Johansen.se

For Deaf people, train travel can be a gamble. On an average day, nothing goes wrong: they catch their train to their destination and carry on with their business.

But when something out of the ordinary happens, the situation can quickly get scary, because most updates are only delivered by audio announcements. A Deaf traveller may miss their train because it was moved to a different platform, or watch as their station whizzes by because the train isn’t stopping there today. They may also remain on a train carriage in an emergency after everyone else has evacuated, and have to be rescued by station staff.

Every single one of these examples has been drawn from the real life experiences of Deaf people in Sydney. But my colleagues and I are working with Sydney Trains and members of the Australian Deaf community to develop an advanced, artificial intelligence (AI)-powered signing avatar which can automatically translate audio announcements into Auslan.

Our work on the avatar also builds towards the next step: developing AI systems which can “understand” Auslan.

Journeys don’t always go to plan

Earlier this year, my colleagues and I ran a pilot study with three Deaf train travellers in Sydney. As well as the stories they shared about what can go wrong during train travel, we learned they use tried and tested strategies for making their journeys go smoothly.

Their strategies might be familiar to regular commuters. For example, they would plan their journeys with an app, arrive early and look for signage to let them know if anything had changed.

But they also said they felt they needed to stand near information screens to watch for updates, and ask station staff or other passengers for information when the situation had changed. They also reported being hypervigilant while on the train, watching to make sure they don’t miss their stop.

But these strategies didn’t always ensure Deaf travellers received important information, including about emergencies. For example, while usually helpful, station staff were sometimes too busy to assist.

The greatest frustration came in situations where other passengers weren’t willing or able to provide information, leaving our Deaf travellers to just “follow the crowd”. This often meant ending up in the wrong place.

Developing a signing avatar

Speech-to-text software might seem like an easy solution to some of these problems. But for many Deaf people, English is not their native language and Auslan can be processed far more easily and quickly.

Our Deaf travellers told us that, in a perfect world, they would want live interpreters. However, automatic, AI-powered translation using a signing avatar displayed on a platform or train screen which could identify key words in an audio announcement, generate a sentence with correct Auslan grammar, and stitch together the corresponding signs from our vocabulary library was appealing for a number of reasons.

Avatar by Maria Zelenskaya, QUT. Auslan by Julie Lyons, QUT.

First, it allows for real-time translation of announcements that use known vocabulary – which is relevant in the trains-and-stations context, where many announcements cover similar topics.

Second, an avatar and its signing can be customised to the needs of a given situation, such as using information about screen location to ensure the avatar signs in the right direction while pointing out exits or other platforms.

Third, multiple signers can contribute signs to an avatar’s vocabulary, which can then be smoothly stitched together to make a sentence.

And importantly, an avatar means no real person has to be the “face” of an organisation’s automatically generated announcements. This is particularly important because the Australian Deaf community is small and close knit, and if something goes wrong with the translation, nobody suffers any reputational damage.

From a technical point of view, an avatar also allows us to ensure a minimum quality threshold for signing. We’re using motion capture to make sure each sign in our vocabulary library is accurate, and movements are clear.

It also helps us avoid the “uncanny valley” – an effect where something human-like but subtly wrong is unsettling. We don’t want any of the many-fingered monstrosities you may have seen recently generated by AI.

AI for everyone

This work is one step in our broader aim of creating an AI system which can understand Auslan. This AI could be used to help Deaf and hearing station staff converse, or to create “chatbot booths” or app-based assistants that would allow Deaf people to get information on demand in Auslan about their train journeys or other daily tasks.

Sign languages and Deaf cultures around the world have nuances and complexities that hearing researchers and developers of AI may not be aware of. These nuances and complexities must be embedded in new technologies, and researchers and developers must take a language-first approach to AI data collection and design with – not just for – Deaf people.

Only then will AI meet Deaf people’s real needs: to ensure their safety and independence in every aspect of daily life. Läs mer…

The Victorian government has announced new teaching resources to tackle the influence of “manosphere” figures, such as Andrew Tate, in the state’s schools.

This follows ongoing reports of disturbing events involving sexist abuse by students in both independent and government schools in Victoria and around the country.

But while this week’s announcement is a welcome and necessary step, we need a more comprehensive plan to eliminate gender-based violence in our schools.

What is the ‘manosphere’?

The “manosphere” is an overlapping collection of extreme men’s communities on social media that are anti-women and against women’s empowerment. This includes Tate, the “misogynist influencer” who is facing trial in Romania on charges of human trafficking and rape (which he denies).

Our recent research found women teachers are increasingly exposed to sexism, misogyny and sexual harassment as the result of boys’ exposure to “manfluencer” ideas and behaviours. These problems are further compounded by the infiltration of far-right sentiments into schools, which has been linked to far-right online forums.

At the same time, women teachers report they are not being supported by school leadership.

Read more:
We research online ’misogynist radicalisation’. Here’s what parents of boys should know

What’s in the Victorian resources?

The new teaching resources were developed by education academics Helen Cahill and Debbie Ollis, in consultation with teachers, students and parents.

They aim to give students skills to counter the influence of “Tate-types”, and to navigate issues such as consent, sextortion, pornography and gender-based bullying.

They will be part of respectful relationships education, which is mandatory in Victorian government schools (following a recommendation of the 2015 Royal Commission into Family Violence).

Victorian Deputy Premier and Minister for Education Ben Carroll announced the new teaching resources on Wednesday.
Joel Carrett/AAP

Problems with respecful relationship education

There have been implementation issues with respectful relationships education.

A 2022 review (of which one of us, Naomi Pfitzner, was an author) found problems with the funding, quality of resources and training supplied to schools, and with schools’ levels of commitment

Previous research also suggests teachers may be hesitant to engage with controversial or tricky topics. There is a risk some issues are being left out of classroom discussions.

Crucially, respectful relationships is not mandatory in all Victorian schools — independent and faith-based schools in Victoria need to opt in.

In other Australian states and territories, respectful relationships education is not compulsory in any school system.

We need more information

Education departments around the country collect various forms of data about school life, such as learning and attendance. But we don’t have accurate national data on the prevalence of gender-based violence in schools.

Without the full picture of how widespread gender-based violence is in Australian schools, it is difficult to resource and design an appropriate response.

Gender-based violence in schools is inextricably connected to the endemic levels of violence against women in Australia.

We cannot separate a broader culture that enables gendered slurs, misogyny and gender inequity — known enablers of gender-based violence — from attitudes towards women and girls in schools.

We need more information about the experiences of female students and staff in Australian schools.
Monkey Business Images/ Shutterstock

What now?

Women have been raising the alarm about sexual harassment of female teachers for decades. But on top of already slow or inadequate responses, the problem has become more complex.

The proliferation of online misogynist content requires a new, tailored approach.

Our current project with Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety is examining how online misogyny in the manosphere influences young boys and men in Australia. We will then create resources to support teachers and help make schools safer for all young people.

It is shameful many girls’ first experience of gendered violence happens as students at school. And teachers deserve a safe workplace free from misogyny and sexism. Läs mer…

Stan Original’s newest series is coming to smaller screens, having premiered its first three episodes in September at the Toronto International Film Festival.

Thou Shalt Not Steal follows Aboriginal teen Robyn (played by the immensely talented Sherry-Lee Watson). She escapes juvenile detention and embarks on a defiant road trip from Alice Springs to Adelaide to uncover a long-held family secret.

Fellow outsider Gidge (Will McDonald) comes along for the ride. He has run away from his dodgy preacher dad Robert (Noah Taylor, clearly enjoying his character’s exaggerated grossness, from a perpetually stained singlet to overflowing ashtrays).

In hot pursuit are two incongruous duos. First come detectives Burke and Wills (Shari Sebbens and Darren Gilshenan). Then Robert teams up with the decidely crooked Maxine (played menacingly by Miranda Otto). Where Robert’s deceits are lazily self-serving, Maxine is an outback madam who poses very real dangers to the young people.

‘Some bastards have it coming …’

Thou shalt never go to Coober Pedy

Each episode begins with a tongue-in-cheek lesson from Robyn’s past. These range from the eponymous “thou shalt not steal” to “thou shalt never go to Coober Pedy”.

This deadpan humour cleverly introduces significant issues. There are the inordinate rates of incarceration of Indigenous youth, alcoholism, assault, toxic masculinity, bullying and weaponised religion, among others.

These themes are particularly pertinent in the Northern Territory, where Thou Shalt Not Steal was both set and shot. Earlier this year the NT city of Alice Springs initiated a youth curfew and the territory has now reportedly lifted its ban on using “spit hoods” on young people.

This context means some of the laughs in the series are uncomfortable. But comedy is a well-established vehicle for social justice and the show remains focused on the heroes’ journey, albeit within an important socio-political context.

Over the first six of its eight short episodes, Thou Shalt Not Steal maintains a balance between acerbic comedy and perilous road trip. Its final episodes revel in a series of over-the-top scenarios that nevertheless tie up narrative loose ends in an enjoyable way.

Indeed the shift to outright absurdity reveals the show’s gentler message: about finding a chosen family.

Miranda Otto and Noah Taylor’s characters are dangerous for different reasons.
Stan

Alice Springs (Mparntwe)

If the tone and topic of the show – described elsewhere as “End of the F…ing World meets Fargo” – sound familiar, it’s because it draws from director, co-writer and co-creator Dylan Rivers’ earlier multi-award-winning Robbie Hood (2019).

In that show, the Robin Hood mythology falls to 13-year-old Alice Springs’ local, Robbie (Pedrea Jackson). The same desert-dry humour articulates the charming teen’s well-intentioned misadventures through a variety of legal and familial landscapes.

Alice Springs (Mparntwe) is not just a recurrent muse for Rivers; it is also where he grew up, as the son of award-winning filmmakers Penelope McDonald and Warwick Thornton. Rivers has noted that, while his family actively supports each other, they are also “competitive”, pushing each other to produce their best work.

The series is set in Central and Southern Australia in the winter of 1980.
Stan/Ian Routledge

Slick and self-aware

Having worked previously with his parents on multiple productions, Thou Shalt Not Steal is also something of a family affair. Co-created and co-written with cousin Tanith Glynn-Maloney, who also serves as executive producer, Thou Shalt Not Steal was developed during COVID lockdowns. The duo slowly developed the premise and the first two episodes over two years, before securing investment and support.

The result is a slick, well-made series with terrific attention to detail. The gorgeous landscapes contrast with the dank, grimy spaces occupied by the antagonists. The soundtrack is its own treasure trove, ranging from Slim Dusty to the Yamma Family and the Warumpi Band, and always in perfect alignment to the scenes. The chorus of “almost the end, almost the end!” is a highlight in the last episode.

Rivers says he tried not to

[…] shy away from being a bit cheesy, being a bit self-aware, and being over the top at times. Hopefully there’s twists and turns that people don’t expect. But it was very consciously, like, let’s have fun.

Thou Shalt Not Steal is most definitely a fun ride.

Thou Shalt Not Steal is streaming on Stan from today. Läs mer…

It was big news in the podcasting world when US Vice-President Kamala Harris recently sat down with Alex Cooper’s Call Her Daddy for an extended interview. This was not just because it was one of the few times Harris has opened herself up to direct media scrutiny, but also because it signalled podcasting’s coming of age.

Now there are fresh reports she could sit down with Joe Rogan for his top-rated show. Former president Donald Trump has also said he’ll record with Rogan before election day.

High-stakes interviews are no longer solely the domain of legacy media. Politicians, like celebrities with a story to tell or a film to sell, can pop onto a podcast with a hopefully sympathetic host to reach vast and potentially new audiences. (That said, Harris also did interviews with CBS News, 60 Minutes, The View and CBS’s The Late Show with Stephen Colbert the same week.)

So for the VP and Democratic presidential candidate, is this about finding new audiences or answering to a different, perhaps softer style of interview?

Call her who?

If you haven’t heard of Call Her Daddy, note the show’s emphasis is on sex and female empowerment. Cooper’s listeners are 70% women and 76% of them are aged under 35. It is often compared to the Joe Rogan Experience, a comparison Cooper hates. Cooper has also been called the Oprah Winfrey of her generation, which may say something about her interviewing skills or her market value.

The comparisons to Rogan are hard to avoid. Call Her Daddy has been running since 2018. In 2020, Cooper split with her co-host and took the program to Spotify, also home to the Joe Rogan Experience. There, Call Her Daddy rose to be the second most-listened-to podcast globally, behind Rogan, with an average of 5 million weekly listeners. Spotify gave Cooper US$60 million to Rogan’s rumoured $250 million. This particular gender pay gap was recently reduced when Cooper took the podcast to SiriusXM for $125 million.

A Harris appearance on Rogan’s podcast could give her a larger audience than Cooper’s and parallel access to young male listeners.

‘Here’s the thing …’

Soft or smart?

Harris’ decision to be interviewed on a podcast aimed at young women brought criticism from those who saw it as the “soft option”, as well as those who don’t rate young women or approve of talk of sex.

The same commentators seem to have overlooked that for the last year, Trump has been wooing the “manosphere” and has called in to friendly bro-casts such as This Past Weekend with Theo Von. In other podcasts like Full Send, Trump has had scope for friendly freewheeling banter on topics from Ice Spice to golf.

Cooper says she also invited the former president onto her show to discuss women’s rights.

In the journalistic tradition of podcasts since Serial, Cooper revealed her process and opened her interview with Harris by sharing the reasoning behind her line of questioning. “Let’s be real, I’m probably not the one to be having the fracking conversation,” she deadpanned.

Harris said she went on the podcast “to be real, you know, and to talk about the things that people really care about”. There were moments of genuine emotion, such as anger and compassion at the death of a young woman, Amber Thurman, in Georgia in the wake of the US’s newly restrictive abortion laws. Yet at times Harris still sounded rehearsed, in the manner of people in the public eye required to repeatedly answer similar questions and give similar speeches.

The risk to a politician is that the authenticity and intimacy for which podcasting is known could just as well work against them – a lack of “realness” becomes amplified through headphones, straight into the listeners’ ears.

While Harris’ cadence sounded like familiar speechifying near the end, perhaps her anecdotes were new to sections of Cooper’s audience. For all the claims that a focus on the concerns of women made for a “soft interview”, it was also a timely reminder of the centrality of reproductive freedom to women’s lives and the election.

The risks of the interview were more Cooper’s, who hinted at the prospect of losing listeners by interviewing a politician while wanting Call Her Daddy to be “a place where everyone feels comfortable tuning in”. This is a pertinent concern for her as much of the program’s initial popularity was built on Barstool, a media company known for its conservative leanings.

A different listener

The question remains: is appearing on extremely popular podcasts with young audiences a good political strategy for Harris? The positives of appearing on Call Her Daddy were clear, given Cooper’s main audience of young women is generally more politically engaged and motivated to vote than young men.

Rogan’s audience is 81% male with 34% aged 18–35. Making a connection with young men could prove trickier for Harris within the “bro-ey”, jokey framework of the Joe Rogan Experience than it was with Cooper.

A lot will depend on Harris’ interaction with the host, but Rogan is not known for hostile interviewing and Harris is experienced in connecting with people from a range of backgrounds. And her recent spot on shock jock Howard Stern’s radio show gave her a chance to share her love of car racing.

In a tight election, which could come down to swing voters in six or seven states, such skills, showcased in the podcasting space, could impact the election. The potential gains seem worth any risks. Läs mer…

It was big news in the podcasting world when US Vice-President Kamala Harris recently sat down with Alex Cooper’s Call Her Daddy for an extended interview. This was not just because it was one of the few times Harris has opened herself up to direct media scrutiny, but also because it signalled podcasting’s coming of age.

Now there are fresh reports she could sit down with Joe Rogan for his top-rated show. Former president Donald Trump has also said he’ll record with Rogan before election day.

High-stakes interviews are no longer solely the domain of legacy media. Politicians, like celebrities with a story to tell or a film to sell, can pop onto a podcast with a hopefully sympathetic host to reach vast and potentially new audiences. (That said, Harris also did interviews with CBS News, 60 Minutes, The View and CBS’s The Late Show with Stephen Colbert the same week.)

So for the VP and Democratic presidential candidate, is this about finding new audiences or answering to a different, perhaps softer style of interview?

Call her who?

If you haven’t heard of Call Her Daddy, note the show’s emphasis is on sex and female empowerment. Cooper’s listeners are 70% women and 76% of them are aged under 35. It is often compared to the Joe Rogan Experience, a comparison Cooper hates. Cooper has also been called the Oprah Winfrey of her generation, which may say something about her interviewing skills or her market value.

The comparisons to Rogan are hard to avoid. Call Her Daddy has been running since 2018. In 2020, Cooper split with her co-host and took the program to Spotify, also home to the Joe Rogan Experience. There, Call Her Daddy rose to be the second most-listened-to podcast globally, behind Rogan, with an average of 5 million weekly listeners. Spotify gave Cooper US$60 million to Rogan’s rumoured $250 million. This particular gender pay gap was recently reduced when Cooper took the podcast to SiriusXM for $125 million.

A Harris appearance on Rogan’s podcast could give her a larger audience than Cooper’s and parallel access to young male listeners.

‘Here’s the thing …’

Soft or smart?

Harris’ decision to be interviewed on a podcast aimed at young women brought criticism from those who saw it as the “soft option”, as well as those who don’t rate young women or approve of talk of sex.

The same commentators seem to have overlooked that for the last year, Trump has been wooing the “manosphere” and has called in to friendly bro-casts such as This Past Weekend with Theo Von. In other podcasts like Full Send, Trump has had scope for friendly freewheeling banter on topics from Ice Spice to golf.

Cooper says she also invited the former president onto her show to discuss women’s rights.

In the journalistic tradition of podcasts since Serial, Cooper revealed her process and opened her interview with Harris by sharing the reasoning behind her line of questioning. “Let’s be real, I’m probably not the one to be having the fracking conversation,” she deadpanned.

Harris said she went on the podcast “to be real, you know, and to talk about the things that people really care about”. There were moments of genuine emotion, such as anger and compassion at the death of a young woman, Amber Thurman, in Georgia in the wake of the US’s newly restrictive abortion laws. Yet at times Harris still sounded rehearsed, in the manner of people in the public eye required to repeatedly answer similar questions and give similar speeches.

The risk to a politician is that the authenticity and intimacy for which podcasting is known could just as well work against them – a lack of “realness” becomes amplified through headphones, straight into the listeners’ ears.

While Harris’ cadence sounded like familiar speechifying near the end, perhaps her anecdotes were new to sections of Cooper’s audience. For all the claims that a focus on the concerns of women made for a “soft interview”, it was also a timely reminder of the centrality of reproductive freedom to women’s lives and the election.

The risks of the interview were more Cooper’s, who hinted at the prospect of losing listeners by interviewing a politician while wanting Call Her Daddy to be “a place where everyone feels comfortable tuning in”. This is a pertinent concern for her as much of the program’s initial popularity was built on Barstool, a media company known for its conservative leanings.

A different listener

The question remains: is appearing on extremely popular podcasts with young audiences a good political strategy for Harris? The positives of appearing on Call Her Daddy were clear, given Cooper’s main audience of young women is generally more politically engaged and motivated to vote than young men.

Rogan’s audience is 81% male with 34% aged 18–35. Making a connection with young men could prove trickier for Harris within the “bro-ey”, jokey framework of the Joe Rogan Experience than it was with Cooper.

A lot will depend on Harris’ interaction with the host, but Rogan is not known for hostile interviewing and Harris is experienced in connecting with people from a range of backgrounds. And her recent spot on shock jock Howard Stern’s radio show gave her a chance to share her love of car racing.

In a tight election, which could come down to swing voters in six or seven states, such skills, showcased in the podcasting space, could impact the election. The potential gains seem worth any risks. Läs mer…

We know that boys and girls are produced in much the same frequency. But how – and why – is this 1:1 ratio achieved?

A new paper searches huge human data sets for gene variants that throw the 1:1 sex ratio off balance, and test the biological and theoretical rules of sex ratio.

What produces the 1:1 sex ratio?

Early scientists credited divine providence with ensuring that “every male should have its female”.

Of course, we now know that sex chromosomes are the real determiners of sex. Females have two X chromosomes; males have a single X and a male-specific Y.

The Y carries a male-determining gene called SRY, which kickstarts the differentiation of a ridge of cells into a testis. The embryonic testis makes male hormones which direct the embryo to develop as a boy. Without SRY, an alternative pathway is activated that makes an ovary, and the embryo develops as a girl.

The 1:1 ratio results from the way the X and Y chromosomes are doled out in sperm and eggs. Our cells all have two sets of chromosomes that constitute our genome, one set from each parent. A special type of cell division makes sperm and eggs with just a single set of chromosomes, so that a fertilised egg once again has two sets (one set from the sperm and the other from the egg).

So sperm all get a single copy of each chromosome – and just one sex chromosome, either an X or a Y. XX females make eggs with a single chromosome set, all of which carry an X.

When a sperm fertilises an egg, the sex chromosome the sperm carries determines the sex of the baby. Embryos that receive one X from the mother and another X from the father are destined to be XX girls, and embryos that receive a Y-bearing sperm will develop as XY boys.

So the 1:1 XY ratio in sperm should produce a 1:1 ratio of XX girls and XY boys.

Sex ratio variation

But there are lots of exceptions to a 1:1 ratio in the animal kingdom. There are genetic mutations that subvert the orderly segregation of the X and Y, or that preferentially kill male or female embryos.

Why should the sex ratio be stuck at 1:1 anyway? After all, a few males can fertilise the eggs of many females.

Indeed, for many animals, unequal sex ratios are the norm. For instance, the mouse-sized marsupial Antechinus stuartii produces only 32% males, even when assessed at birth (so it’s not that male babies die more often).

Many birds have sex ratios far from 1:1, and some show very specific adaptations that make ecological sense. For instance, the second kookaburra chick to hatch, facing a lower chance of survival, is usually a female, the sex most likely to survive.

And there are systems of non-standard sex chromosomes. Polar mammals and strange rodents, for instance, are famous for systems in which a mutant X chromosome quashes SRY to form fertile XY females, or a mutated version of SRY doesn’t work. In these species, females predominate, which makes sense for mammals that have to get all their breeding done in a short summer.

Insects take the cake. An extreme case is a kind of mite that produces a ratio of 15 females to 1 male. In many fruit fly species, 95% of sperm carry the X chromosome, so the progeny are largely female.

Why a 1:1 sex ratio in humans? Fisher’s principle

So if sex ratio is so malleable, why have humans (and most mammals) gone for a 1:1 ratio? The great British statistician Ronald Fisher proposed that the ratio is self-correcting and will tend to 1:1 unless there are evolutionary forces that select for distortions.

The argument is simple. Given every baby must have a mother and a father, if there is a deficiency in one sex, the parents of the rarer sex will have more grandchildren than parents of the more common sex.

For instance, if males are the rarer sex, parents who by chance produce more sons than daughters will leave more grandchildren than those that produce more daughters than sons. As a result, son-producing genes will get a boost until parity is reached.

So do we see measurable and heritable departures from 1:1 in the family sex ratio of human sons to daughters? What about Fisher’s principle – is there any evidence that strong evolutionary effects are constraining the human population sex ratio to be 1:1?

In the new research published this week, researchers Siliang Song and Jianzhi Zhang from the University of Michigan conducted an exhaustive examination of huge human data sets from the United Kingdom and found the answer is an emphatic no. They did identify two genetic variants that affected sex ratio, but these seemed not to be passed on through families.

So why do humans obey the 1:1 rule? Is it just statistical artefact, because any one family has relatively so few children that even large departures from a 1:1 ratio get evened out across many families?

Some families have the gene variants to produce more sons than daughters, but other families produce more daughters than sons. Song and Zhang’s analysis suggests this high variability is part of the problem for demonstrating any systematic bias.

Another possibility is that humans face special evolutionary constraints. Perhaps the human tendency for monogamy places additional evolutionary pressure on humans to adhere to Fisher’s principle in a way that does not apply to other animal species.

Whatever the answer, this paper by Song and Zhang raises many intriguing questions, and will be a stimulus to further research on the longstanding and fascinating question of parity in the human sex ratio. Läs mer…

Gambling, especially sports and race betting, is a hot political issue at the moment.

This is largely due to the recommendations from a 2023 report from a nonpartisan federal government committee, chaired by the late Peta Murphy, called You Win Some, You Lose More.

This report recommended “the Australian government, with the cooperation of the states and territories, implement a comprehensive ban on all forms of advertising for online gambling”.

This has led to lots of debate and controversy.

Recently, Peter V’landys, head of the NRL and Racing NSW, claimed lotteries were more harmful than race and sports betting combined, citing independent statistics.

Let’s explore the relative harm of different types of gambling and see if this claim holds up.

Australians love a punt

Gambling is widespread in Australia, with more than half of adults engaging in at least one form each year.

According to the latest national data, lotteries are the most common type (40% of Australians buy a ticket annually), followed by race betting (17%), pokies (16%), scratchies (15.7%) and sports betting (9.6%).

However, the popularity of a gambling form doesn’t necessarily reflect its harm. Different gambling activities have distinct characteristics.

Two key factors mean that some gambling forms are more harmful than others: the speed of gambling and bet size.

Pokies allow for frequent, small bets, with spins every three seconds. Race and sports betting can involve much larger sums and betting that is relatively fast, but still slower than pokie spins.

Sports betting, in particular, is getting faster with in-play betting and microbetting.

Poker machines, or ‘pokies’ are the biggest single source of gambling losses in Australia.

Lotteries, on the other hand, are much slower-paced.

People typically spend a small amount on tickets and wait for a draw to find out if they’ve won.

Although it’s possible to spend a lot on tickets, people tend not to, unlike with faster gambling forms.

The average spend on pokies among the 16% who play them is around $4,782 per year, compared to an average spend on lotteries of $377 per year. These are averages. Most won’t spend these amounts but some will spend far more, which raises the average amount.

V’landys’ claim about lotteries being more harmful than race and sports betting was based on “independent statistics”.

He said that of 100 people seeking help from a gambling hotline, 70 had issues with pokies, 15 with lotteries, eight with race betting, four with sports betting, and three with casinos.

We were unable to verify these figures – if anyone has the data, we’d love to see the research to assess them.

However, we do have publicly available data.

What the data say

The NSW GambleAware website’s 2020-21 report shows that of 2,886 people seeking help, 73.3% identified pokies as their primary form of gambling, while only 13 people (less than 1%) listed lotteries. Race betting accounted for 13.1%, and sports betting for 7.9%.

These patterns were consistent with previous years.

People who experience problems also usually take part in more than one form of gambling, as the NSW report showed.

When these secondary gambling activities were considered, sports betting was cited by 35.5%, race betting by 33.5%, pokies by 19.5%, and lotteries by 13.7%.

What we discovered

The best evidence on gambling problems and harm comes from large-scale prevalence studies, typically commissioned by governments and conducted by independent researchers.

These studies offer high-quality insights into how each gambling form contributes to problems.

While one prevalence study is great, our team recently combined data from seven national and state-based prevalence studies. This resulted in a very high-quality dataset that we can use to study this question.

In our analysis, we used statistical techniques to show how strongly each gambling form is associated with problems.

These techniques give us regression coefficients, which are just numbers that tell us how strong the association is. A higher number means a stronger association between that form and gambling problems.

The most problematic form was pokies (coefficient = 0.147), followed by casino games (0.136), sports betting (0.068) and race betting (0.038).

Lotteries, with a coefficient of 0.001, were the least problematic and were not statistically significant even in our large sample.

As you might guess from such a low number, there’s very little relationship between lotteries and gambling problems.

What about prevalence?

Prevalence matters too – while pokies were most strongly associated with problems, the number of people participating in each gambling form is also important.

Let’s consider an analogy – a car that gives out a lot of exhaust fumes. That car is harmful, but if virtually no one owns one, then it’s not going to account for much pollution.

The same idea applies for gambling forms. If a gambling form is very harmful but very few people do it, it doesn’t account for many problems in the population.

It works the other way, too – if there is a very clean type of car that many people drive, they also won’t add up to much pollution.

Similarly, if we have gambling forms that have very little association with problems, it won’t add up to many problems in the population, even if lots of people take part.

The regression coefficients tell us how problematic each gambling form is. Prevalance tells us how many people do it.

When we combine these two bits of information, we can work out the degree of problems in the community that come from each form.

When we did this, pokies were responsible for 52-57% of gambling problems in the community.

Sports and race betting each contributed 9-11%, with a combined total of around 20%.

Lotteries accounted for just 0.1-1% of problems.

Even if we include scratchies as part of lotteries, this only adds another 2-5% of problems, still far below sports and race betting.

The real issue

What’s the takeaway?

Lotteries are widely played but are not typically associated with much harm.

Sports and race betting, despite having fewer participants, are more harmful due to their faster pace and the potential for large, frequent bets.

Lotteries involve slower betting and lower spending, making them much less risky.

If we aim to reduce gambling harm in our community, the focus should be on pokies, which are widespread in pubs and clubs outside WA, casino games and race and sports betting.

These forms have features that make them far more harmful than slower-paced gambling like lotteries. Läs mer…

In 2023, the actor, producer and director Gillian Anderson, best known for playing FBI agent Dana Scully in The X-Files and therapist Jean Milburn in Sex Education, called for women to send her their sexual fantasies:

I want women across the world, and all of you who identify intrinsically as women now – queer, heterosexual and bisexual, non-binary, transgender, polyamorous – all of you, old and young, whatever your religion, and married, single or other, to write to me and tell me what you think about when you think about sex.

Anderson promised all submissions for her proposed anthology would be treated as anonymous. “I will, of course, be including my own letter, anonymously,” she added. “I look forward to reading yours.”

The resulting submissions were carefully selected and arranged by Anderson and have been published in Want, a collection of the anonymous sexual fantasies of women around the world.

Review: Want: Sexual Fantasies by Anonymous – edited by Gillian Anderson (Bloomsbury)

Anderson styles the project as a 21st-century continuation of Nancy Friday’s My Secret Garden: Women’s Sexual Fantasies (1973). She states in her introduction that she wanted to find out whether the kinds of sexist constraints that structured women’s fantasies in 1973 have lessened, or merely changed form.

The check-in seems especially relevant now, given that Roe v. Wade, the US Supreme Court ruling on abortion, was decided in 1973 and overturned in 2022.

One of Want’s primary themes is that women’s desire has historically been silenced. Anderson speculates that 21st-century women are still beholden to patriarchal assumptions that cast their desires as, at least, private and, at most, shameful – especially non-heterosexual and non-procreative desires. The fantasies in Want often wrestle with shame, but the book itself is designed to counter it.

But if the internalisation of fantasy as a private phenomenon harms women, Anderson also notices that the privacy of fantasy worlds is one of their most liberating dimensions:

For some of us, the sex we have in our heads may be more stimulating than the physical nuts and bolts of any coupling, no matter how hot.

Gillian Anderson explores the relationship between fantasies and realities.
Richard Shotwell/Invision/AAP

In fantasy, we can be as transgressive as we want. We can take on any role and imagine our bodies, and the bodies of others, in new shapes and forms. Each fantasy presented in Want constitutes both erotica and a fragment of data, which together form a kind of survey of women’s most secret, most hidden desires.

Short statements at the end of each entry list the contributors’ ethnic groups and nationalities, religions, annual income, sexual orientations, relationship status, and “yes” or “no” to children. Strikingly, age is not listed – perhaps it is rude to ask women their age?

Multiple races, ethnicities, nationalities and religions are represented, although white and middle-class are noticeably dominant. As Anderson hoped, there are also many genders and sexual identities, including lesbian, queer, trans, polyamorous and asexual.

The stories themselves run from the exotic to the mundane. There are entries that find the erotic in the tentacular, a Bigfoot-like figure, and sex with trees. A particularly speculative story imagines new bodily textures and shapes: “she attaches her transforming alien genitalia to my privates”. One contributor wildly imagines her husband saying he has hired a cleaner and done the grocery shopping.

The book is a truly collective effort, and the cacophony of voices is one of its more striking dimensions. Reading it is an intense experience. Want is a book designed for dipping into, rather than reading from cover to cover. Its 13 sections – which have titles like Rough and Ready, To be Worshipped, Strangers, and Gently, Gently – allow readers to select according to mood or personal preference.

Fantasies and realities

Anderson has written an introduction and overviews of the sections. These occasionally read as a string of references to her own acting roles. She name-drops Margaret Thatcher, Agent Scully, Jean Milburn and Stella Gibson. Her own anonymous fantasy is also somewhere in the book, which will no doubt prompt fans to play guessing games.

While not pretending to be an expert, Anderson explores questions about the relationship between fantasy and reality. How do fantasies shape reality, and how do realities shape fantasy? The book shows the complexity of this question.

Fantasies can both mirror and subvert reality, and often both at once. Many women contrast their fantasies with their everyday lives, or construct antidotes to their real-life roles, though one contributor writes of a scenario that “involves the dentist chair and being tied down” that she would probably be “super-upset” if her actual dentist tried this. The book has plenty of humour.

Many of the stories speak to the attraction of transgression. Non-consensual fantasies are included. As Anderson notes, there is more than a little evidence of the influence of E.L. James’ erotic novel Fifty Shades of Grey. Several self-declared feminists admit to fantasies of domination or exploitation that do not align with their real-world values.

The articulation of women’s erotic lives does not always lead to the undoing of patriarchal norms, which cast men as the active doers and women as passive receivers. Fantasy is not so easily split off from the worlds in which it is conceived and imagined.

This may be why, in an unequal world, danger and unequal power are recurring themes. One author writes: “Is it crazy that my wildest sexual fantasy is to feel safe?”

The four selections in the section titled Captive depict not-quite-consensual scenarios of terror. Anderson does not pretend to have the expertise to explain these, but is careful to point out that they should not be taken to “normalise any form of kidnapping or violence towards women”. To recentre consent, she recommends readers choose whether to read these four inclusions.

Multi-voiced desires

Want does omit some fantasies. The guidelines barred anything racist, sexist or homophobic, or advocating any activity that is illegal in the United Kingdom. In an article on LitHub, Ellie Broughton asked whether this intervention might compromise Anderson’s ability to provide a comprehensive review of women’s true desires.

But as the reader moves through Want, it becomes clear that while the guidelines may have been restrictive, they were also enabling. The book has a lighter tone than Nancy Friday’s collection. It does not centre normative or harmful sexual fantasies. There are already expansive archives elsewhere of racist, sexist and homophobic fantasies, and sexual fantasies that find pleasure in the non-consensual and the harmful.

In Want, women write about queer, disabled, winding, multi-voiced desires that are unfamiliar, provocative and sometimes truly new. Fantasies about sex between women are commonplace, as are fantasies from lesbians about sex with (or as) men. Sex, gender and sexuality become fluid, both literally (blood, urine and excrement are reimagined as erotic) and metaphorically: “Sex and gender is confusing and continues to be a journey with a changing destination,” writes one young contributor about her emerging desires.

Binaries are pleasurably unsettled. “The ability to seamlessly switch between perspectives that are typically considered mutually exclusive – like below/above, disabled/empowered, passive/active – are at the core of my most intimate fantasies,” writes a Danish lesbian with “a severe neurodegenerative disease”.

Some of the most striking fantasies are grounded in disability. Rather than being imagined away, it is carefully and specifically attended to as erotic. Wheelchairs, assistive technologies, scars and even sickness are enabling and facilitate particular kinds of pleasure. As the Danish lesbian adds: “a powered wheelchair seat and other mechanical aids can come in handy”.

Want is vast: sometimes cliched and sometimes subversive; sometimes feminist and sometimes traditional. There are stories of lone pleasure and stories of caring for others. There is embodiment and dissociation, brutality and subtlety, wild fiction and raw, gritty honesty.

Ultimately, the book demonstrates one thing incontrovertibly: many, many women love the idea of sex, although a few do not love the actual sex they are getting.

One of the most valuable things about a collection like this might be the sense of recognition it can foster. “I would give anything to know if someone else has these same thoughts, solely so I can know I’m not alone,” writes one contributor.

It seems likely many will be able to find evidence in Want’s pages that they are not alone. Others will find new and exciting scenarios to borrow and embellish for themselves. In Want, readers can discover the sheer diversity, joy and intensity that gathers under the contested label “woman”.

As Anderson writes in her conclusion:

I’ve come to see that there is no one type of fantasy, just like there is no one typical ‘woman’ […] We are all different, we all contain multitudes. Läs mer…

Across the tranquil waters of Canada’s vast network of lakes and rivers, a quiet invader is on the move. The spiny water flea, Bythotrephes cederströmii, is a microscopic predator that is forever altering the ecological fabric of aquatic habitats in Canada.

Originally from Eurasia, Bythotrephes casts a long shadow over the ecosystems it invades. Its presence in Canadian waters represents an ongoing ecological challenge, one that intertwines the fate of native species with the spectre of climate change.

Our lakes: their secrets and challenges, is a series produced by La Conversation/The Conversation.

This article is part of our series Our lakes: their secrets and challenges. The Conversation and La Conversation invite you to take a fascinating dip in our lakes. With magnifying glasses, microscopes and diving goggles, our scientists scrutinize the biodiversity of our lakes and the processes that unfold in them, and tell us about the challenges they face. Don’t miss our articles on these incredibly rich bodies of water!

Diminutive and destructive

Despite its name, Bythotrephes is neither a flea nor a parasite.

A member of the crustacean zooplankton family, the Bythotrephes belongs to a group of microscopic arthropods that are near the base of the aquatic food web and related to other crustaceans like shrimp and lobsters.

Its diet primarily consists of other crustacean zooplankton, with herbivores being the preferred food source. By preying on these critical organisms, Bythotrephes can destabilize a local food web. This destabilization leads to a decrease in native fish populations that rely on zooplankton for nourishment.

The Bythotrephes is equipped with a long, barbed tail spine, which makes it difficult prey for most fish, further allowing its populations to grow mostly unchecked in many lakes.

The Bythotrephes is well protected against predation and feeds on a number of key species.

Alarmingly, the Bythotrephes is spreading rapidly.

Human activities, particularly recreational boating and fishing, serve as the primary vectors for this invasive species. Boats and equipment used in infested waters can harbour Bythotrephes’ and its eggs, which are remarkably resistant to freezing and drying and able to survive out of water for extended periods of time.

Unknowingly, outdoor enthusiasts can transport these invaders to uninvaded habitats, sometimes seeding new infestations far from the original point of invasion. However, the insidious spread of Bythotrephes is not solely the direct result of human activities but is also exacerbated by climate change.

Changing conditions

The Canadian climate has been historically hostile to the Bythotrephes. But as global temperatures rise and weather patterns shift, more and more of Canada is experiencing conditions favourable for the proliferation of invasive species like Bythotrephes.

Warmer water temperatures, in particular, extend its breeding season, allowing for more reproductive cycles within a single year. This amplifies their population growth and colonization potential, hastening their spread across Canadian waters.

Read more:
Climate change means we may have to learn to live with invasive species

Milder winters and earlier ice melt may also enable Bythotrephes to survive and reproduce in regions where it was previously unable to establish populations. These changes in environmental conditions create novel opportunities for Bythotrephes to expand its range and out-compete native species for resources, exacerbating the ecological disruption caused by its invasion.

As we confront the dual challenges of invasive species management and climate change adaptation, it becomes increasingly clear that addressing the spread of Bythotrephes requires a holistic and interdisciplinary approach.

Commonly viewed as fleas, the Bythotrephes actually possess a number of key differences.

Solutions remain

The battle against the spread of Bythotrephes is multifaceted, requiring a blend of scientific research, policy action and public participation. After prevention, monitoring for early detection is critical.

Enhanced surveillance of known potential habitats can help identify new infestations early, enabling quicker actions to contain or eradicate outbreaks.

Public awareness and education are equally important. The adage “clean, drain, dry” should become a mantra for anyone engaging in aquatic recreation. By thoroughly cleaning and drying boats, gear and equipment, individuals can dramatically reduce the risk of transporting Bythotrephes and other invasive species to new locations.

Awareness campaigns can also inform the public about the critical role they play in stopping the spread of invasive species and protecting Canada’s aquatic biodiversity.

Investing in research to understand the ecological impact of Bythotrephes and to develop effective control measures is vital. Biological control strategies, habitat restoration and public education programs can all contribute to a comprehensive approach to managing this invasive threat.

Read more:
Invasive species are reshaping aquatic ecosystems, one lake at a time

The invasion of Bythotrephes in Canada is a stark reminder of the fragility of aquatic ecosystems and the complexity of managing invasive species in the face of climate change. By understanding the impact of Bythotrephes and taking deliberate steps to curb its spread, Canadians can protect their waterways and the diverse life they support.

There is power in informed action and collective will. It is a battle that requires the engagement of all — from scientists and policymakers to local communities and individuals. Together, we can halt the forward march of Bythotrephes cederströmii and preserve the ecological integrity of Canada’s precious aquatic ecosystems for future generations. Läs mer…

With the recent establishment of a new Social Investment Agency – described as a “driving project” for the government by Finance Minister Nicola Willis – it seems New Zealand has come full circle on this approach to social welfare.

First championed by then finance minister Bill English in 2015, social investment was rebranded “social wellbeing” by Labour-led governments between 2017 and 2023. But Willis signalled before last year’s election that its time had come again.

In a speech in 2022, she argued taxpayer money wasn’t being spent responsibly by the Labour administration, and that a targeted social investment approach was needed. During the 2023 election campaign, the National Party promised social investment would return.

Essentially, the policy involves using data to calculate which groups of people cost the government the most over a lifetime. Interventions aimed at reducing that cost are then targeted at those people. The idea is that early investment saves later social costs.

Right now, however, we don’t know the finer details of how Willis intends to implement the policy. But we do know how it worked in the past – and what lessons might be drawn from its earlier, short-lived implementation.

An actuarial approach to welfare

In New Zealand, the idea of social investment can be traced back to the fifth National government which held office for three terms between 2008 and 2017.

In September 2015, English outlined his approach in a Treasury lecture, explaining how the government had commissioned Australian actuary firm Taylor Fry to calculate the lifetime welfare cost to the state of people on benefits.

Typically, actuaries use statistics to calculate risk for insurance companies, information that is then used to set premiums. English said the Taylor Fry calculations would identify which beneficiary “is going to cost us the most money”.

The answer was single parents receiving a benefit. Consequently, they were deemed most in need of direct government intervention, including giving an approved mentor control of their money.

According to English’s version of social investment, data enabled the government to calculate the “forward liability” of its citizens, and target interventions accordingly.

This is not the only way to define social investment, however, and other countries often adopt a more universal approach. For example, European models tend to focus on social equality and inclusivity rather than targeting specific groups.

English’s model focused on applying benefit sanctions and conditions. The aim was to “reduce the lifetime public cost of the welfare-recipient population, thereby offering fiscal returns-on-investment, absorbed into public coffers”.

A Social Investment Unit was created in 2016, followed by a Social Investment Agency in 2017. This was a standalone agency providing advice across government departments.

Finance Minister Nicola Willis: social investment is a ‘driving project’ for the National-led government.
Getty Images

No accounting for structural disadvantage

Official thinking about social investment predates the establishment of the unit and agency. In 2015, the second of two reports produced by an expert panel review of the Child, Youth and Family agency (now Oranga Tamariki) recommended a new child-centred social investment agency be created.

The report’s analysis and advice focused on intervening early to reduce the risk of vulnerable children growing up to be beneficiaries, teen parents, substance users or prisoners (among other negative outcomes).

It was suggested these potential future behaviours almost always stemmed from the actions (or inactions) of parents. Māori were identified as being especially costly due to their over-representation in child protection statistics. They were described as a “forward liability associated with poor outcomes”.

The proposed response was early intervention and social investment. That would include the removal of very young children from whānau/families where they were perceived to be at high risk. The reasoning was that the predicted damage might then never eventuate, thereby saving taxpayer dollars.

As my doctoral research found, no consideration in the report was given to the effects of systemic conditions such as poverty and the legacies of colonisation.

Costs to the state

The social investment model, with its emphasis on financial liability to the state, became a major influence on Oranga Tamariki’s practice.

It led to an increase in the early removal of tamariki Māori, especially babies, from their birth families – as demonstrated in the 2019 Hawkes Bay “uplift” case, where social workers attempted to remove a Māori baby soon after birth.

In 2017, the new Labour government promised a review of the Social Investment Agency, renaming it the Social Wellbeing Agency in 2020. The social development minister at the time, Carmel Sepuloni, said the agency would have a more holistic approach. Data would be only one of a number of considerations when delivering social services.

But with the agency now reverting to its original name, the idea of using data to guide early intervention seems to be central again. It’s unclear, however, whether the actuarial approach of Bill English’s earlier model will return.

Nicola Willis does seem to be aware of the criticism of the English-era model’s apparent focus on fiscal risk and returns. She has stressed that measuring other outcomes is also important.

As yet, though, there is no indication the policy’s highly targeted approach to welfare will account for structural factors such as colonisation and poverty.

Given the government’s drive to remove any special policy considerations based on te Tiriti of Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi, the risk remains that some Māori will again come to be viewed as a “cost” to the state. Läs mer…