10 interesting stories served every morning and every evening.




1 854 shares, 42 trendiness

Vitamin D & Omega-3 have a larger effect on depression than antidepressants

If you’d like to make a trans­la­tion of this post, check out the in­struc­tions of how to do that here. Thank you so much for mak­ing this thing ac­ces­si­ble to more folks!

Wanna be the first(ish) to see my new stuff when it comes out? Sign up for my very low-vol­ume, max­i­mum once-a-month

newslet­ter!

If you have dis­pos­able in­come to dis­pose of, you can sup­port my free, open-source work on:

Vitamin D & Omega-3 have a larger ef­fect on de­pres­sion than an­ti­de­pres­sants

⏱ This post is over years old.

Proceed at own risk.

The effect size” of the best an­ti­de­pres­sants on de­pres­sion, vs placebo, is around 0.4. (On av­er­age; some peo­ple re­spond much bet­ter or much worse.) This is like go­ing from a C to a C+.

In con­trast: the ef­fect size of 1500 mg/​day of ≥60% EPA Omega-3 sup­ple­ments is a bit higher, around 0.6. This is like go­ing from a C to a B–. (With un­cer­tainty; at worst, Omega-3′s only” on par with an­ti­de­pres­sants.)

But, much bet­ter: the ef­fect size of 4000 IU/day of Vitamin D is twice as high as an­ti­de­pres­sants’, around 1.0. This is like go­ing from a C to an B! (With un­cer­tainty; at worst, Vitamin D’s only” on par with an­ti­de­pres­sants.) This works even for peo­ple who don’t have a Vitamin D in­suf­fi­ciency — but around half of American adults do.

Even if you’re al­ready tak­ing Vitamin D & Omega-3, dou­ble check your dose: it may still not be enough! The of­fi­cial rec­om­men­da­tions are all too low, and re­cent re­search sug­gests even the of­fi­cial max­i­mum safe dose for Vitamin D is too low.

I know the yay sup­ple­ments” genre of writ­ing is full of sloppy re­search & grifters, and you should be skep­ti­cal of my claim of easy wins, of $100 bills lay­ing on the side­walk”. But there is good sci­ence among the trash, and pol­icy is of­ten decades be­hind sci­ence in any field, not just health.

So, Vitamin D & Omega-3: pos­si­bly high re­ward, for low risk. That’s a pos­i­tive expected value” bet! These sup­ple­ments are safe, cheap, over-the-counter, and have pos­i­tive side-ef­fects (on Covid & cog­ni­tion). As al­ways, ask your doc­tor”, show them the peer-re­viewed pa­pers cited in this post.

Unless you have spe­cific rea­sons to not take Vitamin D & Omega-3 — kid­ney stones, blood thin­ners, etc — please try them, for at least a month! They could save your men­tal health. Maybe even your life.

In Alicetown, the av­er­age per­son has 4 younger cousins.

In Bobtown, the av­er­age per­son has 3 younger cousins.

Alright, not so sur­pris­ing. You may not even no­tice a dif­fer­ence.

In Alicetown, the av­er­age per­son has 4 limbs.

In Bobtown, the av­er­age per­son has 3 limbs.

It’s the same ab­solute dif­fer­ence (4 vs 3) and rel­a­tive dif­fer­ence (3/4). So what makes limbs more sur­pris­ing than cousins? Well, partly it’s more dra­matic & vis­i­ble, but also be­cause: we ex­pect high vari­a­tion in the num­ber of some­one’s younger cousins, but not their num­ber of limbs.

This is why sci­en­tists cal­cu­late an effect size” or standardized mean dif­fer­ence” (“mean” = av­er­age). We take the dif­fer­ence be­tween two groups, then di­vide by the to­tal amount of vari­a­tion, to ac­count for how sur­pris­ing a dif­fer­ence is.

Unfortunately for laypeo­ple, the ef­fect size is usu­ally just re­ported as a num­ber, like +0.74” for spac­ing out your study­ing vs cram­ming, or –0.776″ for sleep de­pri­va­tion on at­ten­tion.

But what’s that mean? How can we make these num­bers in­tu­itive?

Well, a com­mon way for data to be is a bell-shaped curve (also called a normal dis­tri­b­u­tion”). And most of us are, alas, well-ac­quainted with the bell curve in school grades. (“grading on a curve”)

So: school grades give us a use­ful way to think about stan­dard­ized ef­fect sizes! We can now con­vert that num­ber into an ac­tual let­ter grade:

For ex­am­ple: spac­ing out your study­ing, rel­a­tive to cram­ming, will on av­er­age lift your test scores from a C to a B–. (effect size = +0.74) And short-term sleep de­pri­va­tion, rel­a­tive to healthy sleep, will on av­er­age tank your abil­ity to pay at­ten­tion from a C to a D+. (effect size: –0.776)

But it’s not lim­ited to just grades & aca­d­e­mic per­for­mance. Effect sizes can also help us un­der­stand any kind of dif­fer­ence be­tween groups, in ob­ser­va­tion or in ex­per­i­ments!

Let’s use our school grade anal­ogy, to in­ter­pret ef­fect sizes on men­tal health:

What’s an F in men­tal health”? By de­f­i­n­i­tion of a bell curve, ~2.3% of peo­ple are be­low –2 sigma (an F”). (See: this bell curve cal­cu­la­tor.) In Canada, ~2.6% of peo­ple had sui­ci­dal ideation in 2022, while in the US, it was ~4.9% in 2019. So, it’s not too far off to say: F in men­tal health = lit­er­ally sui­ci­dal”. (Also, re­minder that ~4% is 1-in-25 peo­ple. You likely know some­one, or are some­one, who will feel sui­ci­dal this year. Please reach out to your friends & loved ones!)

What’s a D in men­tal health”? ~16% of peo­ple are be­low –1 sigma (a D”) on a bell curve. The Keyes 2002 study es­ti­mated that ~14.1% of adults meet the DSM-III cri­te­ria for a ma­jor de­pres­sive episode. So, D = Depressed.

What’s an av­er­age C in men­tal health”? ~68% of peo­ple are within a sigma of av­er­age (a C”) on a bell curve. Same above study found that 56.6 per­cent had mod­er­ate men­tal health. They were nei­ther languishing” nor flourishing”. I guess C = Could Be Worse.

What’s a B in men­tal health”? ~16% of peo­ple are above +1 sigma (a B”) on a bell curve. Same above study found that 17.2% of adults are flourishing”. Good for them! B = Flourishing, life is good.

What’s an A in men­tal health”? I don’t know who these freaks are. I ac­tu­ally could not find any sci­en­tific stud­ies on the +2 sigma in well-be­ing”. In con­trast, there’s lots of re­search on sui­ci­dal ideation, the –2 sigma in well-be­ing. In the ab­sence of any ac­tual data, I’ll just say: A = AWESOME

So, if an in­ter­ven­tion is found to have an ef­fect size of +1.0, that’s like go­ing up a let­ter grade. If some­thing’s found to have an ef­fect size of -2.0, that’s like go­ing down two let­ter grades. And so on.

Okay, so how do we get peo­ples’ mental health grades” up?

Let’s look at an­ti­de­pres­sants, Omega-3, and Vitamin D, in turn:

The good news is they work. The bad news is they don’t work as well as you’d think they may work.

Cipriani et al 2018 is a meta-analy­sis: a study that col­lects & com­bines lots of pre­vi­ous stud­ies (that pass some ba­sic cri­te­ria, to min­i­mize a garbage-in-garbage-out sit­u­a­tion). While meta-analy­ses aren’t per­fect, it’s usu­ally bet­ter for science com­mu­ni­ca­tors” like me to cite meta-analy­ses over in­di­vid­ual stud­ies, to re­duce the chance I’m cherry-pick­ing.

Anyway: this meta-analy­sis an­a­lyzes 522 tri­als with 116,477 par­tic­i­pants. All 21 an­ti­de­pres­sants they stud­ied were bet­ter than placebo (a pill that con­tains no ac­tive med­i­cine). The most ef­fec­tive an­ti­de­pres­sant, Amitriptyline, had an Odds Ratio” of 2.13, which con­verts to an ef­fect size of 0.417, which is small-medium” ac­cord­ing to Cohen’s rec­om­men­da­tions. Or, by our school-let­ter-grade com­par­i­son: the best an­ti­de­pres­sant would take your men­tal health grade from an F to F+, or C to C+.

From Figure 3 of that pa­per, you can see that Amitriptyline has the high­est es­ti­mated ef­fect size, while the side ef­fects are no worse than placebo:

But hang on, only F to F+ on av­er­age? How does that square with peo­ple’s per­sonal ex­pe­ri­ence that an­ti­de­pres­sants have been life­sav­ing?

Well, first: the av­er­age per­son has around 1 tes­ti­cle.

The punch­line be­ing ~50% of peo­ple have 2 tes­ti­cles while ~50% of peo­ple have 0 tes­ti­cles, hence the av­er­age is around 1”. Likewise, the av­er­age ef­fect for the best an­ti­de­pres­sant is 0.4 — but some peo­ple re­spond much bet­ter than that… and some re­spond much worse. (e.g. dif­fer­ent kinds of an­ti­de­pres­sant, dif­fer­ent kinds of de­pres­sion, dif­fer­ent kinds of peo­ple, etc. Note that this caveat also ap­plies to the Vitamin D & Omega-3 stud­ies, and all med­ical stud­ies.)

And, sec­ond: the be­lief that things will get bet­ter is a pow­er­ful thing. Unfortunately, the power of hope gets a bad name in med­i­cine: placebo”.

When you take any med­i­cine, you don’t just get (effect of med­i­cine). You get (effect of med­i­cine + ef­fect of placebo + ef­fect of time).

The ef­fect of placebo + time: prob­a­bly around 0.9.

The ef­fect of placebo alone: Amazingly, de­spite re­searchers hav­ing used place­bos for decades, it’s only re­cently that we started test­ing open-label” place­bos: place­bos where we just tell the pa­tient it’s a placebo. We then com­pare getting placebo” to getting noth­ing”. The ef­fect size of open placebo, on stuff rang­ing from pain to de­pres­sion, is around 0.43. (Spille et al 2023)

The ef­fect of time alone: Using the above two num­bers, I’d guessti­mate: 0.9 - 0.43 = 0.47. Time” in­cludes both nat­ural heal­ing, and regression to the mean”.

So, the in­di­vid­ual ef­fect of med­ica­tion, psy­cho­log­i­cal placebo, and time, are all around +0.4 each. And com­bined, they give you +1.20, or go­ing from F to D+ or C to B+. That’s why many peo­ple re­port an­ti­de­pres­sants be­ing life­sav­ing! (Again, on av­er­age; some peo­ple re­act much worse.)

Wait, the im­prove­ment from an­ti­de­pres­sants is mostly placebo + time?” Yes, and this is widely known in psy­chi­a­try. I mean, they’re not yelling it from the rooftops, but it ain’t no se­cret. Decades ago, the in­fa­mous Kirsch & Sapirstein 1998 es­ti­mated that the im­prove­ment from an­ti­de­pres­sants is ~75% placebo + time. Even the most crit­i­cal re­sponse to Kirsch’s work, Fountoulakis & Möller 2011, still finds it’s mostly placebo + time.

But again, I think placebo” is too dis­mis­sive a word for the power of hope. Hope is­n’t magic, but it’s some­thing, and mea­sur­ably so: around +0.4. I as­sert: the placebo ef­fect is­n’t a bug, it’s a fea­ture! It proves the con­nec­tion be­tween men­tal state & phys­i­cal health.

But any­way, for the rest of this ar­ti­cle, I’ll only be re­port­ing ef­fect sizes ver­sus placebo + time. Just re­mem­ber that the power of hope gives you an ex­tra +0.4 (like C to C+) for all in­ter­ven­tions.

Keep get­ting con­fused on which fat is what? Me too. So, here’s a crash course on var­i­ous fats:

Fatty acids are chains of car­bons & hy­dro­gens + two oxy­gens. They say OOH at one end, and HHH at the other end:

A sat­u­rated fatty acid is one where all the car­bons’ free spots are filled up with hy­dro­gens. (Hence, saturated”) This makes the mol­e­cule stick straight out. This is why long sat­u­rated fatty acids — like those found in but­ter — tend to be solid at room tem­per­a­ture.

In con­trast, un­sat­u­rated fatty acids have at least one hy­dro­gen miss­ing. This causes them to have a dou­ble-bond kink” in the mol­e­cule. This makes them not stick out, which is why un­sat­u­rated fats tend to be liq­uid at room tem­per­a­ture. Mono-unsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs) — like in olive oil — only have one kink. Poly-unsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) — like in fatty fish — have two or more kinks. Let’s be ma­ture adults about this, please.

For com­plete­ness: trans fats are un­sat­u­rated fats whose kink” is twisted around, caus­ing them to go straight. That is the worst sen­tence I’ve writ­ten all month. The twisted kink is caused by the hy­dro­gens be­ing on op­po­site sides, hence trans”. (And yes, if they’re on the same side it’s cis”. Latin was a mis­take.) The mol­e­cule be­ing straight is why trans fats — which mar­garine used to be full of — are solid at room tem­per­a­ture, de­spite be­ing an un­sat­u­rated fat.

It’s neat when­ever you can trace the his­tory of some­thing right down to its atoms! Margarine was first in­vented be­cause it’s cheaper, and is spread­able straight from the fridge, un­like but­ter. Margarine (used to be) made by tak­ing un­sat­u­rated veg­etable oils, which were cheaper than an­i­mal fats, then pump­ing a bunch of hy­dro­gens into it (hence, hydrogenated oils”). If you com­pletely hy­dro­genate an oil, it be­comes a sat­u­rated fat. But they only par­tially hy­dro­genated those oils, lead­ing to trans fats, which were cheaper & a spread­able semi-solid at fridge tem­per­a­ture.

In the 1970s & 80s, the US Food & Drug Administration con­cluded that trans fats were not harm­ful to hu­mans, and nu­tri­tion­ists pro­moted mar­garine over but­ter, be­cause but­ter had unhealthy” sat­u­rated fats. But in the early 1990s, sci­en­tists re­al­ized that trans fats were even worse for you than sat­u­rated fats. Only in the 2010′s, did most Western coun­tries start of­fi­cially ban­ning trans fats. Reminder: pol­icy is of­ten decades be­hind sci­ence.

I need to stop go­ing on in­fo­dump tan­gents. Anyway, Omega-3 is any fatty acid with its first kink at the 3rd car­bon from the Omega end (“HHH), though it can have more kinks later down the chain. (And yes, Omega-6 has its first kink at the 6th car­bon, and Omega-9 has its first kink at the 9th car­bon. There’s noth­ing phys­i­cally pre­vent­ing Omega-4 or Omega-5′s from ex­ist­ing, but due to some quirk of evo­lu­tion, Omega-3, -6, and -9 are the ones bi­o­log­i­cal life uses most. As far as I can tell, there’s no spe­cific rea­son they’re all mul­ti­ples of 3. Probably just a co­in­ci­dence. There is a less com­mon Omega-7.)

Finally, there’s three main types of Omega-3: EPA (Eicosapentaenoic Acid), DHA (Docosahexaenoic Acid), and ALA (Alpha-Linolenic Acid). ALA is mostly found in plants like chia seeds & wal­nuts, while EPA & DHA mostly come from seafood, though there are al­gae-based ve­gan sources.

EPA & DHA are the fo­cus of this sec­tion. For bio-me­chan­i­cal rea­sons I don’t un­der­stand but I as­sume some­one else does: EPA is the one as­so­ci­ated with anti-in­flam­ma­tion, bet­ter brain health, and less de­pres­sion… while DHA is­n’t. (But DHA is still needed for other stuff, like your neu­rons’ cell walls, so don’t cut them out com­pletely!)

All the above info in a Venn (technically Euler) di­a­gram:

Okay, enough yap. Time for the ac­tual data:

Sublette et al 2011 is an older meta-analy­sis (15 tri­als with 916 par­tic­i­pants). It’s the only meta-analy­sis I could find that es­ti­mates the ac­tual dose-response” curve, which shows: how much ef­fect, for how much treat­ment.

Why is dose-re­sponse im­por­tant? Because one prob­lem with many meta-analy­ses is they’ll do some­thing like: Study 1 gave pa­tients 1 gram of med­i­cine and saw a +1 im­prove­ment in dis­ease, Study 2 gave 10 grams and saw +4 im­prove­ment, Study 3 gave 100 grams and saw neg­a­tive –5 im­prove­ment… the av­er­age of +1, +4, and –5 is zero… there­fore the med­i­cine’s ef­fect is zero.”

As men­tioned ear­lier, this is a mean­ing­less mean. That’s why we want to know the re­sponse at each dose.

Anyway, the Sublette meta-analy­sis gath­ered ran­dom­ized tri­als study­ing Omega-3 on de­pres­sion (vs placebo, of course) and got the fol­low­ing dose-re­sponse curve.⤵ Note that the hor­i­zon­tal axis is not just amount of to­tal Omega-3, but specif­i­cally the ex­tra amount of unopposed” EPA, above the amount of DHA. Or in other words, EPA mi­nus DHA:

The top ef­fect size is around +0.558, which is like go­ing from an F to D–, or C to B–. You get this max­i­mum ef­fect around 1 to 2 grams of ex­tra EPA, and too much EPA gets worse re­sults. The meta-analy­sis finds that Omega-3 sup­ple­ments that are ~60% EPA (and the rest DHA) are op­ti­mal.

Is this in line with later meta-analy­ses? More or less! Liao et al 2019 also finds that ~1 gram of ≥60% EPA is best, but ac­tu­ally finds a higher ef­fect size: +1.03. Kelaiditis et al 2023 also finds 1 to 2g of ≥60% EPA is best, but found a lower ef­fect size of +0.43… which is still as good as the best an­ti­de­pres­sant! So, I’m tak­ing +0.558 as the me­dian es­ti­mate.

Let’s con­vert this to an ac­tion­able rec­om­men­da­tion: You want around 1 gram of EPA a day. So if your sup­ple­ments are 60% EPA, you need 1 gram ÷ 0.6 ~= 1.667 grams = 1667 mil­ligrams. Let’s round this down for con­ve­nience: get 1500 mg/​day of 60%-EPA Omega-3 sup­ple­ments.

In com­par­i­son, most of­fi­cial health or­ga­ni­za­tions rec­om­mend 250–500 mg com­bined EPA and DHA each day for healthy adults.” That is over three times too low, at least for op­ti­mal ef­fects on de­pres­sion. Which, as we cal­cu­lated above, is prob­a­bly around 1500 mg/​day. (The of­fi­cial safe dose is 5000 mg/​day)

Direct ef­fect on sui­cide: Finally, a (small) study di­rectly in­ves­ti­gat­ing the link be­tween sui­cide & Omega-3. Sublette et al 2006: Low [DHA] and low Omega-3 pro­por­tions […] pre­dicted risk of sui­ci­dal be­hav­ior among de­pressed pa­tients over the 2-year pe­riod.” Though keep in mind this is a small study, and it’s ob­ser­va­tional not ex­per­i­men­tal. Also, weird that con­trary to the above stud­ies on de­pres­sion, DHA pre­dicted sui­cide but not EPA. Not sure what to make of that.

Bonus: Omega-3 may also boost cog­ni­tion? Shahinfar et al 2025: Enhancement of global cog­ni­tive abil­i­ties was ob­served with in­creas­ing omega-3 dosage up to 1500 mg/​day. [effect size = 1.00, like go­ing from a grade of C to B!], fol­lowed by down­ward trend at higher doses.”

Ghaemi et al 2024 is a meta-analy­sis on Vitamin D on de­pres­sion (31 tri­als with 24,189 par­tic­i­pants).

Again, it ac­tu­ally es­ti­mates a dose-re­sponse curve! Below is Figure 1 + Table 2, show­ing the ef­fect of Vitamin D dosage on de­pres­sion vs placebo. The solid line is the av­er­age es­ti­mated ef­fect, dashed lines are 95% con­fi­dence in­ter­val. Note the ef­fect size is neg­a­tive in this fig­ure, be­cause they’re mea­sur­ing re­duc­tion in de­pres­sive symp­toms:

The up­per range of un­cer­tainty is low­est at 5000 IU (International Units) of Vitamin D a day, with an es­ti­mated ef­fect size of 1.82, with a 95% un­cer­tainty range, from 0.98 to 2.66. Let’s be pes­simistic, and take the low­est end: 0.98, like tak­ing your men­tal health from an F to D, or C to B.

Is this in line with ear­lier meta-analy­ses? Again, more or less! Mikola et al 2022 found a lower es­ti­mate: the ef­fect for ≥ 2000 IU/day is 0.407. Note that even this is still on par with the best an­ti­de­pres­sant! And Xie et al 2022 found a higher es­ti­mate: the ef­fect of > 2,800 IU/day is 1.23. So, I’ll take the me­dian es­ti­mate: around 0.98. (And I’m rec­om­mend­ing 4,000 IU/day, since that’s the official” max safe dose. Though as we’ll see later, even the of­fi­cial max dose may be too low.)

Does this still work even if you’re al­ready tak­ing an­ti­de­pres­sants? Yup! Table 1 of the first meta-analy­sis, also shows that Vitamin D helps for both pa­tients us­ing an­ti­de­pres­sant med­ica­tion, and not. This is en­cour­ag­ing: it means you can stack both med­ica­tions & sup­ple­ments!

Does this still work even if you don’t have Vitamin D in­suf­fi­ciency? Yes, but ad­mit­tedly much less. That said, you prob­a­bly do have a Vitamin D in­suf­fi­ciency. Liu et al 2018 finds that a bit un­der half of American adults (41.4%) have in­suf­fi­cient Vitamin D blood lev­els. And Manios et al 2017 finds that over half of kids (52.5%) in Greece — frick­in’ sunny Greece! — are still Vitamin D in­suf­fi­cient.

Also, the official” rec­om­men­da­tions are all too low:

So, if these three meta-analy­ses are right, then high doses — 2000 IU/day or more, pos­si­bly 4000 (official max dose) or higher — is op­ti­mal. But the of­fi­cial rec­om­men­da­tion for Vitamin D is 400–800 IU/day, sev­eral times too low.

And even the of­fi­cial max dose of 4000 IU/day may be too low! But McCullough et al 2019 gave over thou­sands of par­tic­i­pants 5,000 to 10,000 IU/day, for seven years, and there were zero cases of se­ri­ous side ef­fects. This matches later stud­ies like Billington et al 2020, a 3-year-long trial on hun­dreds of par­tic­i­pants, which found the safety pro­file of vi­t­a­min D sup­ple­men­ta­tion is sim­i­lar for doses of 400, 4000, and 10,000 IU/day.” (Although 15 par­tic­i­pants got mild hy­per­cal­cemia”, but all cases re­solved on re­peat test­ing.” Either way, that’s a small cost for re­duc­ing the risk of ma­jor de­pres­sion & sui­cide.)

And it makes evo­lu­tion­ary sense that 10,000 IU a day should be safe. Your skin, ex­posed to the Sun’s ul­tra­vi­o­let rays, can syn­the­size up to (the equiv­a­lent of) 10,000 IU a day, be­fore plateau­ing out. Source is Vieth 1999: Because vi­t­a­min D is po­ten­tially toxic, in­take of [1000 IU/day] has been avoided even though the weight of ev­i­dence shows that the cur­rently ac­cepted [limit] of [2000 IU/day] is too low by at least 5-fold.” And Papadimitriou 2017 re­views sev­eral pre­vi­ous stud­ies that find sta­tis­ti­cal er­rors be­hind of­fi­cial rec­om­men­da­tions; cor­rect­ing for these, adults should get 8000 IU/day.

So why are all the of­fi­cial sources still so para­noid about Vitamin D, and low­balling the rec­om­men­da­tions? Well, alas, of­fi­cial pol­icy is al­ways a few decades be­hind the sci­ence in any field. See: trans fats, open-la­bel place­bos, aerosol trans­mis­sion of Covid-19, every­thing about ed­u­ca­tional pol­icy. And be­cause some­thing some­thing in­cen­tives, it’s rational” for gov­ern­ment/​in­sur­ers to be very risk-averse & slow to change (for bet­ter & worse).

Speaking of the Sun, why take sup­ple­ments in­stead of just get­ting Vitamin D from sun ex­po­sure? Well, skin can­cer. But also: be­cause Sun-Skin D varies greatly de­pend­ing on the sea­son, your lat­i­tude, and your skin type. There’s less ul­tra­vi­o­let rays from the Sun in win­ter/​fall, and at lat­i­tudes fur­ther from the equa­tor. And the darker your skin is, the less Vitamin D your skin makes for the same amount of Sun ex­po­sure. As ex­pected from the bio-physics of skin, Black adults have the high­est preva­lence of Vitamin D de­fi­ciency (82.1%!!), fol­lowed by Hispanic adults (62.9%). (But hey, at least Black adults have the low­est in­ci­dence of skin can­cer. You win some you lose some.) The point is: speak­ing as some­one with Southeast Asian skin, who’s cur­rently in Canada dur­ing win­ter… even if I stood out­side naked for hours, I’d get ap­prox­i­mately zero IU/day of Vitamin D from the Sun. Thus: sup­ple­ments.

Direct ef­fect on sui­cide: Finally, a meta-analy­sis di­rectly mea­sur­ing the ef­fect of Vitamin D on sui­ci­dal be­hav­iour. Yu et al 2025: Vitamin D in pa­tients with [suicidal be­hav­iours] were sig­nif­i­cantly lower than in con­trols (standardized mean dif­fer­ence: –0.69, or a medium’ dif­fer­ence)”. Reminder that this pa­per by it­self only mea­sures cor­re­la­tion, not cau­sa­tion — but com­bined with the above ex­per­i­ments of Vitamin D on de­pres­sion, I think it’s rea­son­able to guess it’s partly causal.

* Almost half of you have a Vitamin D in­suf­fi­ciency ac­cord­ing to the of­fi­cial rec­om­men­da­tion (800 IU/day).

* And those of­fi­cial rec­om­men­da­tions are way too low. The op­ti­mal amount of Vitamin D for de­pres­sion is prob­a­bly 4000 IU/day, with an ef­fect around twice that of the best an­ti­de­pres­sant.

* Even the of­fi­cial max­i­mum safe dose (4000 IU/day) is be­low what your body can pro­duce from the Sun in op­ti­mal con­di­tions (10,000 IU/day). Recent ran­dom­ized con­trolled tri­als con­firm that 10,000 IU/day is, in­deed, mostly safe.

* Reminder that of­fi­cial pol­icy is of­ten decades be­hind the sci­ence.

* Reminder that I’m not say­ing take sup­ple­ments in­stead of an­ti­de­pres­sants”; in fact the above meta-analy­sis shows you can ef­fec­tively stack them!

Bonus: Vitamin D sup­ple­men­ta­tion was found in sev­eral ran­dom­ized con­trolled tri­als to re­duce mor­tal­ity from Covid-19, though much less than of­fi­cial treat­ments like Paxlovid. Vitamin D also prob­a­bly helps guard against in­fluenza too, though the ev­i­dence is small & early.

Scurvy is caused by a lack of Vitamin C. It’s a con­di­tion that causes your wounds to re-open up & teeth to fall out. Scurvy used to kill al­most half(!) of all sailors on ma­jor ex­pe­di­tions; it’s es­ti­mated mil­lions died. It can be cured by eat­ing lemons.

Rickets is mostly caused by a lack of Vitamin D. It’s a con­di­tion where kids’ bones go all soft and de­formed. During the Industrial Revolution, up to 80% of kids suf­fered from it. It can be pre­vented with cod liver oil.

Goiters is mostly caused by a lack of Iodine. It’s a con­di­tion where the thy­roid gland in your neck swells up painfully, to the size of an ap­ple. During WWI, a third of adult men had goi­ters. It can be pre­vented with iodized salt.

About 1 in 4 peo­ple are ex­pected to have clin­i­cal de­pres­sion some­time in their life. Depression is the #1 source of the global burden from dis­ease” in the men­tal health cat­e­gory, and that cat­e­gory is the #6 bur­den of dis­ease in the world, above Alzheimer’s, malaria, and sex­u­ally trans­mit­ted in­fec­tions.

The ef­fec­tive al­tru­ists are all, woah for just $3000 you can pre­vent a child’s death from malaria” — and that’s great! save them kids! — but where’s the fan­fare for the ac­cu­mu­lat­ing ev­i­dence that, woah with cheap daily sup­ple­ments we can save mil­lions from sui­cide & de­pressed lives”?

Over and over again through­out his­tory, some hor­rific thing that caused mil­lions to suf­fer, turned out to be yeah you were miss­ing this one mol­e­cule lol”. To be clear: not every­thing is gonna be that sim­ple, and men­tal health is not just” chem­istry. Also, all the num­bers on this page have with large er­ror bars & un­cer­tainty, more re­search is needed.

But, as of right now, I feel I can at least con­fi­dently claim the fol­low­ing:

...

Read the original on blog.ncase.me »

2 658 shares, 30 trendiness

Europe’s next-generation weather satellite sends back first images

The first im­ages from the Meteosat Third Generation-Sounder satel­lite have been shared at the European Space Conference in Brussels, show­ing how the mis­sion will pro­vide data on tem­per­a­ture and hu­mid­ity, for more ac­cu­rate weather fore­cast­ing over Europe and north­ern Africa.

The im­ages from Meteosat Third Generation-Sounder (MTG-S) show a full-disc im­age of Earth as seen from geo­sta­tion­ary or­bit, about 36 000 km above Earth’s sur­face. These im­ages were cap­tured on 15 November 2025 by the satel­lite’s Infrared Sounder in­stru­ment. In the temperature’ im­age (below), the Infrared Sounder used a long-wave in­frared chan­nel, which mea­sured Earth’s sur­face tem­per­a­ture as well as the tem­per­a­ture at the top of clouds. Dark red cor­re­sponds to high tem­per­a­tures, mainly on the warmer land sur­faces, while blue cor­re­sponds to lower tem­per­a­tures, typ­i­cally on the top of clouds.As would be ex­pected, most of the warmest (dark red) ar­eas in this im­age are on the con­ti­nents of Africa and South America. In the top-cen­tre of the im­age, the out­line of the coast of west­ern Africa is clearly vis­i­ble in dark red, with the Cape Verde penin­sula, home to Senegal’s cap­i­tal Dakar, vis­i­ble as among the warmest ar­eas in this im­age. In the bot­tom-right of the im­age, the west­ern coast of Namibia and South Africa are also vis­i­ble in red be­neath a swirl of cold cloud shown in blue, while the north­east coast of Brazil is vis­i­ble in dark red on the left of the im­age.

The humidity’ im­age (below) was cap­tured us­ing the Infrared Sounder’s medium-wave in­frared chan­nel, which mea­sures hu­mid­ity in Earth’s at­mos­phere. Blue colours cor­re­spond to re­gions in the at­mos­phere with higher hu­mid­ity, while red colours cor­re­spond to lower hu­mid­ity in the at­mos­phere.The out­lines of land­masses are not vis­i­ble in this im­age. The ar­eas of least at­mos­pheric hu­mid­ity, shown in dark red, are seen ap­prox­i­mately over the Sahara Desert and the Middle East (top of im­age), while a large area of dry’ at­mos­phere also cov­ers part of the South Atlantic Ocean (centre of im­age). Numerous patches of high hu­mid­ity are seen in dark blue over the east­ern part of the African con­ti­nent as well as in high and low lat­i­tudes.

Below we see a close-up from MTG-Sounder of the European con­ti­nent and part of north­ern Africa. Like the first im­age above, here we see heat from land sur­faces and tem­per­a­tures at the top of clouds. The heat from the African con­ti­nent is seen in red in the lower part of the im­age, while a dark blue weather front cov­ers Spain and Portugal. The Italian penin­sula is in the cen­tre of the im­age.

Temperatures over Europe and north­ern Africa by MTG-Sounder

And the an­i­ma­tion (below) uses data from the MTG-Sounder satel­lite to track the erup­tion of Ethiopia’s Hayli Gubbi vol­cano on 23 November 2025. The back­ground im­agery shows sur­face tem­per­a­ture changes while in­frared chan­nels high­light the de­vel­op­ing ash plume. The satel­lite’s timely ob­ser­va­tions en­able track­ing of the evolv­ing ash plume over time.

MTG is a world-class Earth ob­ser­va­tion mis­sion de­vel­oped by the European Space Agency (ESA) with European part­ners to ad­dress sci­en­tific and so­ci­etal chal­lenges. The mis­sion pro­vides game-chang­ing data for fore­cast­ing weather and air qual­ity over Europe.The satel­lite’s geo­sta­tion­ary po­si­tion above the equa­tor means it main­tains a fixed po­si­tion rel­a­tive to Earth, fol­low­ing the same area on the plan­et’s sur­face as we ro­tate. This en­ables it to pro­vide cov­er­age of Europe and part of north­ern Africa on a 15-minute re­peat cy­cle. It sup­plies new data on tem­per­a­ture and hu­mid­ity over Europe every 30 min­utes, sup­ply­ing me­te­o­rol­o­gists with a com­plete weather pic­ture of the re­gion and com­ple­ment­ing data on cloud for­ma­tion and light­ning from the MTG-Imager (MTG-I) satel­lite.

ESAs Director of Earth Observation Programmes, Simonetta Cheli, said, Seeing the first Infrared Sounder im­ages from the MTG-Sounder satel­lite re­ally brings this mis­sion and its po­ten­tial to life. We ex­pect data from this mis­sion to change the way we fore­cast se­vere storms over Europe — and this is very ex­cit­ing for com­mu­ni­ties and cit­i­zens, as well as for me­te­o­rol­o­gists and cli­ma­tol­o­gists. As ever, the out­stand­ing work done by our teams in col­lab­o­ra­tion with long-stand­ing part­ners, in­clud­ing Eumetsat, the European Commission and dozens of European in­dus­try teams, means we now have the abil­ity to pre­dict ex­treme weather events in more ac­cu­rate and timely ways than ever be­fore.”The Infrared Sounder in­stru­ment on board MTG-S is the first European hy­per­spec­tral sound­ing in­stru­ment in geo­sta­tion­ary or­bit. It is de­signed to gen­er­ate a com­pletely new type of data prod­uct. It uses in­ter­fer­o­met­ric tech­niques, which analyse minis­cule pat­terns in light waves, to cap­ture data on tem­per­a­ture and hu­mid­ity, as well as be­ing able to mea­sure wind and trace gases in the at­mos­phere. The data will even­tu­ally be used to gen­er­ate three-di­men­sional maps of the at­mos­phere, help­ing to im­prove the ac­cu­racy of weather fore­cast­ing, es­pe­cially for now­cast­ing rapidly evolv­ing storms.“It’s fan­tas­tic to see the first im­ages from this ground­break­ing mis­sion,” said James Champion, ESAs MTG Project Manager. This satel­lite has been 15 years in de­vel­op­ment and will rev­o­lu­tionise weather fore­cast­ing and es­pe­cially now­cast­ing. The abil­ity to ver­ti­cally pro­file the full Earth’s disk with a re­peat cy­cle of only 30 min­utes for Europe is an in­cred­i­ble ac­com­plish­ment!”

I’m ex­cited that we can share these first im­ages from the Infrared Sounder, which show­case just a small se­lec­tion of the 1700 in­frared chan­nels con­tin­u­ously ac­quired by the in­stru­ment as it ob­serves Earth,” said Pieter Van den Braembussche, MTG System and Payload Manager at ESA. By com­bin­ing all 1700 chan­nels, we will soon be able to gen­er­ate three di­men­sional maps of tem­per­a­ture, hu­mid­ity and even trace gases in the at­mos­phere. This ca­pa­bil­ity will of­fer a com­pletely new per­spec­tive on Earth’s at­mos­phere, not pre­vi­ously avail­able in Europe, and is ex­pected to help fore­cast­ers pre­dict se­vere storms ear­lier than is pos­si­ble to­day.”

The MTG mis­sion cur­rently has two satel­lites in or­bit: MTG-I and MTG-S. The sec­ond Imager will be launched later in 2026.MTG-S was launched on 1 July 2025. Thales Alenia Space is the prime con­trac­tor for the over­all MTG mis­sion, with OHB Systems re­spon­si­ble for the MTG-Sounder satel­lite. Mission con­trol and data dis­tri­b­u­tion are man­aged by Eumetsat.The MTG-S satel­lite also hosts the Copernicus Sentinel-4 mis­sion, which con­sists of an ul­tra­vi­o­let, vis­i­ble and near-in­frared (UVN) imag­ing spec­trom­e­ter. Sentinel-4 de­liv­ered its first im­ages last year.

Thank you for lik­ing

You have al­ready liked this page, you can only like it once!

...

Read the original on www.esa.int »

3 598 shares, 37 trendiness

Claude Code Opus 4.5 Performance Tracker

The goal of this tracker is to de­tect sta­tis­ti­cally sig­nif­i­cant degra­da­tions in Claude Code with Opus 4.5 per­for­mance on SWE tasks. What you see is what you get: We bench­mark in Claude Code CLI with the SOTA model (currently Opus 4.5) di­rectly, no cus­tom har­nesses.

Shows if any time pe­riod has a sta­tis­ti­cally sig­nif­i­cant per­for­mance drop (p < 0.05).

Historical av­er­age pass rate used as ref­er­ence for de­tect­ing per­for­mance changes.

Percentage of bench­mark tasks passed in the most re­cent day’s eval­u­a­tions.

Aggregate pass rate over the last 7 days. Provides a more sta­ble mea­sure than daily re­sults.

Aggregate pass rate over the last 30 days. Best mea­sure of over­all sus­tained per­for­mance.

Daily bench­mark pass rates over the past 30 days. Hover over leg­end items for de­tails on each vi­sual el­e­ment.

Daily bench­mark pass rate show­ing the per­cent­age of tasks solved each day.

Historical av­er­age pass rate (58%) used as ref­er­ence for de­tect­ing per­for­mance changes.

Shaded re­gion around base­line (±14.0%). Changes within this band are not sta­tis­ti­cally sig­nif­i­cant (p ≥ 0.05).

95% con­fi­dence in­ter­val for each data point. Toggle check­box to show/​hide. Wider in­ter­vals in­di­cate more un­cer­tainty (fewer sam­ples).

Historical av­er­age pass rate (58%) used as ref­er­ence for de­tect­ing per­for­mance changes.

Shaded re­gion around base­line (±5.6%). Changes within this band are not sta­tis­ti­cally sig­nif­i­cant (p ≥ 0.05).

95% con­fi­dence in­ter­val for each data point. Toggle check­box to show/​hide. Wider in­ter­vals in­di­cate more un­cer­tainty (fewer sam­ples).

The goal of this tracker is to de­tect sta­tis­ti­cally sig­nif­i­cant degra­da­tions in Claude Code with Opus 4.5 per­for­mance on SWE tasks. We are an in­de­pen­dent third party with no af­fil­i­a­tion to fron­tier model providers.

Context: In September 2025, Anthropic pub­lished a

post­mortem on Claude degra­da­tions. We want to of­fer a re­source to de­tect such degra­da­tions in the fu­ture.

We run a daily eval­u­a­tion of Claude Code CLI on a cu­rated, con­t­a­m­i­na­tion-re­sis­tant sub­set of

SWE-Bench-Pro. We al­ways use the lat­est avail­able Claude Code re­lease and the SOTA model (currently Opus 4.5). Benchmarks run di­rectly in Claude Code with­out cus­tom har­nesses, so re­sults re­flect what ac­tual users can ex­pect. This al­lows us to de­tect degra­da­tion re­lated to both model changes and har­ness changes.

Each daily eval­u­a­tion runs on N=50 test in­stances, so daily vari­abil­ity is ex­pected. Weekly and monthly re­sults are ag­gre­gated for more re­li­able es­ti­mates.

We model tests as Bernoulli ran­dom vari­ables and com­pute 95% con­fi­dence in­ter­vals around daily, weekly, and monthly pass rates. Statistically sig­nif­i­cant dif­fer­ences in any of those time hori­zons are re­ported.

Get no­ti­fied when degra­da­tion is de­tected We’ll email you when we de­tect a sta­tis­ti­cally sig­nif­i­cant per­for­mance drop. Thanks for sub­scrib­ing! Check your email to con­firm. Something went wrong. Please try again.

...

Read the original on marginlab.ai »

4 506 shares, 43 trendiness

Experimenting with infinite, interactive worlds

Your browser does not sup­port the au­dio el­e­ment.

This con­tent is gen­er­ated by Google AI. Generative AI is ex­per­i­men­tal

In August, we pre­viewed Genie 3, a gen­eral-pur­pose world model ca­pa­ble of gen­er­at­ing di­verse, in­ter­ac­tive en­vi­ron­ments. Even in this early form, trusted testers were able to cre­ate an im­pres­sive range of fas­ci­nat­ing worlds and ex­pe­ri­ences, and un­cov­ered en­tirely new ways to use it. The next step is to broaden ac­cess through a ded­i­cated, in­ter­ac­tive pro­to­type fo­cused on im­mer­sive world cre­ation. Starting to­day, we’re rolling out ac­cess to Project Genie for Google AI Ultra sub­scribers in the U.S (18+). This ex­per­i­men­tal re­search pro­to­type lets users cre­ate, ex­plore and remix their own in­ter­ac­tive worlds.A world model sim­u­lates the dy­nam­ics of an en­vi­ron­ment, pre­dict­ing how they evolve and how ac­tions af­fect them. While Google DeepMind has a his­tory of agents for spe­cific en­vi­ron­ments like Chess or Go, build­ing AGI re­quires sys­tems that nav­i­gate the di­ver­sity of the real world.To meet this chal­lenge and sup­port our AGI mis­sion, we de­vel­oped Genie 3. Unlike ex­plorable ex­pe­ri­ences in sta­tic 3D snap­shots, Genie 3 gen­er­ates the path ahead in real time as you move and in­ter­act with the world. It sim­u­lates physics and in­ter­ac­tions for dy­namic worlds, while its break­through con­sis­tency en­ables the sim­u­la­tion of any real-world sce­nario — from ro­bot­ics and mod­el­ling an­i­ma­tion and fic­tion, to ex­plor­ing lo­ca­tions and his­tor­i­cal set­tings.Build­ing on our model re­search with trusted testers from across in­dus­tries and do­mains, we are tak­ing the next step with an ex­per­i­men­tal re­search pro­to­type: Project Genie.Project Genie is a pro­to­type web app pow­ered by Genie 3, Nano Banana Pro and Gemini, which al­lows users to ex­per­i­ment with the im­mer­sive ex­pe­ri­ences of our world model first­hand. The ex­pe­ri­ence is cen­tred on three core ca­pa­bil­i­ties:

Prompt with text and gen­er­ated or up­loaded im­ages to cre­ate a liv­ing, ex­pand­ing en­vi­ron­ment. Create your char­ac­ter, your world, and de­fine how you want to ex­plore it — from walk­ing to rid­ing, fly­ing to dri­ving, and any­thing be­yond.For more pre­cise con­trol, we have in­te­grated World Sketching” with Nano Banana Pro. This al­lows you to pre­view what your world will look like and mod­ify your im­age to fine tune your world prior to jump­ing in. You can also de­fine your per­spec­tive for the char­ac­ter — such as first-per­son or third-per­son — giv­ing you con­trol over how you ex­pe­ri­ence the scene be­fore you en­ter.

Your world is a nav­i­ga­ble en­vi­ron­ment that’s wait­ing to be ex­plored. As you move, Project Genie gen­er­ates the path ahead in real time based on the ac­tions you take. You can also ad­just the cam­era as you tra­verse through the world.Remix ex­ist­ing worlds into new in­ter­pre­ta­tions, by build­ing on top of their prompts. You can also ex­plore cu­rated worlds in the gallery or in the for in­spi­ra­tion, or build on top of them. And once you’re done, you can down­load videos of your worlds and your ex­plo­rations.

Project Genie is an ex­per­i­men­tal re­search pro­to­type in Google Labs, pow­ered by Genie 3. As with all our work to­wards gen­eral AI sys­tems, our mis­sion is to build AI re­spon­si­bly to ben­e­fit hu­man­ity. Since Genie 3 is an early re­search model, there are a few known ar­eas for im­prove­ment:Gen­er­ated worlds might not look com­pletely true-to-life or al­ways ad­here closely to prompts or im­ages, or real-world physic­sChar­ac­ters can some­times be less con­trol­lable, or ex­pe­ri­ence higher la­tency in con­trolA few of the Genie 3 model ca­pa­bil­i­ties we an­nounced in August, such as prompt­able events that change the world as you ex­plore it, are not yet in­cluded in this pro­to­type. You can find more de­tails on model lim­i­ta­tions and fu­ture up­dates on how we’re im­prov­ing the ex­pe­ri­ence, here.Build­ing on the work we have been do­ing with trusted testers, we are ex­cited to share this pro­to­type with users of our most ad­vanced AI to bet­ter un­der­stand how peo­ple will use world mod­els in many ar­eas of both AI re­search and gen­er­a­tive me­dia.Ac­cess to Project Genie be­gins rolling out to­day to Google AI Ultra sub­scribers in the U.S. (18+), ex­pand­ing to more ter­ri­to­ries in due course. We look for­ward to see­ing the in­fi­nitely di­verse worlds they cre­ate, and in time, our goal is to make these ex­pe­ri­ences and tech­nol­ogy ac­ces­si­ble to more users.

...

Read the original on blog.google »

5 422 shares, 24 trendiness

US cybersecurity chief leaked sensitive government files to ChatGPT: Report

The act­ing head of the US gov­ern­men­t’s top cy­ber­se­cu­rity agency re­port­edly up­loaded sen­si­tive gov­ern­ment files into a pub­lic ver­sion of ChatGPT, trig­ger­ing in­ter­nal se­cu­rity alerts and a fed­eral re­view.

A Politico in­ves­ti­ga­tion claims Madhu Gottumukkala, the in­terim di­rec­tor of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, up­loaded con­tract­ing doc­u­ments marked For Official Use Only” into ChatGPT last sum­mer.

The re­port says Gottumukkala re­quested a spe­cial ex­emp­tion to ac­cess ChatGPT, which is blocked for other Department of Homeland Security staff.

Cybersecurity mon­i­tor­ing sys­tems then re­port­edly flagged the up­loads in early August. That trig­gered a DHS-led dam­age as­sess­ment to de­ter­mine whether the in­for­ma­tion had been ex­posed.

Public ver­sions of ChatGPT share user in­puts with OpenAI, which raised con­cerns in­side the fed­eral gov­ern­ment about sen­si­tive data leav­ing in­ter­nal net­works.

CISA spokesper­son Marci McCarthy told Politico that Gottumukkala was granted per­mis­sion to use ChatGPT with DHS con­trols in place,” adding that the use was short-term and lim­ited.”

Gottumukkala has served as act­ing di­rec­tor since May, while the Senate has yet to con­firm Sean Plankey as per­ma­nent head of the agency.

The ChatGPT in­ci­dent fol­lows other re­ported is­sues dur­ing Gottumukkala’s tenure. Politico said he pre­vi­ously failed a coun­ter­in­tel­li­gence poly­graph re­quired for ac­cess to highly sen­si­tive in­tel­li­gence. During con­gres­sional tes­ti­mony last week, he re­jected that char­ac­ter­i­za­tion when ques­tioned.

The re­port lands as the ad­min­is­tra­tion of US President Donald Trump con­tin­ues to push AI adop­tion across fed­eral agen­cies.

Trump signed an ex­ec­u­tive or­der in December aimed at lim­it­ing state-level AI reg­u­la­tion, while the Pentagon has an­nounced an AI-first” strat­egy to ex­pand the mil­i­tary’s use of ar­ti­fi­cial in­tel­li­gence.

...

Read the original on www.dexerto.com »

6 382 shares, 26 trendiness

Waymo robotaxi hits a child near an elementary school in Santa Monica

A Waymo ro­b­o­t­axi struck a child near an el­e­men­tary school in Santa Monica on January 23, ac­cord­ing to the com­pany. Waymo told the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that the child — whose age and iden­tity are not cur­rently pub­lic — sus­tained mi­nor in­juries.

The NHTSA has opened an in­ves­ti­ga­tion into the ac­ci­dent, and Waymo said in a blog post that it will co­op­er­ate fully with them through­out the process.” The National Transportation Safety Board said Thursday af­ter­noon that it has also opened an in­ves­ti­ga­tion in co­or­di­na­tion with the Santa Monica Police Department.

Waymo said its ro­b­o­t­axi struck the child at six miles per hour, af­ter brak­ing hard” from around 17 miles per hour. The young pedes­trian suddenly en­tered the road­way from be­hind a tall SUV, mov­ing di­rectly into our ve­hi­cle’s path,” the com­pany said in its blog post. Waymo said its ve­hi­cle immediately de­tected the in­di­vid­ual as soon as they be­gan to emerge from be­hind the stopped ve­hi­cle.”

Following con­tact, the pedes­trian stood up im­me­di­ately, walked to the side­walk, and we called 911. The ve­hi­cle re­mained stopped, moved to the side of the road, and stayed there un­til law en­force­ment cleared the ve­hi­cle to leave the scene,” Waymo wrote in the post.

News of the crash comes as Waymo faces dual in­ves­ti­ga­tions into its ro­b­o­t­axis il­le­gally pass­ing school buses. The NHTSA opened a probe into the prob­lem in October shortly af­ter the first re­port of the in­ci­dent in Atlanta, Georgia, and the NTSB opened its own in­ves­ti­ga­tion last week af­ter around 20 in­ci­dents were re­ported in Austin, Texas.

According to the NHTSA, the ac­ci­dent oc­curred within two blocks” of the el­e­men­tary school during nor­mal school drop off hours.” The safety reg­u­la­tor said there were other chil­dren, a cross­ing guard, and sev­eral dou­ble-parked ve­hi­cles in the vicin­ity.”

The NHTSAs Office of Defects Investigation is in­ves­ti­gat­ing whether the Waymo AV ex­er­cised ap­pro­pri­ate cau­tion given, among other things, its prox­im­ity to the el­e­men­tary school dur­ing drop off hours, and the pres­ence of young pedes­tri­ans and other po­ten­tial vul­ner­a­ble road users.”

Waymo said in its blog post that its peer-reviewed model” shows a fully at­ten­tive hu­man dri­ver in this same sit­u­a­tion would have made con­tact with the pedes­trian at ap­prox­i­mately 14 mph.” The com­pany did not re­lease a spe­cific analy­sis of this crash.

This story has been up­dated to in­clude in­for­ma­tion about the National Transportation Safety Board’s in­ves­ti­ga­tion.

...

Read the original on techcrunch.com »

7 356 shares, 31 trendiness

County pays $600,000 to pentesters it arrested for assessing courthouse security

Two se­cu­rity pro­fes­sion­als who were ar­rested in 2019 af­ter per­form­ing an au­tho­rized se­cu­rity as­sess­ment of a county cour­t­house in Iowa will re­ceive $600,000 to set­tle a law­suit they brought al­leg­ing wrong­ful ar­rest and defama­tion.

The case was brought by Gary DeMercurio and Justin Wynn, two pen­e­tra­tion testers who at the time were em­ployed by Colorado-based se­cu­rity firm Coalfire Labs. The men had writ­ten au­tho­riza­tion from the Iowa Judicial Branch to con­duct red-team” ex­er­cises, mean­ing at­tempted se­cu­rity breaches that mimic tech­niques used by crim­i­nal hack­ers or bur­glars.

The ob­jec­tive of such ex­er­cises is to test the re­silience of ex­ist­ing de­fenses us­ing the types of real-world at­tacks the de­fenses are de­signed to re­pel. The rules of en­gage­ment for this ex­er­cise ex­plic­itly per­mit­ted physical at­tacks,” in­clud­ing lockpicking,” against ju­di­cial branch build­ings so long as they did­n’t cause sig­nif­i­cant dam­age.

The event gal­va­nized se­cu­rity and law en­force­ment pro­fes­sion­als. Despite the le­git­i­macy of the work and the le­gal con­tract that au­tho­rized it, DeMercurio and Wynn were ar­rested on charges of felony third-de­gree bur­glary and spent 20 hours in jail, un­til they were re­leased on $100,000 bail ($50,000 for each). The charges were later re­duced to mis­de­meanor tres­pass­ing charges, but even then, Chad Leonard, sher­iff of Dallas County, where the cour­t­house was lo­cated, con­tin­ued to al­lege pub­licly that the men had acted il­le­gally and should be pros­e­cuted.

Reputational hits from these sorts of events can be fa­tal to a se­cu­rity pro­fes­sion­al’s ca­reer. And of course, the prospect of be­ing jailed for per­form­ing au­tho­rized se­cu­rity as­sess­ment is enough to get the at­ten­tion of any pen­e­tra­tion tester, not to men­tion the cus­tomers that hire them.

This in­ci­dent did­n’t make any­one safer,” Wynn said in a state­ment. It sent a chill­ing mes­sage to se­cu­rity pro­fes­sion­als na­tion­wide that help­ing [a] gov­ern­ment iden­tify real vul­ner­a­bil­i­ties can lead to ar­rest, pros­e­cu­tion, and pub­lic dis­grace. That un­der­mines pub­lic safety, not en­hances it.”

DeMercurio and Wynn’s en­gage­ment at the Dallas County Courthouse on September 11, 2019, had been rou­tine. A lit­tle af­ter mid­night, af­ter find­ing a side door to the cour­t­house un­locked, the men closed it and let it lock. They then slipped a makeshift tool through a crack in the door and tripped the lock­ing mech­a­nism. After gain­ing en­try, the pen­testers tripped an alarm alert­ing au­thor­i­ties.

...

Read the original on arstechnica.com »

8 348 shares, 41 trendiness

Playstation 2 Recompilation Project Is Absolutely Incredible

The PlayStation 2’s li­brary is eas­ily among the best of any con­sole ever re­leased, and even if you were to nar­row down the list of games to the very best, you’d be left with dozens (more like hun­dreds) of in­cred­i­ble ti­tles.

But the PS2 hard­ware is get­ting a bit long in the tooth, and even though you can hook up the con­sole us­ing RGB com­po­nent ca­bles to a great up­scaler (or use other means) to get the best vi­su­als on a mod­ern 4k TV, em­u­la­tors have grown in pop­u­lar­ity with PCSX2 of­fer­ing gamers means to scale ti­tles to ren­der in­ter­nally at higher res­o­lu­tions, run with a more sta­ble frame rate and, even make use of tex­ture packs.

But do you know what’s bet­ter than an em­u­la­tor? Taking the ex­ist­ing Playstation 2 game and re­com­pil­ing it to run on a mod­ern plat­form (such as your Windows or Linux desk­top PC). That’s ex­actly what is be­ing worked on now with PS2Recomp, a sta­tic Recompiler & Runtime Tool.

To keep things sim­ple here, this will ba­si­cally take a Playstation 2 game (which would be de­signed around the PS2s unique ar­chi­tec­ture such as the Emotion Engine’ CPU that’s based around a MIP R5900) and con­vert it to na­tively run on what­ever plat­form you’re tar­get­ing.

In plain English, this is a tool and ob­vi­ously, would need to be used on dif­fer­ent games. In other words, it’s not just a download and every game au­to­mat­i­cally runs’ ap­pli­ca­tion. But, it will give folks a tool to be able to de­com­pile the game and quite frankly, that’s ab­solutely in­cred­i­ble.

This is a great step­ping stone for some in­cred­i­ble re­mas­ters and com­mu­nity re­makes of games. There are al­ready HD Texture Packs avail­able for PS2 em­u­la­tors, as well as other ways to im­prove vi­su­als. But this would give even more free­dom and flex­i­bil­ity to do mod­ify and re­ally en­hance the games. That’s to say noth­ing of to­tally un­lock­ing the frame rates (and likely not break­ing physics or col­li­sion de­tec­tion which is a big prob­lem with em­u­lated ti­tles).

At a guess, too, the games would also run great even with much lower-end hard­ware than would be needed for em­u­la­tors. Recompilation ef­forts in the com­mu­nity cer­tainly aren’t new. Indeed, you can look to the N64 be­cause there have been sev­eral high-pro­file ex­am­ples of what these kind of pro­jects can achieve.

A few in­fa­mous ones would in­clude both in­clud­ing Mario 64 and Zelda. Indeed, there’s a fork of the Mario 64 pro­ject sup­port­ing RTX (ray trac­ing) for Nvidia own­ers. You can see an ex­am­ple of Mario 64 be­low:

Another ex­am­ple on the N64 is Zelda, where the pro­ject has a plethora of vi­sual and game­play en­hance­ments, and in the longer term again, they’re plan­ning to in­tro­duce Ray Tracing.

So, in the fu­ture we could be play­ing the likes of MGS2, Gran Turismo, God of War, Tekken 4, Shadow Hearts with native’ PC ver­sions. This would al­low con­trollers to run (such as dual shock or Xbox con­trollers) and other fea­tures to be bun­dled in too (exactly as we see with the N64 ports).

So yes, cur­rently play­ing PS2 games on PC via em­u­la­tor is still ab­solutely fan­tas­tic, but na­tive ports would be the holy grail of game preser­va­tion.

The Playstation 2 ar­chi­tec­ture is ex­tremely unique, and as I men­tioned ear­lier in this ar­ti­cle fo­cused around a MIPS R5900 based CPU known as the Emotion Engine (operating a shade un­der 300MHz). This CPU was su­per unique, be­cause Sony im­ple­mented a num­ber of cus­tomized fea­tures in­clude two Vector Units de­signed to help ma­nip­u­late geom­e­try and per­form a bunch of other co-pro­cess­ing du­ties.

This was bun­dled with 32MB of mem­ory, and the GPU was known as the Graphics Synthesizer, run­ing at about 147MHz, and sport­ing 4MB of em­bed­ded DRAM. Sony’s de­sign was fas­ci­nat­ing for the time, and de­spite its proces­sor clocked sig­nif­i­cantly lower than ei­ther Nintendo’s GameCube or Microsoft’s Xbox, punched well above its weight class.

As a small up­date — I want to re­mind peo­ple that (as of the time I’m writ­ing this ar­ti­cle) the pro­ject is *NOT* fin­ished yet, and there is still work to do. But the fact that this is be­ing worked on is awe­some for those of us in­ter­ested in game preser­va­tion.

...

Read the original on redgamingtech.com »

9 298 shares, 10 trendiness

The Tech Market is Fundamentally Fucked Up

Writing about lay­offs and the tech mar­ket has been on my TODO for sev­eral years. Yesterday, the news of 16k Amazon lay­offs plus two LinkedIn posts on the same topic back-to-back en­cour­aged me to fi­nally write about it.

Disclaimer: I worked 5 years at Shopify. This is prob­a­bly why such posts come one af­ter an­other on my feed but Shopify is­n’t the point here, they are just a mi­cro piece of the whole fucked up sys­tem.

Tech job mar­ket is fun­da­men­tally bro­ken and we all point­ing fin­gers at AI.

But hav­ing spent al­most 2 decades in the in­dus­try, I think the rot goes much deeper than ChatGPT.

Truth to be told tech mar­ket has­n’t truly improved’ since the 2008 fi­nan­cial cri­sis. It just mu­tated into some­thing evil.

After the 2008 mort­gage cri­sis, the eco­nomic regime sig­nif­i­cantly changed. Which was also around the time my in­ter­est in Finance be­gan and re­cently I started to build my own in­vest­ment tool you can read more about it here.

At that time time we en­tered an era of ex­ten­sive liq­uid­ity (cheap money). When in­ter­est rates are near zero, in­vestors de­mand growth above all else.

As a re­sult, tech com­pa­nies stopped build­ing for sus­tain­abil­ity and started build­ing for ex­po­nen­tial ex­pan­sion.

Here is a graph shows US Fed Interest Rates by years.

In tra­di­tional in­dus­tries like man­u­fac­tur­ing you don’t hire 500 fac­tory work­ers un­less you have a pro­duc­tion line that needs them. You don’t over-hire based on a guess.

But in Tech, the play­book is dif­fer­ent. Companies over-hire soft­ware en­gi­neers in­ten­tion­ally. To play the lot­tery. It is sim­i­lar to hav­ing slow and steady ETF in­vest­ments vs ac­tive in­vest­ing. No mat­ter how godly you are with ac­tive in­vest­ing sooner or later, you will in­vest on a loser. Same goes for busi­nesses.

In a fac­tory, Work in Progress” (unfinished goods) is a li­a­bil­ity. You don’t want in­ven­tory sit­ting on the floor; you want it out the door.

In soft­ware, we con­vinced our­selves that Work in Progress” (hiring en­gi­neers to work on pro­jects that haven’t shipped yet) is an as­set.

It is not. It is just ex­ces­sive in­ven­tory.

When the mar­ket turned, com­pa­nies re­al­ized they were ware­hous­ing tal­ent like un­sold prod­ucts. And just like un­sold in­ven­tory, when the stor­age costs get too high, you dump it.

Till ~2010, a lay­off was a sign of fail­ure. It meant the CEO messed up.

In 2024, a lay­off is a sig­nal of discipline.” Companies lay off thou­sands, and their stock price jumps.

They are sig­nal­ing to Wall Street that they are will­ing to sac­ri­fice hu­man cap­i­tal to pro­tect mar­gins.

Big Tech com­pa­nies (think Google, Meta, or any hy­per-growth SaaS) op­er­ate on a two-tier sys­tem:

1. The Core: A fun­da­men­tal team work­ing on the ac­tual rev­enue-gen­er­at­ing prod­ucts (the search en­gine, the ad net­work, the check­out flow).

2. The Bets: Thousands of en­gi­neers hired to build par­al­lel prod­ucts, ex­per­i­men­tal fea­tures, or sim­ply to keep tal­ent away from com­peti­tors and po­ten­tially build some­thing that would move into The Core” tier.

The com­pany knows that most of these side bets will fail. When the eco­nomic winds change, the non-core’ staff be­comes im­me­di­ately re­place­able.

It’s a vi­cious cy­cle: Hire the best peo­ple you can find to hoard tal­ent, see what sticks, and lay off the rest when in­vestors want to see bet­ter mar­gins.

Most en­gi­neers (including me) spent months grind­ing LeetCode at least twice in their ca­reer, study­ing sys­tem de­sign, and pass­ing gru­el­ing 6-round in­ter­views to prove they are the top 1%.”

Yet, once hired, they are of­ten placed on a non-es­sen­tial team where they be­come noth­ing more than a sta­tis­tic on a spread­sheet.

You jump through hoops to prove you are ex­cep­tional, only to be treated as dis­pos­able.

For a long time, Europe of­fered a counter-bal­ance. The pay was lower than Silicon Valley, but the trade-off was sta­bil­ity, stronger la­bor pro­tec­tions, and a slower, more sus­tain­able pace of work.

As American tech gi­ants ex­panded into Europe and as European uni­corns chased the same growth-at-all-costs play­books the in­cen­tives changed.

Leadership im­ported US-style com­pen­sa­tion mod­els, in­vestor ex­pec­ta­tions, and or­ga­ni­za­tional volatil­ity, but with­out im­port­ing US-level pay or up­side.

On pa­per” Europe still has strong la­bor laws. In prac­tice, com­pa­nies learned to route around them: con­stant re­or­ga­ni­za­tions, strategic re­fo­cus” lay­offs, per­for­mance-man­aged ex­its.

The re­sult is the worst of both worlds. European en­gi­neers now face US-level job in­se­cu­rity with European-level com­pen­sa­tion and lim­ited mo­bil­ity. The safety net has­n’t dis­ap­peared, but it’s be­ing slowly hol­lowed out.

And sev­er­ances… A small, one-time pay­ment is used to jus­tify years of be­low mar­ket com­pen­sa­tion, while of­fer­ing lit­tle real pro­tec­tion against sud­den dis­place­ment.

Europe just be­came a lower-cost ex­ten­sion of Silicon Valley.

Ultimately, this comes down to how com­pa­nies sig­nal value.

Traditional busi­nesses used to show their health through rev­enue, profit, and smart cap­i­tal in­vest­ment. Today, Tech com­pa­nies use lay­offs as a mar­ket­ing sig­nal to Wall Street. They cut costs not be­cause they are go­ing bank­rupt, but to show they can be efficient.”

The more liq­uid­ity that was pumped into Tech, the harder this sit­u­a­tion be­came. As long as en­gi­neers are treated as spec­u­la­tive as­sets rather than hu­man cap­i­tal, the mar­ket will re­main bro­ken re­gard­less of how good AI gets.

The job mar­ket is not tough” right now be­cause of AI. It is tough be­cause we are un­wind­ing 14 years of fi­nan­cial tox­i­c­ity.

The liq­uid­ity that flooded the tech sec­tor did­n’t just in­flate val­u­a­tions; it in­flated teams, egos, and ex­pec­ta­tions.

Until the in­dus­try re­learns how to build with scarcity rather than ex­cess, the vicious cy­cle” of hire-and-dump will con­tinue re­gard­less of how good AI will get.

So you aren’t be­ing laid off be­cause your per­for­mance was bad; you are be­ing ef­fec­tively liquidated” like a bad stock trade that you sell with a loss.

...

Read the original on substack.com »

10 295 shares, 15 trendiness

A lot of population numbers are fake

Here’s the story of a re­mark­able scan­dal from a few years ago.

In the South Pacific, just north of Australia, there is a small, im­pov­er­ished, and re­mote coun­try called Papua New Guinea. It’s a coun­try that I’ve al­ways found ab­solutely fas­ci­nat­ing. If there’s any out­post of true re­mote­ness in the world, I think it’s ei­ther in the outer moun­tains of Afghanistan, in the deep­est jun­gles of cen­tral Africa, or in the high­lands of Papua New Guinea. (PNG, we call it.) Here’s my fa­vorite fact: Papua New Guinea, with about 0.1 per­cent of the world’s pop­u­la­tion, hosts more than 10 per­cent of the world’s lan­guages. Two vil­lages, sep­a­rated per­haps only by a few miles, will speak lan­guages that are not mu­tu­ally in­tel­li­gi­ble. And if you go into rural PNG, far into rural PNG, you’ll find your­self in places that time for­got.

But here’s a ques­tion about Papua New Guinea: how many peo­ple live there?

The an­swer should be pretty sim­ple. National gov­ern­ments are sup­posed to pro­vide an­nual es­ti­mates for their pop­u­la­tions. And the PNG gov­ern­ment does just that. In 2022, it said that there were 9.4 mil­lion peo­ple in Papua New Guinea. So 9.4 mil­lion peo­ple was the of­fi­cial num­ber.

But how did the PNG gov­ern­ment reach that num­ber?

The PNG gov­ern­ment con­ducts a cen­sus about every ten years. When the PNG gov­ern­ment pro­vided its 2022 es­ti­mate, the pre­vi­ous cen­sus had been done in 2011. But that cen­sus was a dis­as­ter, and the PNG gov­ern­ment did­n’t con­sider its own find­ings cred­i­ble. So the PNG gov­ern­ment took the 2000 cen­sus, which found that the coun­try had 5.5 mil­lion peo­ple, and worked off of that one. So the 2022 pop­u­la­tion es­ti­mate was an ex­trap­o­la­tion from the 2000 cen­sus, and the num­ber that the PNG gov­ern­ment ar­rived at was 9.4 mil­lion.

But this, even the PNG gov­ern­ment would ad­mit, was a hazy guess.

About 80 per­cent of peo­ple in Papua New Guinea live in the coun­try­side. And this is not a coun­try­side of flat plains and paved roads: PNG is a coun­try of moun­tain high­lands and re­mote is­lands. Many places, prob­a­bly most places, don’t have roads lead­ing to them; and the roads that do ex­ist are al­most never paved. People speak dif­fer­ent lan­guages and have lit­tle trust in the cen­tral gov­ern­ment, which sim­ply is­n’t a force in most of the coun­try. So trav­el­ing across PNG is ex­tra­or­di­nar­ily treach­er­ous. It’s not a coun­try where you can send peo­ple to sur­vey the coun­try­side with much ease. And so the PNG gov­ern­ment re­ally had no idea how many peo­ple lived in the coun­try.

Late in 2022, word leaked of a re­port that the UN had com­mis­sioned. The re­port found that PNGs pop­u­la­tion was not 9.4 mil­lion peo­ple, as the gov­ern­ment main­tained, but closer to 17 mil­lion peo­ple—roughly dou­ble the of­fi­cial num­ber. Researchers had used satel­lite im­agery and house­hold sur­veys to find that the pop­u­la­tion in rural ar­eas had been dra­mat­i­cally un­der­counted.

This was a huge em­bar­rass­ment for the PNG gov­ern­ment. It sug­gested, first of all, that they were com­pletely in­com­pe­tent and had no idea what was go­ing on in the coun­try that they claimed to gov­ern. And it also meant that all the eco­nomic sta­tis­tics about PNG—which pre­sented a fairly happy pic­ture—were en­tirely false. Papua New Guinea had been ranked as a lower-middle in­come” coun­try, along with India and Egypt; but if the re­port was cor­rect then it was sim­ply a lower-income” coun­try, like Afghanistan or Mali. Any eco­nomic progress that the gov­ern­ment could have cited was in­stantly wiped away.

But it was­n’t as though the gov­ern­ment could point to cen­sus fig­ures of its own. So the coun­try’s prime min­is­ter had to ad­mit that he did­n’t know what the pop­u­la­tion was: he did­n’t know, he said, whether the pop­u­la­tion is 17 mil­lion, or 13 mil­lion, or 10 mil­lion.” It ba­si­cally did­n’t mat­ter, he said, be­cause no mat­ter what the pop­u­la­tion was, I can­not ad­e­quately ed­u­cate, pro­vide health cover, build in­fra­struc­tures and cre­ate the en­abling law and or­der en­vi­ron­ment” for the coun­try’s peo­ple to suc­ceed.

But in the end, the PNG gov­ern­ment won out. To pre­serve its dig­nity, it is­sued a gag or­der on the re­port, which has still never been re­leased. There was some ob­scure be­hind-the-scenes bu­reau­cratic wran­gling, and in 2023 the UN shelved the re­port and agreed with the PNG gov­ern­men­t’s ex­ist­ing es­ti­mate. And so to­day, PNG of­fi­cially has ap­prox­i­mately 10 mil­lion peo­ple, per­fectly in line with what had been es­ti­mated be­fore.

The truth, of course, is that we have no idea how many peo­ple live in Papua New Guinea.

Last week, some­one call­ing them­selves Bonesaw went vi­ral on Twitter for a post that claimed that China’s pop­u­la­tion num­bers were en­tirely fake. China, they said, had been ly­ing about its pop­u­la­tion for decades: it ac­tu­ally had only about 500 mil­lion peo­ple. In fact prac­ti­cally every non-West­ern coun­try had been ly­ing about its pop­u­la­tion. India’s num­bers were also badly ex­ag­ger­ated: the idea that there are 1.5 bil­lion Indians was ab­surd. The true pop­u­la­tion of the world, Bonesaw said, was sig­nif­i­cantly less than 1 bil­lion peo­ple.

This is ob­vi­ously an ex­tremely stu­pid idea. It’s pos­si­ble that Chinese pop­u­la­tion num­bers are mildly ex­ag­ger­ated, but the most cred­i­ble es­ti­mates—the ones ad­vanced by Yi Fuxian—are that the ex­ag­ger­a­tion is on the or­der of a few per­cent­age points. (It’s also worth not­ing that no rep­utable source has yet backed Yi Fuxian’s the­ory.) Actually fak­ing the ex­is­tence of bil­lions of peo­ple would re­quire a global con­spir­acy or­ders of mag­ni­tude more com­plex than any­thing in hu­man his­tory. Tens or hun­dreds of thou­sands of peo­ple, spread across every coun­try in the world, would have to be in on it. Local, re­gional, and na­tional gov­ern­ments would all have to be in­volved; also the UN, the World Bank, the IMF, every satel­lite com­pany, every NGO that does work in any of these places. Every elec­tion would have to be fake. Every gov­ern­ment data­base would have to be full of fake names. And all for what? To get one over on the dumb Westerners?

So we can dis­miss Bonesaw’s claim pretty eas­ily. But, as much as I hate to ad­mit it, his ar­gu­ment does have a ker­nel of truth. And that ker­nel of truth is this: we sim­ply have no idea how many peo­ple live in many of the world’s coun­tries.

This is not the case for most coun­tries, of course. In wealthy coun­tries, like Germany or Japan or Sweden, pop­u­la­tions are gen­er­ally trust­ing and bu­reau­cra­cies are gen­er­ally ca­pa­ble. Sweden, for its part, main­tains such an ac­cu­rate daily birth-and-death count of pop­u­la­tion num­bers that it no longer even needs to con­duct a cen­sus. And pop­u­la­tion num­bers are also not so much of a prob­lem in coun­tries like China, India, or Vietnam. These places might be poorer, but they have strong cen­tral gov­ern­ments that have a strong in­ter­est in know­ing what’s go­ing on in­side the coun­try. Population counts might be slightly over­stated in these places be­cause fer­til­ity is falling faster than ex­pected (which could be the case in a coun­try like India where fer­til­ity rates are falling quickly), or be­cause lo­cal of­fi­cials are ex­ag­ger­at­ing the num­ber of stu­dents in their schools to se­cure more ed­u­ca­tion sub­si­dies (that’s Yi Fuxian’s the­ory of pop­u­la­tion counts in China), or be­cause more peo­ple have em­i­grated than ex­pected (as was the case in Paraguay when a cen­sus re­vealed its pop­u­la­tion to be smaller than of­fi­cials ex­pected). But if the state is in full con­trol of a coun­try, it will want to know what’s go­ing on in­side that coun­try; and that starts with the sim­ple fact of know­ing how many peo­ple live there.

But the state be­ing in full con­trol of a coun­try” is not a cri­te­rion that holds in much of the world. Which brings us to Nigeria.

Nigeria is a huge place. Officially, it’s a na­tion of 240 mil­lion peo­ple, which would make it the most pop­u­lous coun­try in Africa and the sixth most pop­u­lous coun­try in the world. And with­out a doubt, there are a lot of peo­ple in Nigeria. But we ac­tu­ally have no idea how many there are.

Like PNG, Nigeria is sup­posed to con­duct a cen­sus every 10 years. But in Nigeria, the cen­sus is a po­lit­i­cally fraught thing. Nigeria is not a nat­ural polity, and its on­go­ing unity as a sin­gle coun­try is frag­ile. And so Nigerian elites ex­pend enor­mous ef­fort to en­sure that Nigeria re­mains one coun­try. They have two im­por­tant tools at their dis­posal. The first is the rel­a­tive rep­re­sen­ta­tion of dif­fer­ent re­gions in the Nigerian state. And the sec­ond is the dis­tri­b­u­tion of Nigeria’s vast oil rev­enues. Both of these—how many seats a state is given in the Nigerian par­lia­ment, and how large a share of oil rev­enues it re­ceives—are de­ter­mined by its share of the pop­u­la­tion.

So lo­cal elites have a strong in­cen­tive to ex­ag­ger­ate the num­ber of peo­ple in their re­gion, in or­der to se­cure more oil rev­enue, while na­tional elites have a strong in­cen­tive to bal­ance pop­u­la­tions across states in or­der to main­tain the pre­car­i­ous bal­ance of power be­tween dif­fer­ent re­gions. And so the over­whelm­ing bias in Nigerian pop­u­la­tion counts is to­ward ex­tremely bla­tant fraud.

It’s long been the case that cen­suses in Nigeria are shoddy af­fairs. When Nigeria was a colony of Britain, its cen­suses were lim­ited to Lagos, a few town­ships, and a small num­ber of vil­lages: so the 1931 cen­sus for Nigeria yielded num­bers that were too low by as much as 75 per­cent. Once Nigeria be­came in­de­pen­dent, in 1960, the bias swung from un­der­es­ti­ma­tion to over­es­ti­ma­tion. Nigeria’s first cen­sus as an in­de­pen­dent state came in 1962, and it im­me­di­ately caused a po­lit­i­cal prob­lem: the rul­ing regime was dom­i­nated by north­ern elites, but the cen­sus found that south­ern Nigeria had more peo­ple. And so an­other cen­sus was or­dered the next year, which con­ve­niently found an ex­tra eight mil­lion peo­ple in the north. This pat­tern of brazenly false num­bers con­tin­ued for decades. The next cen­sus, in 1973, was such an ob­vi­ous fraud that the gov­ern­ment opted not even to pub­lish the re­sults. For eigh­teen years af­ter that there was no at­tempt even to con­duct a cen­sus. The next cen­sus, in 1991, was by far the most cred­i­ble, and it shocked many peo­ple by find­ing that the pop­u­la­tion was about 30 per­cent smaller than es­ti­mated. But even that one was rid­dled with fraud. Many states re­ported that every sin­gle house­hold had ex­actly nine peo­ple.

In 2006, Nigeria tried once again to count its pop­u­la­tion. And as luck would have it, it found that since the last cen­sus each state’s pro­por­tion of the na­tional pop­u­la­tion had re­mained ex­actly the same: so there was no need to change the com­po­si­tion of the Nigerian par­lia­ment or the dis­tri­b­u­tion of oil rev­enues. But this cen­sus was an ex­tremely rocky af­fair. The city of Lagos, for in­stance, re­jected the re­sults of the cen­sus, which it claimed un­der­counted its pop­u­la­tion in or­der to pre­serve north­ern power; so it con­ducted its own (technically il­le­gal) cen­sus and found that it had eight mil­lion more peo­ple than the na­tional cen­sus had reck­oned. And there was also a good deal of vi­o­lence that ac­com­pa­nied the cen­sus: about ten peo­ple were killed in clashes around the cen­sus, usu­ally in re­gions with sep­a­ratist ac­tiv­ity. The whole ex­pe­ri­ence was so dif­fi­cult that Nigeria has opted not to re­peat it. The 2006 cen­sus was the last time that Nigeria has tried to count how many peo­ple live in the coun­try.

So the Nigerian gov­ern­men­t’s fig­ure of 240 mil­lion peo­ple is, as is the case in Papua New Guinea, an ex­trap­o­la­tion from a long-ago cen­sus fig­ure. Is it cred­i­ble? Very few peo­ple think so. Even the head of Nigeria’s pop­u­la­tion com­mis­sion does­n’t be­lieve that the 2006 cen­sus was trust­wor­thy, and in­deed said that no cen­sus has been cred­i­ble in Nigeria since 1816.” (Nigeria’s pres­i­dent fired him shortly there­after.) There are plenty of rea­sons to think that Nigeria’s pop­u­la­tion might be over­stated. It would ex­plain, for in­stance, why in so many ways there ap­pear to be tens of mil­lions of miss­ing Nigerians: why so few Nigerians have reg­is­tered for na­tional iden­ti­fi­ca­tion num­bers, or why Nigerian voter turnout is so much lower than voter turnout in nearby African na­tions (typically in the 20s or low 30s, com­pared to the 50s or 60s for Ghana, Cameroon, or Burkina Faso), or why SIM card reg­is­tra­tion is so low, or why Nigerian fer­til­ity rates have ap­par­ently been drop­ping so much faster than de­mog­ra­phers ex­pected.

None of this ev­i­dence is con­clu­sive, of course. (There are cred­i­ble third par­ties—like the Against Malaria Foundation—that be­lieve that Nigerian pop­u­la­tion counts might ac­tu­ally be un­der­stated.) But the cru­cial thing, as in Papua New Guinea, is that we don’t know how many peo­ple live in Nigeria. It might be that there are 240 mil­lion Nigerians, as the Nigerian gov­ern­ment claims; or that there are 260 mil­lion Nigerians; or that there are only 180 mil­lion. We don’t know. But we have plenty of rea­son to think that the of­fi­cial num­bers have lit­tle re­la­tion­ship to re­al­ity.

What about other coun­tries?

Nigeria is not the only poor coun­try with an ex­tremely patchy his­tory of cen­suses. Indeed we find that count­less poor na­tions with weak states have only the vaguest idea how many peo­ple they gov­ern. The Democratic Republic of the Congo, which by most es­ti­mates has the fourth-largest pop­u­la­tion in Africa, has not con­ducted a cen­sus since 1984. Neither South Sudan nor Eritrea, two of the newest states in Africa (one cre­ated in 2011 and the other in 1991), has con­ducted a cen­sus in their en­tire his­tory as in­de­pen­dent states. Afghanistan has not had one since 1979; Chad since 1991; Somalia since 1975.

The var­i­ous bod­ies that in­ter­est them­selves in na­tional pop­u­la­tions, from the World Bank to the CIA, re­li­ably pub­lish pop­u­la­tion num­bers for each of these coun­tries. But with­out ground­ing in trust­wor­thy cen­sus data, we sim­ply have no idea if the num­bers are real or not. Estimates for Eritrea’s pop­u­la­tion vary by a fac­tor of two. Afghanistan could have any­where be­tween 38 and 50 mil­lion peo­ple. Estimates for the DRCs 2020 pop­u­la­tion range from 73 mil­lion to 104 mil­lion. How did the coun­try reach its of­fi­cial num­ber for that year, 94.9 mil­lion? We have no idea. It is un­clear how the DRC na­tional sta­tis­ti­cal of­fice de­rived its es­ti­mate,” the U. S. Census Bureau said, as there is no in­for­ma­tion in its 2020 sta­tis­ti­cal year­book.”

Many other coun­tries do con­duct more reg­u­lar cen­suses, but do a ter­ri­ble job of it. Enumerators are hired cheaply and do a bad job, or they quit halfway through, or they go un­paid and just refuse to sub­mit their data. An un­know­able num­ber sim­ply sub­mit fake num­bers. These are not, af­ter all, tech­ni­cal ex­perts or trained pro­fes­sion­als; they are ran­dom peo­ple sent into re­mote places, of­ten with ex­tremely poor in­fra­struc­ture, and charged with de­ter­min­ing how many peo­ple live there. It is ex­cep­tion­ally dif­fi­cult to do that and come out with an ac­cu­rate an­swer.

So even those coun­tries that do con­duct reg­u­lar or semi-reg­u­lar cen­suses of­ten ar­rive at in­ac­cu­rate re­sults. The most re­cent South African cen­sus, for in­stance, un­der­counted the pop­u­la­tion by as much as 31 per­cent—and that is one of the wealth­ier and bet­ter-run na­tions in Africa. In poorer and less func­tional coun­tries, sta­tis­ti­cal ca­pac­ity is of­ten just nonex­is­tent. Take, for in­stance, the tes­ti­mony of the for­mer di­rec­tor of Sudan’s sta­tis­ti­cal bu­reau, who said that the most ac­cu­rate cen­sus in Sudan’s his­tory was con­ducted in 1956, when the coun­try was still un­der British rule.

It should­n’t be new to any­one that pop­u­la­tion data in the poor world is bad. We’ve known about these prob­lems for a long time. And for an equally long time, we’ve had a pre­ferred so­lu­tion in mind. Technology can com­pen­sate for the de­te­ri­o­ra­tion of hu­man co­or­di­na­tion: we have satel­lites.

Satellites have two great ben­e­fits for count­ing pop­u­la­tions. First, satel­lites can see pretty much any part of the world from space, and so you en­tirely ob­vi­ate the lo­gis­ti­cal prob­lem of send­ing peo­ple into re­mote ar­eas: all you need is a small count of some por­tion of the area un­der study, which you can use to ground your es­ti­mates in some­thing like re­al­ity. And sec­ond, you don’t have to rely on lo­cal gov­ern­ments to ob­tain the data—so you can get away from the bad in­cen­tives of, say, Nigerian elites.

But satel­lite data can only tell us so much. A satel­lite can look at a house, but it can’t de­ter­mine whether three peo­ple live there, or six peo­ple, or eight peo­ple. And of­ten the prob­lem is worse than that. Sometimes a satel­lite can’t tell what’s a build­ing and what’s a fea­ture of the land­scape. Dense cities are a prob­lem; and so, by the way, are jun­gles—satel­lites can’t pen­e­trate thick for­est cover, and there are quite a few peo­ple around the world who still live in forests. (The forest peo­ple” of cen­tral Africa, for in­stance, or a few mil­lion of the Adivasi in India.)

So guess­ing pop­u­la­tion num­bers from high-res­o­lu­tion satel­lite im­agery is an ex­tra­or­di­nar­ily dif­fi­cult prob­lem. The var­i­ous com­pa­nies that guess pop­u­la­tion num­bers from satel­lite im­agery—work­ing with groups like the World Health Organization that might be in­ter­ested in map­ping, say, malaria cases—take dif­fer­ent ap­proaches to tack­ling this prob­lem. And the dif­fer­ent ap­proaches they take can lead to wildly dif­fer­ent re­sults. For ex­am­ple: Meta and WorldPop both used satel­lite im­agery to pre­dict the pop­u­la­tion of the city of Bauchi, in north­east­ern Nigeria. But the num­bers that they reached were en­tirely dif­fer­ent, be­cause they take dif­fer­ent ap­proaches: Meta uses a deep learn­ing model to de­tect in­di­vid­ual build­ings in im­ages and then dis­trib­utes pop­u­la­tion pro­por­tion­ally across those struc­tures, while WorldPop feeds a ma­chine-learn­ing model with dozens of vari­ables (land cover, el­e­va­tion, road net­works, so on) and uses that to pre­dict pop­u­la­tion. Meta guessed that Bauchi has 127,000 chil­dren un­der the age of five; WorldPop says that it has 254,000, twice as many. So Meta’s es­ti­mate is about 50 per­cent lower than WorldPop’s. We see sim­i­lar dif­fer­ences in other re­gions. Meta says that Ganjuwa, also in north­east­ern Nigeria, has 76,000 chil­dren un­der the age of five; WorldPop says that it has 162,000.

And when we do have ground-truth data, we tend to find that satel­lite-based data does­n’t per­form much bet­ter. Last year, three Finnish sci­en­tists pub­lished a study in Nature look­ing at satel­lite-based pop­u­la­tion es­ti­mates for rural ar­eas that were cleared for the con­struc­tion of dams. This was a use­ful test for the satel­lite data, be­cause in re­set­tling the peo­ple of those ar­eas lo­cal of­fi­cials were re­quired to count the lo­cal pop­u­la­tion in a care­ful way (since re­set­tle­ment counts de­ter­mine com­pen­sa­tion pay­ments), and those counts could be com­pared to the satel­lite es­ti­mates. And again and again, the Finnish sci­en­tists found that the satel­lite data badly un­der­counted the num­ber of peo­ple who lived in these ar­eas. The European Commission’s GSH-POP satel­lite tool un­der­counted pop­u­la­tions by 84 per­cent; WorldPop, the best per­former, still un­der­es­ti­mated rural pop­u­la­tions by 53 per­cent. The pat­tern held world­wide, with par­tic­u­larly large dis­crep­an­cies in China, Brazil, Australia, Poland, and Colombia. Nor is it just rural ar­eas be­ing re­set­tled: WorldPop and Meta es­ti­mated slums in Nigeria and Kenya to be a third of their ac­tual size.

So satel­lite data is not a panacea. It might be that in the fu­ture the tools ad­vance to the point where they can pro­duce re­li­able es­ti­mates of hu­man pop­u­la­tions in ar­eas of ar­bi­trary size. But we are not re­ally close to that point.

Where does that leave us?

I don’t think there’s any rea­son to em­brace the sort of id­i­otic con­spir­acism of Bonesaw. We sim­ply have no rea­son to think that the num­ber of peo­ple in the world is dra­mat­i­cally dif­fer­ent from what of­fi­cial es­ti­mates in­di­cate; in­deed while there are spe­cific cases where the num­bers might be dra­mat­i­cally off, there’s just no rea­son to think that this is the case for every coun­try. There are many places, like per­haps Papua New Guinea, where pop­u­la­tion counts are prob­a­bly too low. The only thing that can be said with any re­li­a­bil­ity is that we sim­ply don’t know how many peo­ple live in these coun­tries.

Given that we don’t have much ev­i­dence of a sys­tem­atic bias in pop­u­la­tion counts—Nige­ria might over­count, but Sudan might un­der­count, and at scale these dif­fer­ences should can­cel out—the best we can do is as­sume that there is a sort of law of large num­bers” for pop­u­la­tion counts: the more units we have un­der con­sid­er­a­tion, the more closely the num­bers should hew to re­al­ity. So pop­u­la­tion counts for in­di­vid­ual coun­tries, par­tic­u­larly in Africa, are prob­a­bly badly in­ac­cu­rate. It would­n’t be sur­pris­ing if the to­tal pop­u­la­tion for Africa is off-base by some amount. But we don’t have much rea­son to think that the global pop­u­la­tion is very dif­fer­ent from what we be­lieve it to be.

But it’s good to be re­minded that we know a lot less about the world than we think. Much of our think­ing about the world runs on a sta­tis­ti­cal ed­i­fice of ex­tra­or­di­nary com­plex­ity, in which raw num­bers—like pop­u­la­tion counts, but also many oth­ers—are only the most ba­sic in­puts. Thinking about the ac­tual con­struc­tion of these num­bers is im­por­tant, be­cause it en­cour­ages us to have a healthy de­gree of epis­temic hu­mil­ity about the world: we re­ally know much less than we think.

...

Read the original on davidoks.blog »

To add this web app to your iOS home screen tap the share button and select "Add to the Home Screen".

10HN is also available as an iOS App

If you visit 10HN only rarely, check out the the best articles from the past week.

If you like 10HN please leave feedback and share

Visit pancik.com for more.