text:
Maguire & Meadow off to solid starts at Chevron Championship
Adam McKendry
Leona Maguire hits from the 16th hole fairway during the first round of The Chevron Championship at The Westin Mission Hills Golf Resort & Spa (Photo by Katelyn Mulcahy/Getty Images)
Leona Maguire and Stephanie Meadow both began their Major bids for the year with solid if unspectacular first rounds at the Chevron Championship at Mission Hills in California.
Maguire signed for a level-par 72 to sit six shots behind early joint-leaders Jennifer Kupcho and Minjee Lee, while Meadow is a shot further back after a 73 at the first of the five Major championships this season.
Both players were under-par at one point during their rounds but couldn't kick on from there and will have to go low in Friday's second round to get themselves into contention going into the weekend.
Maguire in particular will be frustrated she could not put herself in a better position after her opening round as she reached two-under thru her first 10 holes but couldn't take advantage of that hot start.
The 27-year-old European Solheim Cup star birdied her opening hole, the 10th, and then bogeyed the par-three 14th, but birdies to end her front nine and start her back nine got her two shots below par.
However, just when it looked like she might mount a challenge, her momentum stalled and she would instead return to the clubhouse with bogeys at the third and fifth to finish well off the pace.
The same goes for Meadow who, likewise, birdied her second hole of the day, the par-five 11th, but she would finish her rounds with bogeys at the 18th and sixth to drop into a share of 63rd and in need to a good round on Friday to make the cut.
The women they are chasing are Kupcho and Lee, who hold a one-shot lead after each recorded six-under 66s in their first rounds in Rancho Mirage, California.
Kupcho's round could have been even better had it not been for back-to-back bogeys on her final two holes, but a remarkable nine birdies before that – and one more bogey – has her alongside Australia's Lee after day one.
"It's always nice to be in contention out here, but there is a lot of golf. You never know what can happen. There is a lot of water out there, too," said Kupcho.
"I'm just going to go out there and keep playing my game over the next three days."
In contrast, Lee's round was less dramatic, six birdies in a bogey-free effort earning her a share of the lead, with Patty Tavatanakit one shot further back followed by a group of six players which includes Lydia Ko and Georgia Hall.
"Just tried to just trust the process, my process, and just have a good back nine. Finished with two birdies, so it was nice," said defending Evian Championship winner Lee.
Further down the leaderboard, World No.1 Jin Young Ko is battling just to make the cut as her remarkable run of 34 successive rounds under-par came to an end with a birdieless two-over 74.
The 26-year-old has set records and blitzed fields since the pandemic but, in a tie for 81st, she will need to go low on Friday afternoon just to make the midway cut let alone be in contention going into the weekend.
"I was hitting lots of great shots but my putting wasn't good on the green. I couldn't see the break as much or speed, everything was wrong," explained Ko.
"I don't know what happened. But that's why I couldn't make a birdie today. It's fine."


text:
Phil Benton – Self Employed Photographer
Being self-employed can be really, really good. You get to pick your own hours, be your own boss and do whatever it is you love the most (well, hopefully). There are also downsides. No holiday pay, no sick pay and no one to take up the slack if you can't work.
Phil Benton - Landscape Photographer and client of This Is Me Agency Photo Credit Lee Dobson
Phil Benton loves working as a freelance photographer but was finding it a struggle to cope with, whilst also trying to deal with the fact that he has M.E. (MyalgicEncephalomyelitis) also known as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.
Typical symptoms of M.E. are:
• Fatigue, unrelieved by sleep or rest
• Muscle and joint pain
• Cognitive issues
• Brain fog
• Short term memory loss
• Depression
Phil also suffers from Vasovagal Syncope which is caused by a sudden drop in blood pressure which is often triggered by a reaction to an external stimulus. This can cause a person's heart to slow down, thus pumping less blood to the brain which ends with the person losing consciousness. In itself it is an unpleasant condition. Combine it with the M.E. and it becomes even more so. All of these health issues made Phil feel like he was unemployable and so self-employment became the only way forward.
As a photographer, Phil gets the opportunity to do something he loves while working the business around his health. Whilst this has its advantages, sometimes getting jobs done was becoming a bit of a struggle, particularly on bad days when he was more exhausted than usual, in more pain and just unable to think clearly. The pressures of working to a timescale then become incredibly stressful and working as a sole trader added to that, as there's no one to share the load. Trying to develop his business meant that he was required to learn new skills, for example, website maintenance, social media marketing and finance which was particularly difficult due to his inability to absorb and retain information.
Enter Michelle Dobson!
Phil had known Michelle from both being members of Mint Business Club and she approached him directly to see if he would be interested in having a support worker through Access to Work. He jumped at the chance and he says his life has improved dramatically, all for the better!
Having a great support worker has lifted a weight from Phil's shoulders; he no longer feels alone and knowing the support is there helps to make things clearer in his mind and remove some of the pressure. His business is much more efficient now that he has an accounts system in place as well as an administration system for stock control and has even been able to update his business website with new products. Phil's support worker has also helped Phil on days when he's out and about with his pop-up stalls which allows him to have a bit of rest and recovery time.
The benefits of having a support worker were felt by Phil almost immediately. Getting general support and someone to talk to has helped him to stay more positive; depression is a common problem with chronic illness and being a sole trader, and the loneliness that comes with it, has definitely contributed to it. He now meets his support worker twice a week when they review the week gone by, looking at the positives and the negatives. As a team, they then decide on a plan for the next week and what assistance is going to be needed, keeping in mind deadlines and work commitments. Between meetings they stay in contact via e-mail and/or phone so the support worker can keep track of what Phil's doing and if he needs any additional help.
It hasn't all been plain sailing however. Incorporating new systems and team members, especially when you're used to working on your own, can be difficult. Phil can become very frustrated when he's trying to learn new things and can't quite absorb the information so learning how to manage their sessions together has been a priority. It takes time to build a relationship and when you rely on someone to help you with your livelihood the trust and friendship have to be paramount. Fortunately, with time and patience, the relationship between Phil and his support worker has flourished meaning that in turn, Phil is flourishing.
Trying to work, and in Phil's case run a business, with his health troubles has often felt impossible. Having the support and assistance has not only helped to make him more efficient professionally but also has improved his general well being. That feeling of not being alone any more is fantastic.
Phil's advice would be to not hesitate. There is help out there and it absolutely does make a difference.
https://philbentonphotography.com
Case Study – Corinne Lewis-Ward
Aimee Veitch – The Corsetry Connoisseur
Gemma Ryan – 15 Months On

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Home More News Jonathan Moulds awarded CBE
Jonathan Moulds awarded CBE
Jonathan Moulds, philanthropist, awarded CBE for services to the LSO
LSO supporter Jonathan Moulds has been awarded a CBE for services to philanthropy in the New Year's Honours list 2015.
Managing Director of the LSO, Kathryn McDowell, said: 'Jonathan Moulds has been on the LSO's Board of Directors since 2005. He is Chair of the Orchestra's Development Board, Advisory Council and Moving Music Campaign, and has been a patron of the LSO since 2001, making the largest single gift in the Orchestra's history in 2012. We are very proud that his long service to the LSO has been recognised in this way.'
'My view has always been that where you can, you should give something back … To be involved with the LSO, which has some extraordinary players, is a tremendous experience.'
Financial Times interview
Born and raised in Halifax, West Yorkshire, Jonathan was a gifted violin and viola player and gained an instrumental scholarship while studying maths and theoretical physics at Cambridge. He remains an accomplished player. Jonathan has spent his entire professional career in banking. Having retired two years ago as the European CEO of Bank of America Merrill Lynch and Bank of America's European president, Jonathan has spent the intervening period continuing to support a number of charitable causes. As well as his work with the LSO, Jonathan also chairs the Arts and Business Leadership team and sits on the Board of the Mayor's Music Fund.
Jonathan's collection of violins is world renowned. A number of his instruments are on loan to some of the great violinists including Nicola Benedetti and LSO Leader Roman Simovic. As part of his passion for all-things-string, Moulds supports the LSO International Violin Festival in 2015: twelve concerts between April and June, featuring twelve of the world's greatest violinists.
Obituary: Barry Tuckwell
Obituaries: December 2019
Donatella Flick Conducting Competition: Applications now open
LSO Panufnik Composers Scheme: Applications now open
Mariss Jansons 1943–2019
Alina Ibragimova wins 2019 RPS Instrumentalist Award
Six new composers appointed to LSO Soundhub and Jerwood Composer+
Obituary: Paul Marrion
Opportunities for Early Career Composers
Press release: Michael Tilson Thomas withdraws from all engagements from 17 June until 3 September
Obituary: Sir Colin Davis (1927–2013)
Obituary: Maurice Murphy (1935–2010)
Sir Simon Rattle appointed Music Director
Obituary: Sir Neville Marriner (1924–2016)
Obituary: André Previn (1929/30 – 2019)


Pixel Scroll 1/26/17 What Is The Pixel Capacity Of A European Scroll? Laden or Unladen? Aaargh!
(1) END OF PERIOD. As John Hertz said in his report on the dedication of Forrest J Ackerman Square, the city promised to replace the original sign with the erroneous period after the initial "J" – erroneous, because Forry spelled his name without one. And as you can see in this photo by Robert Kerr, the city has installed the corrected sign above the intersection.
(2) BIG ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION. Greg Ketter's Minneapolis bookstore is featured in "Wi12: Busman's Holiday Possibilities" at Shelf Awareness.
Since opening on April 1, 1977, DreamHaven Books & Comics has moved 10 times and even had multiple locations open at once. Today it's located in an approximately 3,300-square-foot storefront at 2301 East 38th street, the store's home for the last eight and a half years, in a neighborhood around five miles southeast of downtown Minneapolis. According to owner Greg Ketter, despite various changes over the years, DreamHaven's specialization in science fiction, fantasy, horror and comic books has remained constant. The book inventory is a mix of used and new, with a higher proportion of used, rare and collectible books than in years past; Ketter also carries a great deal of movie and comic memorabilia. One of the store's centerpieces is a towering model of Robby the Robot from the film Forbidden Planet. Throughout the store other models and statues abound.
DreamHaven is celebrating its 40th anniversary with a party on April 1. Ketter has author appearances and a sale planned for the day, and is working in concert with Once Upon a Crime, a mystery bookstore in Minneapolis celebrating its 30th anniversary this year.
(3) BROUGHT TEARS TO MY EYES. Randy Byers, co-editor of Chunga, has promising news about the progress of his cancer treatment.
(4) INCONSTANT MOON. A little birdie told us that Larry Niven's award-winning story may be filmed — "'Arrival' Producer Developing 'Inconstant Moon' Sci-Fi Movie for Fox".
Fox 2000 is launching development on a movie based on Larry Niven's science-fiction story "Inconstant Moon" with Oscar-nominated "Arrival" producer Shawn Levy and his 21 Laps company on board.
"The Specatcular Now" director James Ponsoldt is attached from a script by Daniel Casey. Levy and 21 Laps' Dan Cohen will produce along with Ponsoldt through his 1978 Pictures company and Vince Gerardis through his Created By company.
"Inconstant Moon," which first appeared in the 1971 short story collection "All the Myriad Ways," begins with the moon glowing much brighter than ever before, leading the narrator to presume that the sun has gone nova and that this is the last night of his life. He spends the night with his girlfriend but then discovers that the reality is that the Earth has been hit by massive solar flare that kills most the inhabitants of the Eastern Hemisphere.
Levy received an Oscar nomination Tuesday for producing "Arrival" along with Dan Levine, Aaron Ryder and David Linde. "Arrival" was nominated for eight Oscars, including Best Picture and Best Director for Denis Villeneuve.
(5) A REALLY BAD MAN. Atlas Obscura reminds us about a forgotten fictional character who had a major influence on genre fiction over the years: "The Criminal History of Fant?mas, France's Favorite Fictional Villain".
His creators called him the "Genius of Evil" and the "Lord of Terror," but he remained a cipher with so many identities that often only Jove would recognize him. The book that first introduces him begins with a voice asking: Who is Fantômas?
January 26, 1934 — One of America's best-loved movie projects gets underway as producer Samuel Goldwyn buys the film rights to The Wizard of Oz.
(7) FAUX FACTS FOR SALE. Chuck Tingle's Buttbart has opened an Alternative Fact Warehouse where you can purchase such alternative facts as "JOM HAMM IS YOUR HANDSOME ONLINE BUD WHO LIKES TO SKYPE" for a few dollars, with the proceeds going to Planned Parenthood.
(8) HE SAID ILK. Milo is scheduled to speak at UC Berkeley on February 1. He was prevented by protestors from speaking at another UC campus a few weeks ago. UC Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks has issued a statement reminding the university community that theirs is the home of the Free Speech Movement.
Mr. Yiannopoulos is not the first of his ilk to speak at Berkeley and he will not be the last. In our view, Mr. Yiannopoulos is a troll and provocateur who uses odious behavior in part to "entertain," but also to deflect any serious engagement with ideas. He has been widely and rightly condemned for engaging in hate speech directed at a wide range of groups and individuals, as well as for disparaging and ridiculing individual audience members, particularly members of the LGBTQ community….
As part of the defense of this crucial right, we have treated the [Berkeley College Republicans'] efforts to hold the Yiannopoulos event exactly as we would that of any other student group. Since the event was announced, staff from our Student Affairs office, as well as officers from the University of California Police Department (UCPD), have worked, as per policy and standard practice, with the BCR to ensure the event goes as planned, and to provide for the safety and security of those who attend, as well as those who will choose to protest Yiannopoulos's appearance in a lawful manner.
In 2017, I'm going to be getting one of these.
Nice, huh? They look nifty, right? Here, let's pull back a bit.
Yeah, I'm pretty much going to lay my cards on the table and say this is going to win the second annual Dragon Awards in 2017. This is not actually a boast. It's just logical. No, seriously. Follow me around the windmills of my mind. Live and Let Bite is everything you loved in Honor at Stake and Murphy's Law of Vampires, and then doubles down.
(10) THE MAGIC NUMBER. Dan Koboldt gives "5 Reasons to Vote for the Hugo Awards".
Most of us read enough novels to know how we want to vote in that category. Novels and series are the bread-and-butter of the SF/F genre. Furthermore, after the commercial success of Game of Thrones, Westworld, and other franchises, there are arguably more people reading SF/F novels than ever before. Thousand of people vote for the "best novel" Hugo Award.
I wish we could say the same about short stories, novelettes, and novellas.
Short fiction is a critical form of SF/F literature, and indeed is how many of us learned how to write. There are some wonderful markets that publish it — Clarkesworld, Galaxy's Edge, and Nature, just to name a few — but the readership is much, much smaller. The Hugo Awards are a great opportunity to discover, read, and reward outstanding works in these briefer formats.
(11) AN ICE TOUR. Val and Ron Ontell are organizing pre- and post-Worldcon tours designed for those heading to Helsinki. Before the con there is a tour of Scandinavia, Talinn and St. Petersburg, and afterwards a tour of Iceland. Itineraries for both are at the site.
(12) FISHING WITH BAIT. John Joseph Adams has posted Hugo-eligible items and from Lightspeed, Nightmare and anthologies, and is offering to e-mail additional material to Hugo nominators with proof of voting eligibility.
If you are planning and eligible to vote for the Hugos this year, if you email me proof of your Worldcon membership (i.e., your name is listed on the Worldcon website as an attending member, or the email confirmation or receipt you received when you purchased your membership, etc.) I would be happy to make some additional 2016 material I edited available to you in digital format.
The paper on E Pluribus Hugo by Bruce Schneier and I had made it through peer review when the journal that had accepted it (Voting Matters) suddenly lost its funding and retroactively folded. We were trying to pressure the editor who had accepted it to help us find another place for it, but it looks as if that's not happening. We're still planning to publish it in another journal, but sadly we'll probably have to repeat the whole peer review process. However, it is our belief that the paper is still eligible to be nominated for Best Related Work.
(14) TICKY. The Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists make it out to be two-and-a-half minutes til Midnight — "Doomsday Click Moves Closer to Midnight, Signaling Concern Among Scientists" in the New York Times.
In an op-ed for The New York Times, Dr. Titley and Dr. Krauss elaborated on their concerns, citing the increasing threats of nuclear weapons and climate change, as well as President Trump's pledges to impede what they see as progress on both fronts, as reasons for moving the clock closer to midnight.
By Jameson Quinn: As discussed in previous threads such as this one, I and others will be making an EPH+ proposal to the Business Meeting; and so I was running a fundraiser so that I could be there to help explain it.
The good news is that fundraiser has reached its goal. Yay! I'll see you all there! Thank you to everyone who's supported it so far. But the fundraiser is not over.
I have been working on these issues, unpaid, off and on since early last year. I'm doing that partly because I have always been a fan, though not prior to this a congoing fan. But my main motivation is just that I've devoted a nontrivial part of my life to thinking about better voting systems, and I see this as an opportunity to use that knowledge while helping educate people about the advantages such systems offer.
So, like my own involvement in this issue, my fundraiser is not merely for myself. I'm raising funds for the Center for Election Science (electology.org), and all donations are tax-deductible in the US. As an organization, we do education, research, consulting, and advocacy around issues of voting systems; that is, exactly the same kinds of work I've been doing with EPH and the Hugos. With the support this community has given so far, I'll be able to be there at MAC II; but if you can give us more support, we can do more.
It doesn't take more than a glance at the newspaper these days to see the fallout of poor election systems. I'll discuss a few examples here, to help show what good systems have to offer. Let me begin by saying that the CES is a nonpartisan organization. I'm going to speak not as a voter with my own personal point of view on these matters, but as a voting system designer, in the faith that societies and organizations should be free to make their decisions democratically and that such democratic decision-making is the most sustainable, if not always the fastest, way to come to the correct decisions.
In the UK, a momentary bare majority managed to take a decision whose impact will last decades. Of course, every decision has impacts, and from a long term perspective every majority is temporary; but from my point of view as an election theorist, asymmetrical decisions like Brexit should require a supermajority. There were at least two asymmetries in this case. First, you can tear up a treaty any time, but once you've shredded it, it's much harder to tape it back together. And second, the consequences of a "remain" vote were relatively clear, but the very meaning of a "leave" vote was quite vague, allowing a situation where there were groups of "leave" voters with entirely contradictory visions of what the post-Brexit relationship with Europe should be.In light of those asymmetries, the "Brexit" referendum should not have been symmetrical between yes and no. A "yes" result should have taken more than a "no" result. That could have taken the form of a supermajority requirement, but the problem with that is, any such requirement is essentially arbitrary. A better way to do it would be to have required two consecutive results in order to leave, with some time for deliberation in between.
In the US Democratic party, there was a tough battle between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Clinton won, and a key factor in that victory was her strong support from African-American voters, a cornerstone constituency of the party. Yet because of an antiquated primary election schedule, most of the early campaign for both Sanders and Clinton had focused on two of the Whitest states in the country: Iowa and New Hampshire. I believe both of the candidates would have been better served by a schedule where the initial states looked more like the country as a whole, especially in terms of the demographics of the Democrats.
Meanwhile, on the Republican side, Donald Trump won the nomination despite getting a minority of votes in the primary contests. Because the primaries used vote-for-one plurality, his numerous opponents split the vote, allowing his minority support to put him into the a clear lead from the start. If the primary elections and polls had been run using a better system such as approval voting, the anti-Trump voters would have had a much easier time showing their strength. We can't know for certain who would have won under such a system; some might argue it still would have been Trump. But if it were, he would have had to win by uniting Republicans behind him, not just by dividing his opposition.
Elsewhere in the news, we see repeated terrorist attacks in various countries; and many of the attackers are affiliated with or claimed by ISIS/Daesh. ISIS arose in Iraq, in the power vacuum left after George Bush toppled Saddam Hussein. And George Bush would almost certainly never have become president in 2001 if it hadn't been for the broken election system in Florida, where he got a minority of votes but still took the state's electoral support. In this case, it's pretty clear that under approval voting, things would have gone differently; if third-party voters had been able to support both their favorite candidate and a backup compromise, all evidence suggests that the minority Bush got would not have been enough to win the state.
(Bear with me for one last "river city" transition.) We recently saw a failed coup in Turkey, in which elements of a more-secular military tried to take the country from a democratically-elected Islamist president. This echoes the successful coup in 2013 in Egypt, in which Islamist president Morsi was overthrown by military strongman el-Sisi. Morsi was the only democratically elected president in Egypt's history. But tragically, Morsi, like Bush, had won despite the fact that most of the country voted against him; and this "unpopular mandate" is arguably a large part of what led to the coup. His initial win was a two-round election. In the first round, there were several candidates: two Islamists (Morsi and Fotouh), a representative of the military and old guard (Shafik), and two more-secular reformers (Sabahi and Moussa). Morsi and Shafik were the top two in that round, and so, despite the fact that their combined total was under 50%, they faced each other in the runoff, with no reformist option on that second ballot. Though opinion polls in this situation were unreliable, all the two-way polls we have that matched either Morsi or Shafik against a reformer show that a reformer could have won if they'd made it to a runoff! And the reformist candidates' combined total in the first round easily surpassed either of the individual totals of the two who did progress. Thus, it seems very plausible that a better voting system (such as approval with runoff, or majority judgment) could have avoided the situation that led to the Egyptian coup in the first place.
I don't want to spark a thread of political debate — there are other blogs for that. But I hope I've made my point that election system reform is not just for the Hugos. In many countries, and especially here in the US, polls show satisfaction with available the political options at an all-time low, but across most of the English-speaking world we use plurality voting, a horrible system which is structured so as to blunt the incentives for the existing parties, or the ability of new parties, to viably offer new ideas. If you care about breaking this stalemate, you care about election systems, and electology.org deserves your support through my fundraiser. Or, sign up for our newsletter to learn more about how we're working on this problem.
My original budget for going to the con was $1400, including membership, train fare (I prefer trains over airplanes to save on CO?), lodging, expenses, and youcaring's small crowdfunding fees. I lowered that to $1300 in order to help get the fundraiser over the top. But really, I'd like to see this pass $2000, so please, if you can, support us. Frankly, the CES needs the money, as we testify before legislatures, attend other conventions and run straw polls, engage with media and produce educational materials, carry out research, work on software tools, consult with awards organizations such as the Hugos and Webbys, and other activities. Our Executive Director is committed to the cause and draws low wages, but I know for a fact there's at least one other charity that wants to steal him from us at higher wages, so we really need to begin paying him a larger fraction of what he's worth.
By Jameson Quinn: Since the last thread ("To Say Nothing of the Dogs"), there hasn't been a whole lot of progress in Hugo voting proposals, but it's still clearly time for an update on various fronts.
Make the following two proposals this year, hopefully to pass and ratify at least one of them.
This means a second round of voting in which the "longlist" of the top 15 from the first round is publicized, and clearly-unworthy works from that list are eliminated if they have enough votes against. It is not intended to deal with mere matters of taste, but merely to insulate against offensive works promoted by slate voters.
The text of this proposal is being worked on by a group of (what I'd respectfully characterize as) SMOFs led by Colin Harris. They are behind schedule for various reasons but still plan to reach the finish line.
This means using the Sainte-Laguë divisors with EPH; that is, SDV-LPE-SL, as explained in my paper with Bruce Schneier. To put it in more understandable terms: it's like EPH, but is slightly harder on works with above-average overlap with other winning works, so that a slate or slates like last years' puppies could probably average under 3 nominations per category.
The text of this proposal is included below.
This is meant to go along with 3SV. It would mean that each voter in the second round could add 2 (or 1) nominations per category for works on the longlist. These nominations would be treated the same as first-round nominations.
This would help people make sure that their ballot would have at least one nomination with a viable chance of becoming a finalist, without requiring them to run out and read a full longlist in each category. By doing so, it would help reduce the "long tail" issue, and thus increase the power of non-slate voters. Since slate voters can already ensure they have nominated works on the longlist, their voting power would be largely unaffected.
This is also meant to go along with 3SV. It would mean that the elimination ballot would have three options; not just "eliminate" or "keep", but also "keep but extend". If a work with a quota of "keep but extend" votes became a finalist, then the number of finalists would be increased by one in that category. This would ensure that slate voters could not push things off the ballot using nominations for things that have non-slate support (such as the puppy support for Sandman: Overture this year).
So, if this is the plan, what still remains to be done in this thread?
Discuss whether this plan should be modified (I think not, but I'm open to counterarguments).
Settle on a wording for EPH+, find co-signers, and submit the proposal. Current draft is below.
Make sure the Colin Harris/ Kevin Standlee group submits their 3SV proposal. For now, I trust that they're on the job, but if they continue not to have a proposal, I'll shift that trust to the community to get them back on track.
If people want me to be there at WorldCon, then my fundraiser has to be successful. I am very grateful to the people who have so far helped me raise just over $700, but in order to actually go, I'd need $1400. And honestly, I'm hoping to raise even more than that; any excess goes to the Center for Election Science (electology.org), which works to bring well-designed, more-democratic voting systems to contexts beyond just the Hugos. (The consequences of poorly-designed intraparty democracy are on full display these days in both the US and UK. And speaking as someone who lived in Guatemala for 10 years, many other countries would be happy to have as much intraparty democracy as those two.) All donations are tax-deductible in the US.
Talk about voting systems and/or electoral pathologies in SF stories. For instance: in Too Like the Lightning, (minor spoilers to end of paragraph) one plot point is an asset voting system, that is, one in which voters can vote for any other valid voter, and each person who gets votes exercises power proportional to the number of votes they hold. This is an excellent voting system, and I'd be happy to discuss how it works / doesn't work with the rest of the plot.
Co-signers (all Rot13): Wnzrfba Dhvaa, Pynhqvn Ornpu, Obaavr Jnesbeq, Pngurevar Snore, Naqerj Uvpxrl, Ebtref Pnqraurnq, Qnivq Tbyqsneo, Yrr Rttre, Gnfun Gheare Yraaubss, Fgrira Unygre, Qnivq Jnyynpr.
By Jameson Quinn: The discussion here of Hugo reform proposals (3SV, EPH+, etc.) will have a new thread anon.
There's a bit of a delay to make sure we're not stepping on the toes of the people who were already working on this issue.
As soon as we work this out, we'll have a post that summarizes and explains a set of proposals from the previous threads, and a chance to discuss things further.
This is a summary of the discussion thread on the post by Kevin Standlee discussing three proposals for expanding the Hugo nominations process in order to help avoid problems like the current list of Hugo finalists.
In summarizing a thread that's over 500 comments long, and that refers extensively to two other threads with hundreds of comments, I am of course going to simplify matters. In particular, I'm going to overemphasize the points of agreement, without listing every qualification, caveat, quibble, or outright objection that was brought up. Obviously you can read the thread yourself, but if you don't, please imagine it to have all the disagreement and misunderstandings (as well as off-topic filk, execrable puns, cute references, hastily-constructed codes, etc.) that you'd expect.
Of the three initial proposals by Kevin, one of them (nicknamed "+2" or "A+2") relied on giving new discretionary powers to Hugo administrators. In the discussion thread this idea encountered significant opposition, so it will not be discussed further here.
The other two proposals would both create a new intermediate round of voting, in which the initial votes have been used to create a "longlist" of 15 works which is publicized and voted on in some fashion in order to get the list of 5 finalists. In the Double Nomination with Approval Voting ("DN") proposal, nominators would vote for ("approve") the longlist items they liked the best; and in the 3-Stage Voting ("3SV") proposal, a majority of nominators would be able to disqualify some of the 15 works, without affecting the ordering of the remaining works from the nominations phase.
Many of the participants in the discussion began with a preference for DN; they felt better about voting for the longlist works they liked than about voting to reject the ones they felt were illegitimate. However, as the thread progressed, and the strengths and weaknesses of the two proposals were analyzed in more depth, the consensus shifted, and by the end of the thread proposals based primarily on 3SV were the clear winners. Many supported a proposal nicknamed 3SV+1, described below, which integrated some aspects of DN onto the base of 3SV.
4. Why 3SV and not DN?
A. Under DN, voters would have just weeks to assimilate and vote on a list of 255 longlisted items. Many of the most careful nominators would barely vote for any; while the most prolific voters would probably be going mostly by kneejerk reactions. This is true for 3SV, too, but it is less of an issue as explained below.
B. DN conflates two questions: "Do I like this work and feel it may deserve a Hugo?" with "Do I feel that this work's presence on the longlist or in the list of finalists would be a legitimate result of honest fan preference?" In 3SV, those questions are separate, and votes to disqualify a work are based on the second question alone — one which does not require fully reading/reviewing every longlist work.
C. Unlike DN, 3SV would deal decisively with the issue of "troll finalists": that is, works promoted by slates explicitly in order that their shocking and/or offensive nature might cast discredit on the awards.
D. 3SV would be similar in spirit to the "no award" option, except that works thus eliminated would not take up space on the list of finalists, and awkward moments at the awards themselves would be minimized.
E. DN would open up new kinds of attacks on the list of finalists, such as actually increasing slate voter's capacity to act as "kingmakers" and/or perform "area defense" against certain kinds of works. All they'd have to do was to have enough voting power to reverse the gap between two works which both have significant organic (non-slate) support. But under 3SV, actually eliminating a work would not be possible without a relatively high "quorum"* of voters, and we hope that community pressure would lead to a low background level of organic rejection votes, so a minority of slate voters would be unable to use rejection as a weapon.
3-Stage Voting (3SV) adds a new round of voting to the Hugo Award process, called "semi-finals," between the existing nominating ballot and the existing final ballot. In 3SV, the "longlist" of top 15 nominees (as selected by the same process as the finalists will be selected; that is, EPH or EPH+ if those have passed) are listed in a way that doesn't show how many nominations they received. Eligibility for this voting is being debated (see below), but the original proposal is that it would be restricted to members (supporting and attending) of the current Worldcon (not the previous and following Worldcons). Eligible voters presented with this list, with a question on each of the fifteen semi-finalists in each category: "Is this work worthy of being on the Final Hugo Award Ballot?" with the choices being YES, NO, and ABSTAIN.
If a work gets more than a "quorum" of no votes, it is not eligible to become a finalist. There are several proposals for how to calculate the quorum. The formula may involve such things as the number of eligible voters, the number of "YES" and/or "ABSTAIN" votes, the turnout in round 1 or in previous years, etc. The idea is that the quorum should be high enough so that a minority of slate voters will be unable to reach it, but low enough that a clear majority of fans can pass it, even given reasonable turnout assumptions.
During the "semi-final" voting period, admins would also be checking the eligibility of the works on the longlist, and accepting withdrawals from the author (or other responsible party; henceforth, we'll just say "author") of those works. The admins would make a good-faith attempt to contact authors, but note that since the longlist is public, the admins may assume that non-responsive authors have heard of their presence on the longlist, and thus that any authors who do not explicitly withdraw their works would accept becoming finalists.
The finalists will be the top 5 works from the longlist that have not been declared ineligible by vote, found ineligible by the admins, or withdrawn by the authors. EPH or EPH+ would not be re-run after ineligible works or withdrawals.
After the Hugos are awarded, admins would publish the usual statistics (that is, for EPH, the votes and points-when-eliminated for each of the members of the longlist). They would also publish the reason for ineligiblity (voted out, ineligible, or withdrawn) for any work that otherwise would have been a finalist. They would also publish the anonymized set of vote totals for each longlist item in each category, where "anonymized" means that they would not indicate which title was associated with which vote total.
What's this "3SV+1" you mentioned earlier?
The "+1" means that, in addition to 3SV, all voters who were eligible for round 1 may add a single nomination per category, for something from the longlist they did not already nominate, to their existing ballot, during the same "semi-final" voting period. These combined ballots would then be counted by the usual process (that is, the current system, EPH, or EPH+) to find the finalists.
How would all of this interact with EPH, EPH+, 4/6, and/or 5/6?
The short version is that without EPH a realistically-sized, well managed slate could hope to entirely take over the longlist in many categories; with EPH, it could take about 2/3 (around 10 slots); and with EPH+, it could take over about half (6-8 slots), or possibly a bit more with cleverer strategies (but not as much as EPH, even then). 4/6 or 5/6 don't change that story by much, though they help a bit in keeping organic slots among the finalists in spite of "kingmaker" slates. And +1 helps push slates towards around 1-2 finalist slots; hurting them in the common case that they had been going to get more, but actually helping them if they had miscalculated and were heading for less than that.
Here's a graph of how many slots slate nominators could have gotten in 2014, as a function of number of slate nominators, if they'd split 3 ways and had the same level of coordination as they did in 2015. Note that 2016 had many more nominators than 2014 so it would have taken more slate nominators to get the same effect.
Couldn't slate voters take over the shortlist? As you can see in the graphs "take over 6-10 slots of the longlist" is the only one that we think is a concern if (as we expect) EPH or EPH+ is in place.
Wouldn't this fundamentally change the nature of the Hugos? They have already been changed by the slate. Many of the people in the discussion felt that this change, though it would not go back to exactly as before, would still be a change in the right direction.
Would this be more work for the administrators? In some ways, yes, of course. However, in at least one important way, it would actually simplify their lives. Since the longlist would be public, it would be much easier for them to contact authors. On a related note, authors could not leak their status as finalists, because until the list of finalists came out, they would know no more than the public at large.
Would this allow some unanticipated downside? Obviously, we can never rule that out 100%. However, we do think we've been pretty thorough at exploring all the angles. Again, you can read the thread and decide for yourself.
Would this be tough to administrate? Not if EPH or EPH+ were in place, since any program capable of doing either of these would already be able to associate multiple nominations with the same nominator and make sure that invalid votes, such as a single nominator nominating a given work multiple times, were not counted. It has been suggested that a proposal to institute +1 should say that this change will sunset (require re-approval) if EPH or EPH+ ever does.
What are the open questions/issues?
Eligibility: who should be eligible to vote on the semifinal round, and who should be able to add +1? The former question is more fraught. Several people said that they would want eligibility to be restricted enough that outsiders can't come in and get memberships after the longlist is published. Others said that it is important to let the community respond and that if membership spikes on seeing the longlist that could be a healthy thing. One compromise proposal (suggested by yours truly) was that in order to be eligible, you would need to be a current member (attending or supporting) of this year's Worldcon, AND also have been eligible to nominate (whether or not you actually did so). So if you were a member of the prior or following year's worldcon, you could sign up after seeing the longlist; but not if you weren't.
Quorum size/formula: There's been various discussion of this issue.
+1 as attached or separate: The overall consensus seems to be that, if we propose +1, it should be in a separate proposal from 3SV, even though they share certain aspects (such as the concept of a semi-final round). However, there are varying opinions on whether +1 is a good idea, either in general or as a proposal for this year in particular.
Whether to try EPH+ this year: I'll talk about this more in comments.
The admin discretion 14-18 longlist thing: I was thinking that, if the time between closing round 1 nominations and announcing the longlist is short, admins might have a hard time cleaning the data perfectly. In that case, it helps them be more certain of the list they publish if the next work below the list was not a near-tie with the lowest work on the list. To allow them to avoid such near-ties, especially in cases where they aren't 100% sure they've cleaned the data perfectly, I suggested allowing them discretion to decide how long the longlist for each category would be, between 14 and 18 works.
http://file770.com/?p=29020&cpage=14#comment-436327: Define "nominating membership" in a way that legally allows for the possibility of a code of conduct that could lead to one year's worldcon revoking voting privileges from a member of the prior year's; in other words, closes the loophole whereby prior-year members are immune from any consequences for their actions.
Moderated Shortlist for Member Consideration: http://file770.com/?p=29020&cpage=16#comment-436437 This is an alternative to 3SV, where an administrative committee would tentatively suggest eliminating or adding certain works, and that suggestion would have to be ratified by an up-or-down vote of the members of the current Worldcon.
A group led by Colin Harris that includes Kevin Standlee is writing up a proposal are writing up a proposal and are surely watching these threads. When that proposal is ready, we could write up +1 as an amendment or as a standalone proposal. Decide about EPH+ and deal with that. Anything else?
By Bruce Schneier: Jameson Quinn and I analyzed the E Pluribus Hugo (EPH) voting system, proposed as a replacement for the current Approval Voting system for the Hugo nominations ballot. (This is an academic paper; the Hugo administrators will be publishing their own analysis, more targeted to the WSFS Business Meeting, in the coming weeks.) We analyzed EPH with both actual and simulated voting data, and this is what we found.
The number of slate nominees would have been reduced by 1 in 6 categories, and by 2 in 2 categories, leaving no category without at least one non-slate nominee.
That doesn't seem like very much. A reasonable question to ask is why doesn't it reduce the number more. The answer is simply that the slate was powerful last year.
The data demonstrates the power of the Puppies. The category Best Novelette provides a good example. This category had 1044 voters, distributed over 149 different works with 3 or more votes. Of these voters, around 300 (29%) voted for more Puppy-slate works than non-Puppy ones, and about half of those (14%) voted for only Puppy-slate works. These numbers are also roughly typical. The other 71% of the ballots included under 3% with votes for any Puppy work (this is relatively low, but not anomalously so, compared to other categories).
Despite being a majority, the non-Puppy voters spread their votes more thinly; only 24% of them voted for any of the top 5 non-Puppy works. This meant that 4 of the 5 nominees would have been from the Puppy slate under SDV-LPE or SDV.
In Figure 1, we assume perfectly correlated bloc voters. They vote in lockstep (with minimal exceptions to prevent ties), and their five nominations are completely disjoint from the other nominations. As you can see, both SDV-LPE and SDV reduce the power of the bloc voters considerably. Under AV, the voting bloc reliably nominates 3 candidates when they make up 10.5% of the voters, 4 candidates when they make up 12.5%, and 5 when they make up 19%. Under SDV-LPE, they need to be 26% of voters to reliably nominate 3 candidates, 36.5% to reliably nominate 4, and 54% to reliably nominate 5….
Figure 2 simulates a more realistic voting bloc. We sample the actual behavior of the bloc voters in the 2015 Hugo nominations election, and add them to the actual 2014 nominations data. For the purposes of this simulation, we define bloc voters as people who voted for more Puppy candidates than non-Puppy candidates. In this case, the actual bloc voters did not vote in lockstep: some voted for a few members of the slate, and some combined slate nominations with non-slate nominations. For the purposes of the simulation, when they voted for the nth most popular non-Puppy candidate in 2015, we imputed that into a vote for the nth most popular non-Puppy candidate in 2014. In this case, SDV-LPE and SDV reduce the power of those voting blocs even further. Under AV, the voting bloc reliably nominates 3 candidates with 14% of the voters, 4 candidates with 17% of the voters, and 5 with 39%. Under SDV-LPE, they need to make up 27.5% to nominate 3 candidates, 38% to nominate 4, and 69.5% to nominate 5….
The upshot of all this is that EPH cannot save the Hugos from slate voting. It reduces the power of slates by about one candidate. To reduce the power of slates further, it needs to be augmented with increased voting by non-slate voters.
There is one further change in the voting system that we could make, and we discuss it in the paper. This is a modification of EPH, but would — for the slate percentages we've been seeing — reduce their power by about one additional candidate. So if a slate would get 5 candidates under the current system and 4 under SDV-LPE (aka EPH), it would get 3 under what we've called SDV-LPE-SL. Yes, we know it's another change that would require another vote and another year to ratify. Yes, we know we should have proposed this last year. But we had to work with the actual data before optimizing that particular parameter.
Basically, we use a system of weighing divisible votes named after the French mathematician André Sainte-Laguë, who introduced it in France in 1910. In EPH, your single vote is divided among the surviving nominees. So if you have two nominees who have not yet been eliminated, each gets half of your vote. If three of your nominees have not yet been eliminated, each gets 1/3 of your vote. And so on. The Sainte-Laguë system has larger divisors. If you have two nominees who have not yet been eliminated, each gets 1/3 of your vote. If three of your nominees have not yet been eliminated, each gets 1/5 of your vote. Each of four get 1/7; each of five get 1/9. This may sound arbitrary, but there's well over a hundred years of voting theory supporting these weights and the results are still proportional.
SDV-LPE-SL comes even closer to giving slate voters a proportional share, with 7 fewer slate nominees overall, and only 1 category without a choice between at least 2 non-slate nominees.
Under SDV-LPE, they need to be 26% of voters to reliably nominate 3 candidates, 36.5% to reliably nominate 4, and 54% to reliably nominate 5. Under SDV-LPE-SL, they need to be 35% for 3, 49% for 4, and 66% for 5.
Under SDV-LPE-SL, they need 36% for 3, 49% for 4, and over 70% for 5.
Here's our paper. It's academic, so it refers to the voting system by its academic name. It spends a lot of time discussing the motivation behind the new voting system, and puts it in context with other voting systems. Then it describes and analyzes both SDV-LPE and SDV-LPE-SL.


text:
POPQUIZ
A quiz on musical knowledge, where two teams battle each other in the hopes of winning a year of free concerts!
For our first collaboration with commercial tv network vtm, we're pulling out all the stops. Not only have we developed a new quiz format with exiting game rounds, but we're also bringing Matthijs van Nieuwkerk to Belgium! This Dutch presenter has been an established name in the Netherlands for decades and is now making his first moves in the Belgian tv landscape.
Each week, two duos will battle each other. For certain rounds, they will get the help of a 'BV' (famous Flemish) for certain rounds. Nevertheless, in the crucial stages, they'll have to prove themselves on their own. These duos can be father and daughter, colleagues, childhood friends,… The only thing that matters is that they have a complementary knowledge of music. They'll need it!
The quiz is set up like a tournament: we'll see fourteen duos in the group phase, four of them will go through to the semi-finals and finally we'll have a big final between the best two teams.
Throughout the show, we get live musical support from our house band, Senne Guns and Laurens 'Lokko' Billiet. They're not just a part of the décor, but they'll be playing jingles, mash-ups and covers of songs in various game rounds too.
Popquiz airs every Thursday night at 20u40, starting April 1st.
Duration: 10 x 50min
Distribution: Be-Entertainment
First season: 2021
info@panenka.tv stage@panenka.tv jobs@panenka.tv taxshelter@panenka.tv
2018 Antwerp - Belgium
Parking: Lamorinièrestraat 272, 2018 Antwerp


A romantic relationship is supposed to be a wonderful experience that is filled with pleasure and happiness. It becomes quite the opposite when there is abuse in it. Nothing in the world can be more detrimental to your emotional wellbeing than being in an emotionally abusive relationship. Emotional abuse can be much more sinister than even physical abuse. The worst is that in most cases neither the abuser nor the victim is fully conscious of such an abuse taking place in their relationship. The victim usually doesn't realize the mistreatment and stays in denial until it becomes a big issue. Emotional abuse is like slow poison that slowly erodes the self-worth of a person little by little every day that eventually leads to severe depression and trauma. Emotional abuse is regular sequence of verbal offense, bullying, criticism, threats, and hostility. It also includes more indirect tactics such as intimidation and belittling. Most abusers in most cases behaves in such a way due to past events or their childhood where they were the victim. So now they want to turn the tables and take a revenge for what they went through earlier in their life. As per research, both men and women abuse each other at equal rates.
Following are some signs of emotionally abusive in a relationship.
You are being humiliated and ridiculed in public. Your partner leaves no opportunity to put you down and make fun of you.
You are being criticized in front of everyone. Your partner teases you can calls you names to make you feel bad about yourself.
You are being controlled in every respect. Your partner controls your every move and dictates your life's do's and don'ts.
You are being restricted to do most things. Your partner limits your moves and you need to seek their permission to do anything.
You are being manipulated. Your partner plays mind games and traps you in doing what they want and make it appears as if that's what you wanted.
You are not being respected as a person. Your partner disrespects you and has no regards for whatever you do or say.
You have no control over the finances. Your partner is the only one who has access to the funds and you need to beg them for every little thing.
You are belittled for everything. Your partner underestimates your capabilities and often crashes your accomplishments.
You are given dirty looks. Your partner gives you bad looks and use his body language and gestures to make you feel bad.
You are constantly accused of wrongdoings. Your partner always puts the blame on you even when it was not your fault and the onus is always on you.
The first step in dealing with an emotionally abusive relationship is recognizing its presence. If you see any signs of emotional abuse in your relationship, immediately stop the abuse and start the healing process. Either talk to your partner and ask them to stop the abuse or walk out of the relationship. No one should put up with emotional abuse in their relationship, regardless of the circumstances. Say no to emotional abuse right now and get back on your feet.


Maintenance-free aluminum is one of the many durable dock options offered by Kroeger Marine. Our aluminum docks and gangways are maintenance-free, aesthetically pleasing, and competitively priced. Our Classic Series includes the same integrated framework design as our Signature Series to make them as structurally sound as possible. Some of the same features of the Signature Series can be added to our Classic Series. We ensure that our docks remain strong and maintenance-free for many years so all you have to do is enjoy them. If you are looking for an aluminum boat or PWC dock on Lakes Keowee, Hartwell, Thurmond, Jocassee or Bowen, look no further than the name people have been trusting for over 30years – Kroeger Marine!


Bear's Den, a London trio, have released their second EP Agape, the first widely available record of theirs as their first EP was only available at the almost non-stop barrage of shows they played all throughout the UK. Agape is released through Communion records, which was founded by Mumford & Son's Ben Lovett and Bear's Den member Kevin Jones. The term "Agape" is an Ancient Greek word for "true love", and the bands reasoning behind this choice resonates through this record.
The EP begins with the title track, an easy flowing folky tune, a chirpy guitar always present despite the lovelorn lyrics. "I'm so scared of losing you/ and I don't know what I could do about it". The track is a perfect set up for the sound and themes running through the record, not to mention relatable to the masses.
While midway track "Mother" may be thought at first to be a ballad to a band member's mother, the Lumineers-esque sound help tell the story of a distressed parent going mad and her son being nowhere to be seen, a whole new take on a love song.
The record ends with "A Year Ago Today", a song as reminiscent as the title suggests. In keeping with that, the song comes off more maudlin but still holds that established Bear's Den sound up high.
Agape is full of songs about love, but they are not love songs. The exploration of this through the personal experiences being poured through Andrew Davies fragile voice is something experienced by everyone, yet Bear's Den have somehow created a harmony of stories, sounds and lyrics.


text:
Q: Getting values from wpdb I'm trying to get values from columns name and id. Could Anyone tell me how can I get these two values in loop, and adjust this sql for Wordpress?
function get_calendar_ids() {

    global $wpdb;
$user_id = get_current_user_id();
$sql = $wpdb->prepare( "
Select
  wp_calendars.user_id,
  wp_calendars.name,
  wp_calendars.id
From
  wp_calendars
Where
  wp_calendars.user_id = '$user_id'
");
$calendars = $wpdb->get_results( $sql );
     if ($calendars ) {
        return $calendars;
        echo $sql;
    }
}

A: You are not too far away from your goal. The get_calendar_ids must return only $calendars.
In your function $wpdb->get_results( $sql ) will return an object with the datas your asked.
function get_calendar_ids() {

    global $wpdb;
$user_id = get_current_user_id();
$sql = $wpdb->prepare( "
    Select
      wp_calendars.user_id,
      wp_calendars.name,
      wp_calendars.id
    From
      wp_calendars
    Where
      wp_calendars.user_id = '$user_id'
");
    $calendars = $wpdb->get_results( $sql );
     if ($calendars ) {
        return $calendars;
     }
}

Your function now return an object with only user_id, name, and id, the result must in a loop to echo the result, you can grab them like this $calendar->name in a foreach loop.
an example in a shortcode,
add_shortcode('calendars', 'get_calendars');

function get_calendar($atts, $content = ""){

    // you can add $atts extract_args if need

    $calendars = get_calendar_ids();

    if($calendars){
        foreach($calendars as $calendar){
            $user_data = get_userdata(get_current_user_id());
            echo 'id).'">'.$calendar->name . ' by '.$user_data->user_nicename.'
';

        }
    }
}

Hope it helps

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Kozan (già  Սիս, Sis) è una città della Turchia, capoluogo dell'omonimo distretto della provincia di Adana. Si trova a 68 chilometri a nord della città di Adana, nella parte settentrionale della piana di Adana.

Il torrente Kilgen, un tributario del fiume Ceyhan (anticamente Jibun o Pyramus), scorre attraverso Kozan attraversando la pianura a sud nel Mar Mediterraneo. Le cime affilate dei monti Tauro si elevano alle spalle della cittadina.

Antica Sis, fu la capitale del Regno armeno di Cilicia dal 1186 al 1375 e la sede del catholicos d'Armenia di Ani dal 1292 al 1441, poi del catholicos di Cilicia fino al 1919.

La popolazione della città è rapidamente cresciuta negli ultimi anni, da 15 159 nel 1960, a 54 451 nel 1990, a 85 173 nel 2000, 72 463 nel 2007 (dati del censimento).

Storia

Dal 3000 a.C. in poi ci furono insediamenti ittiti in tutte le pianure dietro la costa del Mediterraneo, basati sull'agricoltura e il pascolo di animali.

In seguito l'area cambiò di mano più volte, divenendo infine la Flavias o Flaviopolis nella ex Provincia romana della Cilicia Secunda.

L'epoca Cristiana

Sis (in armeno: Սիս) o Sissu, Sision, Sisium ha avuto un posto importante nella storia ecclesiastica sia della Chiesa apostolica armena sia come sede titolare della Chiesa cattolica.

Se si accetta la probabile identificazione di Sis con la Flavias romana, si troverà che essa è stata menzionata per la prima volta nella Vita di San Simeone Stilita di Teodoreto.

Nel Medioevo Sis fu il centro religioso dei cristiani armeni, almeno fino a quando San Gregorio Illuminatore trasferì la sua sede a Vagarshabad (Echmiadzin) nel 302.

La chiesa rimase comunque e lo studioso francese Michel Le Quien ha elencato i nomi di diversi vescovi di Sis, precedenti e successivi a Gregorio:
 Alessandro, in seguito patriarca di Gerusalemme e fondatore della famosa libreria del Santo Sepolcro nel III secolo;
 Niceta, presente al primo concilio di Nicea nel 325;
 Giovanni, che visse nel 451;
 Andrea nel VI secolo;
 Giorgio (681);
 Eustrato, patriarca di Antiochia circa 868.

Nel 704, Sis fu assediata dagli arabi, ma fu soccorsa dai bizantini.
Il califfo abbaside al-Mutawakkil la conquistò e rifortificò, ma essa tornò presto in mani bizantine.
Fu ricostruita nel 1186 da Leone II, re del Regno armeno di Cilicia della dinastia Rupenide, che ne fece la capitale dell'Armenia Minore (dal 1186 fino al 1375).

Nel 1294, durante le crociate, il catholicosato ritornò a Sis, e vi rimase 150 anni.

Nel 1266 Sis, capitale del Regno armeno di Cilicia, fu conquistata e danneggiata dagli egiziani guidati da Baybars.
al-Said Barakah inviò Qalawun ad attaccare la città nel 1277, ma nel 1375, Sis fu presa e distrutta dai turchi di Ramazanoğlu, sotto la bandiera del sultano mamelucco d'Egitto.

La città non ha mai recuperato la sua prosperità, neanche quando passò sotto il dominio degli ottomani nel 1516.

Nel 1441, essendo ormai Sis decaduta, il clero armeno propose di spostare la sede ed al rifiuto del catholicos dell'epoca, Gregorio IX, installò un rivale a Echmiadzin che, non appena Selim I conquistò l'Armenia Maggiore, divenne il più ampiamente accettato, dei due, dalla chiesa armena nell'Impero ottomano.

Nondimeno il catholicos di Sis rimase, e mantenne la giurisdizione su vari vescovi, numerosi villaggi e conventi, la sua posizione fu sostenuta dal papa cattolico fino alla metà del XIX secolo, quando il patriarca Nerses, optò infine per Echmiadzin, trascinando il governo con lui.
Nel 1885, Sis tentò di dichiarare Echmiadzin scismatica, e nel 1895 il suo clero elesse un catholicos senza riferimenti al patriarca; ma l'Impero ottomano annullò l'elezione, che furono permesse solo sei anni più tardi su rinuncia di Sis alle sue pretese di indipendenza.
Il catholicos aveva il diritto di preparare il sacro myron (olio) e di presiedere un sinodo, ma nei fatti non fu più di un metropolita, considerato da molti armeni come scismatico.

Epoca turca

Sotto il dominio ottomano Sis fu capoluogo dell'omonimo cazà (distretto), nel vilayet (provincia) di Adana e contava circa 1900-4000 abitanti, la maggior parte armeni.
Secondo censimenti ottomani del 1519 e 1540 i castelli di Feke, Anavarza, Lembert, Küpdere e Partzerpert (Fortezza Alta)

Nel XVII secolo la presenza e potenza ottomana nell'area si indebolirono e l'autorità fu esercitata, in pratica, dai signori locali della dinastia dei Kozanoğlu, fino a che, nel 1865, il generale ottomano Derviş Paşa radunò un esercito, disperse i Kozanoğlu e riportò la zona sotto il controllo ottomano.

Kozan è una delle tante località che proclamano di essere il luogo natale del leggendario poeta popolare del XVII secolo Karacaoğlan.

La popolazione armena di Sis fu deportata nel 1915 durante il genocidio armeno, ed il monastero di Santa Sofia di Sis, sede del catholicato di Sis (che dominava la città nelle fotografie dell'inizio del XX secolo) distrutto.

La città fu occupata da truppe francesi tra il marzo del 1919 e il giugno del 1920.
Kozan fu una provincia della Turchia tra il 1923 e il 1926.

Kozan in epoca moderna

Kozan è una piccola città, con un cinema ed altri divertimenti, circondata da vigneti, giardini e boschi di cipressi, sicomori, aranci e limoni.
In estate il gran caldo (oltre 40 °C) obbliga gli abitanti a disertare Kozan, ritirandosi per rinfrescarsi sulle alture boscose.

Monumenti e luoghi d'interesse

La moschea di Hoskadem è stata costruita dai mamelucchi nel 1448.

Oggi rovine di chiese, conventi, castelli e palazzi possono essere viste dappertutto anche se cattedrale, chiese e monasteri del catholicosato armeno sono quasi del tutto scomparsi.

Il nobile castello, il monastero e la chiesa edificata da Leone II, e contenente il seggio per l'incoronazione dei re della Cilicia armena, erano ancora degni di nota al principio del XX secolo.

Galleria d'immagini

Note

Bibliografia

 E. Lohmann, Im Kloster zu Sis, Striegau, R. Urban, 1905.
 R. W. Edwards, Ecclesiastical Architecture in the Fortifications of Armenian Cilicia in Dumbarton Oaks Papers 36 (1982) 168-170 Abb. 24-30; 37 (1983) 134-141 Abb. 51-67.
 R. W. Edwards, The Fortifications of Armenian Cilicia, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington D. C., 1987, 233-237. ISBN 0-88402-163-7

Voci correlate
 Regno armeno di Cilicia
 Catolicosato della Grande Casa di Cilicia

Altri progetti

Collegamenti esterni

Comuni della provincia di Adana
Città bizantine
Cilicia
Città romane in Turchia
Regno armeno di Cilicia

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Accommodating Transgender Employees
Aug 23, 2015 10:17:19 PM
Accommodating Transgender Workers
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently announced a reversal of its stance regarding whether discrimination based on sex includes discrimination based on an individual's gender identity and transgender status. The DOJ concludes that, under the 1964 Civil Rights Act Title VII, employees are protected from employer discrimination based on transgender status or gender identity. Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on protected characteristics such as race and gender. We recently wrote about the DOL ruling on transgender employees.
Impact on Employers
While the DOJ's authority to file discrimination lawsuits is limited to government employers, this is a significant ruling for all employers because it further solidifies the federal government's position on gender identity rights. The more unified position by the federal government on this issue may influence courts and state governments to adopt similar positions when claims are filed against employers in the private sector, so, now is a good time to examine your organization's ability to accommodate transgender workers.
Beyond the costly litigation that could ensue if a transgender worker feels discriminated against, transgender workers will be more happy, engaged and productive in environments where they feel comfortable. Organizations that strive to accommodate transgender workers will also likely instill strong feelings of loyalty in transgender workers, reducing turnover costs and potentially attracting other talented transgender workers.
Accommodation Best Practices
There are several best practices that employers can utilize in order to avoid potential costly litigation and to make transgender workers feel more welcome in the workplace.
One of the first and most important steps in accommodating transgender workers is to create a welcoming environment where all employees feel comfortable and can be productive. Management should create an atmosphere of inclusion and tolerance in the workplace and encourage employees to do the same.
Many transgender individuals choose to live their everyday lives as the gender they identify with. Thus, employees should be able to work in a manner and in environments that are consistent with their gender identities. Management and employees should use the names and pronouns associated with the gender identity of the transgender worker's choice. Intentional misuse of names or pronouns, or reference to the worker's former gender by management, could be considered harassment.
In addition, there is often a transition process associated with identifying as a different gender. This process may involve name changes, medical steps and changes to identification documents. It is important for management, as well as fellow employees, to acknowledge transgender employees as the gender they identify with, regardless of whether a transgender employee has recently begun or completed the transition process.
Facility Accommodation
While it is important for employers and employees to treat transgender employees in accordance with their specific gender identities, employers must also provide adequate restroom access to transgender employees. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), all employees must have access to available toilet facilities in the workplace. In addition, OSHA advises employers that all employees should be given access to restroom facilities that correspond with the gender they identify with. By requiring transgender employees to use restrooms only associated with their sex at birth, employees are restricted from working in a manner consistent with their gender identity.
While providing transgender employees with access to single-occupancy or gender-neutral (unisex) bathrooms is a good step toward making them feel comfortable, transgender employees should not be required to use these specific facilities. Doing so would segregate transgender employees from fellow workers and could be viewed as a discriminatory practice.
It is best to establish a workplace that is inclusive and welcoming. Employees who feel safe and welcome in the workplace will be happier and more productive at work. By creating a hospitable environment for all employees, employers can avoid litigation and attract and retain talented employees.


and accessories at your local stores for a budget-friendly home makeover. We specialize in both large and small projects in any design style, our primary goal being to realize and ultimately deliver your personal vision while having a fun and memorable experience along the way.
Specializing in creating custom, high-end luxury interiors, CSM Consulting delivers a clean, dynamic and sophisticated aesthetic with sharp attention to architectural detail.
While recognizing that every project is unique, we tailor our design process to meet your specific needs, style, and budget.
While practicing "The Art of Design," Charlene Margot calls upon her background in psychology to help clients discover their own inner sense of design as expressed in furnishings, art, and accessories.
© Copyright CSM Consulting 2018-2019. All Rights Reserved. Web site designed & maintained by PSH Graphic Design.


The Crowne Plaza Mutiara is a 5-star hotel and a prominent landmark strategically located within the heart of the Kuala Lumpur banking, commercial and vibrant shopping district. Surrounded by five hectares of beautifully landscaped gardens, Crowne Plaza Mutiara Kuala Lumpur is also a lush retreat within walking distance to Kuala Lumpur 's main attractions in the likes of Pavilion KL, Bintang Walk, Petronas Twin Towers and KLCC. The hottest nightspots, clubs, bars and bistros on the streets of Jalan P. Ramlee and Bukit Bintang are just a 5 to 10 minute walk away.
The hotel has 563 contemporary guest rooms and with spectacular views of either the famous Petronas Twin Towers or the city skyline. The hotel also houses an extensive selection of food and beverage outlets, the award-winning Angsana Spa and Clark Hatch; the largest in-hotel fitness centre.
The hotel has a total of 28 meeting and function rooms, including the iconic Grand Nirwana Ballroom, Windows on KL situated on the 30th floor and boasting impressive views of Kuala Lumpur , and the ultra-modern Mezzanine. The 12 new meeting rooms on the Mezzanine opened in January 2007 with the latest in-room meeting requirements and extra special facilities has positioned the hotel as the best premium business class hotel with the most comprehensive facilities in the heart of Kuala Lumpur 's Golden Triangle.
Please quote "HACK IN THE BOX SECURITY CONFERENCE" when making your reservation.
• Revised rooms blocked will be subject to availability.
• The above rates quoted are inclusive of breakfast at Planters' Inn.
• The above rates quoted are not inclusive of 10% Service Charge and 5% Government Tax.
Check-in: Check-in is at 1600 hours. Rooms required before 1600 hours on the day of arrival on confirmed basis must be pre-blocked. An additional one (1) night room charge will be levied.
Check-out: Check-out is at 1200 hours. Use of rooms after 1800 hours will be charged at a full night room rate. Late check-out is subject to availability.


text:
Child Custody FAQ
patrickcrawford | July 29, 2019
1 What Is a Parenting Plan, and Is It Necessary?
2 Who Is More Likely to Get Primary Custody of Our Children?
2.1 The parent who provides the majority of childcare
2.2 Whether each parent is psychologically and physically fit to parent the child
2.3 Each parent's character and reputation
2.4 Any custody agreements that are already in place
2.5 The children's preferences (weighted according to age and maturity)
2.6 The opportunities afforded by each parent
2.7 The risk of harm created by one parent
2.8 The child's ties to family, school, and community through one parent or the other
3 What Is the Difference between Joint Custody and Sole Custody?
3.1 Decisions regarding education
3.2 Decisions regarding physical and mental health care
3.3 Decisions regarding religious upbringing
4 What About Child Support?
5 What Is Retroactive Child Support?
6 If We Have Joint Physical Custody, Does it Mean Neither of Us Pays Child Support?
7 What If the Other Parent Doesn't Pay the Court-Ordered Child Support?
8 Do My Children Have a Voice in Deciding with Whom They Primarily Live?
9 Will My Separation Agreement Carry Over into My Divorce Decree?
10 What about Child Custody Modification?
11 If You Have Questions About Divorce and Child Custody Arrangements, Consult with an Experienced Annapolis Child Custody Lawyer Today
If you're going through a divorce, you likely have questions related to child custody arrangements. You are not alone in this. Familiarizing yourself with the answers to several frequently asked questions should help you better understand what to expect as you move forward with the divorce process. If you have child custody concerns, it's it you and your child's best interests to consult with an experienced Annapolis child custody lawyer today about your specific situation.
What Is a Parenting Plan, and Is It Necessary?
A parenting plan is an agreement that you reach with your children's other parent regarding important custody arrangements. The fact is that, if you and your divorcing spouse can come to an agreement together, you won't have to rely upon the court to make these important and personal decisions for you. The court will incorporate parenting plans you design into final divorce or custody court orders, as long as the judge deems your plan to be in the best interests of your child. Most parents find it highly preferable to make their own decisions regarding their children – versus allowing the court to do so. Your respective child custody attorneys may be able to help you and the other parent find middle ground regarding child custody arrangements that you are both willing to sign.
Who Is More Likely to Get Primary Custody of Our Children?
If your children's custody is determined by the court, its decision will be based solely on what it considers to be in the child's best interests. In making this determination, the court may take several factors into consideration, which can include:
The parent who provides the majority of childcare
Whether each parent is psychologically and physically fit to parent the child
Each parent's character and reputation
Any custody agreements that are already in place
The children's preferences (weighted according to age and maturity)
The opportunities afforded by each parent
The risk of harm created by one parent
The child's ties to family, school, and community through one parent or the other
These factors and more can affect the court's decision. There are no legal presumptions related to which parent – the mother or the father – will be granted primary custody of the children.
What Is the Difference between Joint Custody and Sole Custody?
The State of Maryland addresses both physical custody and legal custody. Legal custody refers to a parent's right and responsibility to make important decisions on behalf of the minor children. These typically include:
Decisions regarding education
Decisions regarding physical and mental health care
Decisions regarding religious upbringing
The court generally prefers to grant joint legal custody whenever feasible. If one parent is not able, willing, or well-suited to the task of making the important decisions in his or her children's lives, the court may grant sole legal custody to the other parent.
Physical custody, on the other hand, refers to with whom the children primarily live. Shared physical custody in the State of Maryland means that both parents have the children at least 35 percent of the year (at least 128 overnights) and that both parents contribute to the children's expenses – in addition to any child support arrangements. With sole custody, one parent is known as the custodial parent, and the children live primarily with him or her, while the other parent – the noncustodial parent – generally has a visitation schedule. Again, the court begins with the presumption that it is in the children's best interests to spend time with both parents.
What About Child Support?
The State of Texas applies child support guidelines in the determination of child support, and these guidelines include a variety of factors, such as:
Each of your gross incomes
Any alimony involved in the case
Any alimony that's paid or received related to a prior case
Any child support paid related to a prior case
The number of overnights each parent has (if the parents share custody)
The children's additional expenses, including health insurance, daycare, and extraordinary medical costs
What Is Retroactive Child Support?
The court, in its discretion, may award child support retroactively for the time period between filing for divorce and issuing the final ruling. While retroactive child support isn't automatic or mandatory, in certain circumstances, it can be deemed necessary.
If We Have Joint Physical Custody, Does it Mean Neither of Us Pays Child Support?
Joint physical custody does not preclude child support payments. Again, child support is a calculation that factors in many variables. Even if you divide the number of overnights evenly between the two of you, a disparity in income and the children's additional expenses can result in a child support order.
What If the Other Parent Doesn't Pay the Court-Ordered Child Support?
If your ex refuses to pay you the child support that you are owed, you have legal recourse to force his or her hand. You cannot, however, suspend visitation rights until he or she pays. Child support and visitation are completely separate issues, and one cannot be used as a bludgeon against the other. Not paying child support that was ordered by the court and withholding visitation are both actions deemed as being in contempt of court. If your ex doesn't pay child support, you have the right to bring the matter before the court. If your ex is deemed in contempt, he or she will not only need to rectify the discrepancy but will also probably be required to pay the legal fees you accrued in the process.
Do My Children Have a Voice in Deciding with Whom They Primarily Live?
Custody is based on the best interests of the children. Because adults are better equipped to make such determinations, the court is not required to hear a child's preference. Nevertheless, a judge may take a child's opinion into consideration, but he or she will weigh the information according to the child's age and level of maturity.
Will My Separation Agreement Carry Over into My Divorce Decree?
Yes, the custody and support agreements you reached in your separation agreement will likely carry over into your final decree. It's important to recognize, however, that the amount of child support must meet the state's minimum guidelines. While the court will likely accept an overage that you both agree to, it's unlikely to allow child support in an amount that comes in below the guidelines – unless it's legitimately in the children's best interests. This is because the right to child support belongs to the children and not to either parent.
What about Child Custody Modification?
The court recognizes that our lives are not static and that circumstances do change. If one or both of you has undergone a significant change in circumstances, it might warrant a child custody modification. Either of you can bring a Complaint to Modify Custody at any time, but you must be able to demonstrate that you've undergone a material change in circumstances (since the original determination) and that the modification is in the best interests of your children.
If You Have Questions About Divorce and Child Custody Arrangements, Consult with an Experienced Annapolis Child Custody Lawyer Today
Child custody concerns are among the most urgent in any divorce. If you have child custody questions, attorney Patrick Crawford at the Law Office of Patrick Crawford in Annapolis, Maryland, is here to help. Mr. Crawford has the experience, dedication, and compassion to help ensure that your child custody arrangements protect you and your children's rights now and into the future. For more information, please contact or call us at 1-410-216-7905 today.
Blog Home - Previous Post
How Can Patrick Help You?
Tell him about your legal issue and he will get back to you promptly.
He Respects Your Privacy. Privacy Policy
What is Pendente Lite Child Support?
How Does Divorce Impact Business Assets in Maryland?
How Do I Protect My Net Worth After Divorce?
How to Get Custody of a Child in Maryland?
How to File for Legal Separation?