberties. She voted against a bill in 2002 which would allow gay couples to adopt children however in 2013 voted in favour of same sex marriage. Additionally, she has supported the 2015 Conservative manifesto pledge to abandon the Human Rights Act and replace it with a UK Bill of Rights (a bill which faced large public backlash so has since been put on the backburner). However, May has renounced Cameron’s austerity measures to eliminate the budget deficit before 2020 and stated that she thinks that workers should be on the boards of major firms. The case can therefore be made for May being an extremely moderate conservative. For every hard-right policy she has backed, she has supported a soft-right (sometimes even liberal) policy to balance it out.
Although May has been outlining her aims over the past few days, the public can’t be blamed for being bit confused about her positions regarding some key issues. For example, although she voted for increasing the rate of VAT to 20%, she has recently criticised David Cameron in The Times for doing that. Maybe May was forced to hold her tongue in the past and tow the party line (because of collective ministerial responsibility) so she could retain her position in the cabinet. It is clear that from the policy announcements she has made over the last few days, she is drawing subtle contrasts between her own agenda and Cameron’s. As for May being the next Margaret Thatcher, it seems unlikely but only time will tell.
A few months ago when politicians started stating their stance on Britain’s place in the European Union and it became clear that Cameron, Corbyn, Osbourne and May were in favour of staying in whilst Johnson and Farage were the political heavy weights wanting out, the referendum seemed done and dusted before it had began and Brexit was a mere fantasy. However, with only a few more days to go until polling day, for whatever reason, the Vote Leave campaign has grown in support significantly and the polls are now neck-and-neck. However, can the prediction polls be trusted?
It is a general rule that you can expect a 2% margin of error with prediction/opinion polls however every poll in the build up to the 2015 general election was completely wrong. Up until the day before the election, it was predicted that no party would get a majority and Labour would end up forming a coalition with the SNP. In reality though, the Conservatives got a majority of 12! This has caused many to rightly take prediction polls with a pinch of salt recently.
In May 2015, although the prediction polls predicted the number of seat wins for each party wrongly, the vote share percentage was pretty much perfect – a fact glossed over by many in the aftermath of the general election.
It is very unlikely, but maybe the prediction polls are predicting the result to be close purposefully in a ploy to increase turnout and make the result one with a high democratic backing.
I don’t believe that the prediction polls are currently completely correct as I think what people tell the polling companies and what people actually vote will be different in many cases (like the ‘silent Tories’ in 2015). Britain will most definitely vote stay inside the EU; I predict, by at least a 7-point difference - however it is worth remembering that I predicted that Donald Trump wouldn’t win the Republican nomination. Regardless of whether I’m right or not, what follows the result – whatever it may be – will be very interesting.
A few weeks ago Top Gear relaunched with a new studio, new(ish) track, and new presenters following Jeremy Clarkson’s ‘fracas’ with a producer in 2015. I started watching Evan’s Top Gear without any preconceptions. Although I really did like the old Top Gear, I believed the new Top Gear could survive – maybe even thrive - without Clarkson, Hammond, and May. Sadly, it hasn’t lived up to my expectations and I have been severely disappointed. Here is a list of some of the things wrong with it:
Matt LeBlanc is too dry and straight for Evans' loud, shouty, child-that’s-ate-too many-E-numbers personality. They don’t complement each other as co-presenters.
The celebrity interviews for ‘Star in a Rallycross Car’ are stale and repetitive. In the interviews, there is lots of emphasis on rating the guests’ first cars and their best cars but Jesse Eisenberg (episode 1) doesn’t drive! So it seemed like a waste of time talking to him that much about his car history. In episode 2, Damian Lewis was one of four guests. Shame it wasn’t just him; would have made a better interview.
Whilst we’re on interviews, the combinations of guests have been weird. Ramsey and Eisenberg didn't go well together and although the interview lasted 10 minutes, no much was said.
Evans shouted too much.
Evan and LeBlanc were both too happy to drive Reliant Robins (episode 1).
LeBlanc is too monotone.
Sabine Schmitz is funny and a car expect. She seems underused considering how much she could add to the show.
There is too much audience interaction and opportunities for clapping, oohing, and cheering. It's a TV show, not panto.
The Reliant Robin challenge had no point to it. I thought it was Britain Vs America at first however they were in identical Reliant Robin only painted with different flags.
Who are the presenters again? In the South African challenge during episode 2 it was hard to tell if the presenter was Eddie Jordan or his celebrity guest, Sharleen Spiteri.
This has been said before and it will be said again: there are too many presenters. One of the best thing about Clarkson’s Top Gear was the camaraderie between the hosts but there are that many hosts now - and that many guests always with them – it’s hard for the audience to form any sort of bond with them when they can’t forge a convincing and genuine friendship between each other.
There are too many other people in each episode. In episode 1 alone, guests included the Brownlee brothers, a heavyweight champion, two Top Gun guys, people from the restaurant, and the Blackpool mayor. It would have been nice to have a bit more focus on the new presenters – especially in episode one.
Humour-wise, it was not edgy at all (with the exception of one comment from LeBlanc about "your mom’s G-string". There were too many jokes where the punchline was 'better cut that bit out in the edit' in a very PG fashion.
Too many references to stuff that only diehard fans who have followed the Top Gear news closely over the past few months will get (e.g. Evans being sick). This would be a good thing if there was already a cult established around the new presenters but they needed to make a good first impression rather than make inside jokes.
For a car show, there has been surprisingly little said about cars. The two main presenters are car fanatics rather than car journalists or experts. Therefore, the shows have been lacking car reviews with substance. Evans and LeBlanc seem to simply recited the basic statistics and then yell 'wooohooo' a lot before giving a superficial amateur conclusion.
It is too repetitive. There were two similar races in the Reliant Robin challenge (episode 1). We knew which one was faster so the second race with all the obstacles wasn’t necessary. Likewise, in episode two there were too many timed races.
Most of these problems could be easily resolved by cutting down on the number of presenters and guests and ensuring that the presenters are car experts who have a bit of camaraderie between each other (probably easier said than done, I know). I’d like to see Chris Harris and Sabine Schmitz in a superior role to what they are now. However, I can understand why the BBC put two TV heavyweights in the driver’s seat instead. It might have proved even more fatal giving a show of Top Gear’s size and popularity to a YouTuber and a German.
Finally, to be fair, the episodes have been improving as they go along as Evans is adapting and everyone is growing comfortably into their roles.
Mainstream media in the UK is corrupt, bias, and ineffective. The newspapers and news websites have the power to draw attention to important issues but most of the time choose not to. Furthermore, their affiliations with political parties and history of tailoring reporting for the interests of their advertisers make them unreliable and subjective. This cannot continue.
Left or Right
Titles including The Sun, The Times, The Sunday Times, The Daily Mail and The Telegraph all endorsed the Conservative party in the 2015 general election. Whilst on the other side of the spectrum, The Guardian and The Observer endorsed the Labour party. In this current climate where political education is paramount for an understanding of current affairs (refugee crisis, EU referendum, junior doctors’ strikes, air strikes in Syria), completely balanced, open, and honest political journalism is necessary but some, if not all, of the papers mentioned above have taken an angle which distorts the truth to make one party appear better than another. How can people be expected to educate themselves about the world if their newspapers aren't trustworthy?
By all means, journalists should be allowed to express their own political opinion however they should be expressed in columns rather than in the news segment. The newspapers themselves should aim to remain politically neutral. Additionally, although I believe that scrutiny is good for democracy, when journalists are slandering a party or person simply to appease the readership and follow paper’s line it is unnecessary and unacceptable.
Advertisers
Powerful publishers also have concerning relationships with advertisers. Many news websites have been criticised in the past for not making it clear which articles are sponsored and Buzzfeed has been accused of removing content which is critical of their advertisers in the past - although they firmly deny this.
Appreciate the criticism. We just reinstated two posts and I sent this note to staffers. pic.twitter.com/YodxHiQmt2
The Interactive Advertising Bureau showed mock adverts to 5000 people and learnt that 59% of the respondents thought it was “not very clear” or “not at all clear” that the content they were shown was sponsored. When content is curated with the primary purpose to advertise rather than inform and the reader is not able to easily identify this, there is something fundamentally wrong.
The most concerning example of advertiser intervention was in February 2015 when The Daily Telegraph omitted coverage of the HSBC scandal because they were advertisers with the paper. The chief political commentator for the newspaper, Peter Osborne, stood down after this happened. He later wrote "Newspapers have what amounts in the end to a constitutional duty to tell their readers the truth."
So how can advertiser interference be eliminated altogether? Some news websites have a paywall on articles so after the first paragraph of an article, readers need to pay a subscription fee to unlock the rest. However, many readers are not willing to pay for news that they can read for free elsewhere.
The Spinach of News
The 'clickbait' nature of online headlines means that important issues are not read about. This problem can be blamed on the desire for fresh content and short attention span of the readers as much as it can be blamed on the writers.
The media was criticised extensively for apparently ignoring the Beirut bombings in November 2015 which occurred a day before the Paris attacks. However, in reality the coverage did exist however readers weren’t interested in it. Max Fisher (Foreign Editor for Vox.com) writes: "The media has, in fact, covered the Beirut bombings extensively. Yet these are stories that, like so many stories of previous bombings and mass acts of violence outside of the West, readers have largely ignored.”
Readers have been in this habit of only reading Western world news for so long, news websites have given up on trying to promote the content altogether. Kardashians, Katy Hopkins, and Celebrity Big Brother comprise the headlines more than stories of any real substance. However, from the publisher’s point of view, it's only rational to to publicise the popular material on their front page which will draw in the most traffic.
Making world news more attractive to read is an issue that needs addressing however I’m not sure if anyone has the answers. Attaching a misleading clickbait-esk headline to articles is definitely not the moral or respectful way to do this.
Political parties and advertisers should not be able to influence content whatsoever. And the problem of shining a light on the less popular but critical aspects of the news needs to be addressed so it is made popular but in a balanced, tasteful way.
Donald Trump is the billionaire businessman and far-right GOP presidential candidate who had made controversial remarks about muslims, women, and immigration of late. Despite his concerning comments and his media manipulation, he is the frontrunner in the polls to be nominated as the GOP candidate. He is over 15 points clear of rival candidates and his lead only seems to be increasing. However what are the chances of Trump actually winning the nomination to run for president in 2016 and can the polls be wrong?
Opinion polls are to be taken with a pinch of salt. Although historically they have only been 1-2 points out, in the UK general election in 2015 they predicted another coalition government however that was far from the actual result. With the opinion poll for the GOP nomination, there is no source information clarifying how many people were in the sample or if they are even likely to turnout in the Republican caucus'. Thus, Democrat supporters might have been included in the poll.
Also, there is no such thing as a national caucus (what the opinion poll above is showing). Although the poll predicts who the most popular candidate is, that may not necessarily reflect the attitudes in every state. For example, if you look at the poll for the Republican caucus in Iowa, it is much more a close race and Trump isn't even winning.
Donald Trump says he represents a "silent majority" however there has been questions towards if the people he represents are in fact a majority. One would suspect that Trump's outlandish personality would turn supporters off however the more he is in the media, the more support he seems to gain. So are all of his supporters borderline racist, pro-life, anti-gay marriage, traditionalist conservatives? The video below from vox.com aims to investigate that.
Although the opinion polls can not be fully trusted (and not all of them even show Trump as the most popular candidate anyway), Trump does have loyal supporters who appear to be engaged with the issues he raises and the answers he is offering. Are they a majority capable of making Trump the Republican nomination though? We'll have to wait and see. But even if they don't, Trump has declared that he would then run as an independent candidate funded by his own money.
Peter Kay's new BBC 1 comedy, 'Car Share', premiered during April. The six-part sitcom has been in the works for many years now and tells the story of two supermarket employees: John (Peter Kay) and Kayleigh (Sian Gibson). They met each other when they were paired together in their work's car share scheme so almost all of the series is set in John's Fiat. Other series's set wholly in a car include Rob Brydon's 'Marion and Goeff' and 'Carpool' on Dave. 'Car Share' is a welcomed addition to the car comedy category.
The series is very amusing and heartwarming as the character's friendship grow. Comedies with simple settings, like Car Share, rely on well-written, humorous dialogue. The four writers of the show have thankfully done a great job; despite the whole show being set in a car, the two characters don't drive you mad.
From adults using children's crossings, to death, dogging and dating, the two characters discuss an array of typical topics that many will find relatable and humorous.
After no TV work from Peter Kay for over a decade, I was expecting more from 'Car Share' however it is an entertaining light watch if you've got time to kill. The show is sadly no where near the same level as Kay's previous work such as Phoenix Nights and Max and Paddy's Road To Nowhere.
'Car Share' was debuted on BBC iPlayer between April 24th - 28th and was then broadcast weekly on BBC 1 from the following week.
'Material Design' is a phrase coined by Google which is the name for the design language they implemented throughout their native apps and websites with the release of Android 4.5 (Lollipop). The diverse spectrum of Google services, from YouTube to Google Drive, have been soaked thoroughly in Google's new cleaner look which makes the services easier to use, more asthetically pleasing however, consequently, all the apps now look like clones of oneanother. This can be a positive and a negative - however not a debate that I'm going to delve into in this post.
If app developers wish to use aspects of material design they can find extremely strict guidelines on what material design is, and what material design isn't, on the Google design website. And although this idea of all apps having a same feel and familiar interfaces may seem like a new idea, Microsoft has been doing it since 2010 when Windows Phone 7 was launched.
The Windows Phone SDK for developers is debatably restrictive - maybe less so now compared to what it was a few years ago. However it was restrictive so that all of the apps, with the exeption of games, gave the user a sense of familiarity so that they could navigate brand new apps they've installed without overthinking. This design language was called 'metro'... later to be replaced with 'modern'.
The 'People Hub' on Windows Phone 7
Metro/modern had live tiles instead of app icons, panes inside the app which users could swipe between and often titles which wouldn't fit on one screen.
The problem with 'metro' is, app developers like to be creative with their apps and give them unique design and feel. The Windows Phone SKD didn't offer them space to be creative. This might be one of the reasons that the Windows Phone app marketplace is only tenth of the size of the Apple App Store.
Going back to Google's design language, 'material design' has a higher chance of sucess compared to 'metro' because, not only has Android got 29x more users than Windows Phone thus more potential customers for app developers, 'material deisgn' isn't being pushed upon app developers; if they want to imploment 'material design' in their own apps, they can; however if they'd rather come up with their own look, they can do that as well. Google is offering developers freedom of choice, something which Microsoft might have crucually forgotten to do.
If you haven't heard of what they are already, podcasts are basically radio broadcasts but on the internet. They're not a modern invention, infact they have been around for the past decade and the word 'podcast' was derived from an early 2004 article from The Guardian newspaper. Recently, services such as the Apple Podcasts app and soundcloud dot com have offered a platform for individuals and businesses alike to upload their audio to. However podcasts haven't been hugely sucessful. That might be about to change.
I've been aware of podcasts for many years now however never really listened to any until only earlier this week. It's not that I'm not interested in any of the genres of podcasts - because there are podcasts on a diverse range of topics - I just thought that there was better ways to digest information or hear stories. For example, TV documentarys and online news video features are media rich ways of consuming knowledge. And if I wanted to learn in a traditional way, I could pick up a magasine, newspaper, or book. Radio occupies some middle ground between traditional and modern media and podcasts also seem to be neither hear or there.
Nevertheless, after watching a recent episode of 'Top Shelf' from The Verge (below) and reading numberous online reviews of a mainstream, mystery podcast called 'Serial' I decided to download the Soundcloud app and try that podcast.
It would be a lie to say that I had never heard a podcast before because the BBC offer a wide range of podcasts (including radio shows on iPlayer) and I'm sure that during school, teachers have pushed me to listen to educational podcasts as part of my revision but Serial is definitely the first podcast I've decided to sit down and listen to by choice.
If you haven't been engulfed in the wave of buzz and excitement that Serial has created, it is a gripping, weekly spinoff podcast from 'This Ameircan Life' which is eloquently narrated by journalist Sarah Koenig. It is the telling of Sarah's investigation into the murder of Hae Min Lee in Baltimore in 1999... And it is fascinating! (Preview below)
Despite the positive reviews, I was skeptical about Serial incase it didn't live up to the hype around it however I've been pleasantly surprised. After the first episode I became addicted and I watched the first five episodes in 24 hours. I'll probalby watch the rest of the episodes before the month is out. Although it is just audio, I didn't feel like any visual aid was necessary.
However after Serial, will I continue to listen to podcasts, and if so, which ones?
I probably won't listen to podcasts religiously like I'm sure some people do however whenever I have a car journey or I'm sat around during the day having a break or waiting for someone, I'm now more lightly to put my earphones in and listen to a podcast rather than music. As for what podcasts, I've subscribed to weekly podcasts on topics that interest me from The Verge, The Guardian, BBC Radio 4 and some other less known names. Despite this, I still can't bring myself to listen to fiction podcasts.
If I want to hear a compelling ficitonal story I'm still 10 times more likely to read a critically aclaimed book or watch a five-star movie rather than just hear the audio. This is ignorant, I know, however video and audio seems a lot more appealing than audio alone when telling a when telling a fictional story.
Overall, podcasts are great. They vary in length and quality however if you find a series of them that you enjoy, you will become addicted and look forward to them as much as you look forward to your favourite TV show.
Have you ever been angrily woken up by your parents in the early afternoon and called lazy because they think you sleep too much? Well, according to recent scientific studies, this may not be your fault.
When you’re a teenager your body clock gets messed up; you don't want to go to sleep early however you love to have a lie-in in the morning, this is because of a hormone called Melatonin aka 'the darkness hormone'. This hormone is produced in the brain and is the thing which helps you fall asleep. In adults, Melatonin is usually produced at around 10PM however among teenagers it is 1AM!
Out of children, teenagers and adults, teenagers are actually the ones who need the most sleep because it is whilst we sleep when hormones are released which are essential if we want to grow. So, technically, the more sleep you get, the more likely it is you will have a growth spurt.
Stereotypical teenagers are seen by both adults and children as moody, depressed and quite impulsive. These are all side effects of being sleep deprived. This is why a few schools in America have pushed back the time of their morning lessons so teens can get a couple more hours in bed. Not only did the students become more enthused, the school also saw an improvement in grades!
The Winter Olympics have taken place every 4 years since 1924 (excluding 1940 and 1944 because of World War 2) and they host a variety of winter sports from freestyle skiing to short track speed skating.
This year the Winter Olympics are being held at Sochi which is a coastal town in southern Russia. An estimated £31.1 billion has been spent ensuring the games happen which makes it the most expensive Olympic games yet!
Journalists from around the world, eager to witness and report on the events, arrived in the city last week and since then, things have not been looking good for the games. Journalist have tweeting the truth about hotels and questioning if the building work has even finished. Reports show a variety of issues from a broken curtain rail, double booked rooms and no hot water to hotel receptions lacking a floor, yellow tap water and manholes not having covers.
It is fair to say that things aren't going smoothly in Sochi.
That is nothing though, compared to what the Russian deputy prime minister revealed accidentally in a press conference. He said: "We have surveillance video from the hotels that shows people turn on the shower, direct the nozzle at the wall and then leave the room for the whole day," The Wall Street journal reports that an official aide then diverted the conversation and prevented follow-up questions concerning that matter.
Later that day, an official spokesperson said that the deputy prime minister was confused and the cameras were only in place for the construction of the hotels; they have been taken away since then. However, even if you believe that story, it seems peculiar that they were there in the first place.
Tragically, a few weeks before the Olympic opening ceremony a pest control company in Sochi informed journalists about a special contract they had recently received from the Russian government telling them to exterminate more stray dogs throughout the Olympics. A spokesperson for the pest control company said that thousands of stray dogs are roaming the streets and "biting children".
British government officials recently speculated on the security at the Sochi Winter Olympic games claiming that a terror attack is "very lightly to occur". This is probably the reason why Barack Obama, plus many more world leaders, have declined their invitations to the games despite Russia saying there is a "ring of steel" around the Olympic venues. 37,000 security officers have been deployed to ensure a terror attack will be very hard to pull off. Whether it is possible is the only question now.
From Russia with love
During January, Vladimir Putin (president of Russia) said that gay people were to stay away from Children. Interpret that as you wish however to me is says clearly that Russia is not planning to change its LGBT laws any time soon. Despite what Putin may claim, Russia is illiberal.
During Summer 2013 the Russian government passed an act banning 'Gay Propaganda' from children. Basically, this meant that children are not allowed to know that gay people exist which, conveniently for homophobes, stops any LGBT events happening anywhere in Russia.
Google has taken a stand though, making their 'Google Doodle' of Friday 7th February a rainbow of colours with silhouettes of Winter Olympians overlaying. Various publications have reached out to Google to comment on the doodle however they want the illustration to speak for itself.
Below the doodle was a quote from the Olympic charter: The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practising sport, without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play.
The Google Doodle from the day of the Sochi Winter Olympics Opening Ceremony
The four Olympic rings
On February 7th 2014 it was the Winter Olympics opening ceremony which took place at the Fisht Olympic Stadium in Sochi. 40,000 people turned out to see the launch of the games which was debatably rather dull. The embarrassment of only 4 our of the 5 Olympic rings appearing did make the show slightly more interesting though.
Not everything about this Winter Olympics has been negative though. On the positive side, the Sochi Olympics has broken the world record for the furthest distance an Olympic torch has travelled.
The torch travelled a staggering 40,389 miles and even went into space!
The Sochi Winter Olympics have only just started and already they have been subject to mass amount of controversy and hysteria. This will definitely be a Winter Olympics not forgotten any time in the foreseeable future.
For months, President Trump has been saying that his number one priority with regards to health policy is to “repeal and replace” the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). Immediately, questions were raised about what it would be replaced with and how many people might become insured as a result. Last night, the Republicans unveiled the American Health Care Act (AHCA) – the healthcare bill which will replace the PPACA and which may become ‘Trumpcare’.
A few weeks ago Top Gear relaunched with a new studio, new(ish) track, and new presenters following Jeremy Clarkson’s ‘fracas’ with a producer in 2015. I started watching Evan’s Top Gear without any preconceptions. Although I really did like the old Top Gear, I believed the new Top Gear could survive – maybe even thrive - without Clarkson, Hammond, and May. Sadly, it hasn’t lived up to my expectations and I have been severely disappointed. Here is a list of some of the things wrong with it:
