MIL-OSI Export

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Damian Tobin, Lecturer in International Business, University College Cork

After the US captured Venezuela’s president at the start of 2026, Donald Trump promised to “unleash” the country’s oil supply. He wanted companies to invest US$100 billion (£74 billion) to get hold of it.

Big oil though, seems less than keen on that idea, appearing to consider Venezuela too expensive or risky. Exxon Mobil’s unenthusiastic response, describing Venezuela as “uninvestible”, even earned a personal rebuke from Trump.

So maybe Trump misunderstood how big oil works, and thought of oil firms as the quintessential risk takers – the ultimate exploiters of uncertainty. Perhaps he had in mind Daniel Day Lewis’s character in the film There Will be Blood, who was willing to risk everything to get his hands of more of the black stuff.

But while that may have been true for some oil firms in the early 1900s, in the 21st century, nothing could be further from the truth. Big oil in 2026 does not like uncertainty. It prefers to invest in what it knows, like plastics and petrochemicals. It does not want to get involved with things as uncertain as Venezuela and green energy.

This idea is backed by my own research on the international oil industry, which shows that large oil companies tend to base their business strategies on long term oil production.

And South American countries play only a minor role in this outlook. Instead, big oil is focused on two key areas: shale oil in the US, and expanding petrochemical production in Asia.

The low cost of shale oil extraction gives it significant cost advantages as a raw material for refineries, while Asia’s growing share of global manufacturing provides a growth market for petrochemicals.

This in turn is linked to oil companies seeking to exploit growing demand for plastics (and lower demand for transport fuels) as part of a clear and long term path to profit. That path is what matters most to oil companies, and Trump’s plan for Venezuela (nor the green transition for that matter) does not provide it.

The priority of profit is also the reason why governments who want greener or cheaper energy cannot rely on powerful oil companies to help them out.

Strength in oil

Underpinning the oil industry’s extreme strength in the global economy is its captive market, where consumer choice is limited to a small number of producers. In the case of the oil market, those consumers are nation states. And even those with large oil reserves of their own need the companies’ technology to refine it.

Venezuela’s oil reserves were once part of this international captive market. But research has shown that not oil is equal. And the range of products which can be manufactured from a barrel of it depends on a mix of geological characteristics and technical capabilities.

So while Venezuela produces more crude oil then it consumes, it needs to import fuels and petrochemicals to meet the needs of its economy. This is because it lacks the refineries to produce these products domestically.

International companies in the oil refining and services sectors control key technology and intellectual property in this area. Without their participation, Venezuela’s crude will remain unsuitable for international refineries.

This fundamental inequality around access to advanced refining technology means there is little relationship between a country’s oil reserves and whether or not it needs to import oil products.

Big oil may yet decide to stump up the investment required to open Venezuela’s oil industry if suitable guarantees are provided. But such state sponsored access places the risk with tax-payers, when those kind of guarantees could be better deployed in the development of clean energy.

And while society needs large firms to invest, politicians need to direct this investment towards productive opportunities. More cheap oil, petrochemicals and plastics are not the answer.

Governments need to recognise that the problem with oil companies is not that they take too many risks, but rather that they take insufficient risks in areas where investment is needed most. For as my research also shows, the retreat of the oil companies from green investment has been matched by a ramping up of their investment in high emission and heavily polluting plastics and petrochemicals.

Addressing this will not be easy. It will requires strong supranational coordination among states to influence the sector, by increasing the costs of oil production and limiting the construction of new infrastructure. But that’s a very different approach to trying to “unleash” the oil supply of a whole nation.

– ref. Why big oil is not interested in Venezuela – https://theconversation.com/why-big-oil-is-not-interested-in-venezuela-275763

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/19/why-big-oil-is-not-interested-in-venezuela-275763/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Howard, Senior Lecturer, Discipline of English and Writing, University of Sydney

This is an article in our Guide to the Classics series.

I first encountered William Golding’s 1954 novel Lord of the Flies in my final year of primary school in the UK. A long-term staple of English and Australian classrooms, it invites debate about human nature, morality and the creeping dangers of unchecked power and herd behaviour.

The cover of the edition I read bore an ink drawing of a severed pig’s head, its eyes closed, blood streaming from its mouth. The vivid, disturbing image remains fresh in my mind decades later. It felt less like an illustration than a portent.

Set during wartime, Lord of the Flies tells the tale of a group of British schoolboys marooned on a tropical desert island after the plane evacuating them crashes. With no adults to guide them, the boys attempt to build a makeshift social order, establishing rules and electing a leader. But the fragile system soon teeters and collapses. Fear and resentment take hold. Violence follows.

Among the younger boys, rumours circulate about a threatening presence on the island. The idea of a “beast” begins to influence behaviour, lending form to anxieties that might otherwise have remained diffuse and unspoken.

At the centre of the mounting tension is a struggle between Ralph and another boy, Jack. Ralph remains committed to rules and procedure – to the maintenance of order and the hope of rescue. Jack, on the other hand, grows increasingly impatient with the idea of restraint. Hunting becomes his priority, and with it comes a very different model of leadership, one grounded less in consent than in command.

Stuck in the middle is Piggy – an asthmatic, overweight and bespectacled boy whose real name we never learn. Intellectually alert, he grasps the symbolic importance of objects and concepts more clearly than most. But he is mocked, interrupted, and continually sidelined. In certain respects, Piggy serves as a barometer of the group’s moral health – and as a measure of Ralph’s character. To defend Piggy is to defend reason itself.

I remember our faltering discussions revolving around what I now recognise as an age-old question: nature or nurture? Were the murderous schoolboys shaped by their circumstances, or were those circumstances merely revealing something already present?

Golding, a schoolteacher deeply marked by his Navy service in World War Two, wrote his novel to say,

you think that now the war is over and an evil thing destroyed, you are safe because you are naturally kind and decent. But I know why the thing rose in Germany. I know it could happen in any country. It could happen here.

Its stark warning about the thin veneer of civilisation – and the speed with which it can give way – continues to resonate in our age of resurgent authoritarianism (including in the United States), routine atrocity (including Sudan, Gaza and Ukraine) and an increasingly feverish public sphere.

A new BBC adaptation of the novel, by Adolescence creator Jack Thorne, is now streaming, to mixed reviews. He told the ABC he sees resonances between the “climate of populism and hate” Golding was writing about in the early days of the Cold War, and our current moment.

The adolescent cruelty and rage he drew on to write his portrait of young toxic masculinity are infused into his Lord of the Flies.

A moral fable

Golding studied the sciences before switching to English literature and training as a teacher. His early career was interrupted by World War Two. In the Royal Navy, he served in the North Atlantic and took part in the D-Day landings at Normandy. He later described the conflict as “the great formative experience” of his life.

When he returned to teaching, he began drafting what would become Lord of the Flies. Former pupils at the provincial grammar school where he taught classics recalled their schoolmaster intently writing at his desk during lessons. There, he composed his despondent fable about the collapse of order among boys not unlike them.

In a 1965 essay, Golding insisted Lord of the Files was not a realist novel in the conventional sense, but a fable – and therefore unapologetically moral. As he put it: “The fabulist is a moralist. He cannot make a story without a human lesson tucked away in it.”

Golding knew this was deeply unfashionable, acknowledging most audiences “do not much like moral lessons”. But he stood by the approach, “with all its drawbacks and difficulties” – and knew “the pill has to be sugared, has to be witty or entertaining, or engaging in some way or other”.

Ironically, he famously came to detest the book that bought him fame and fortune, dismissing it later as “boring and crude”. He went on to write 12 other novels, winning the Booker Prize in 1980 for Rites of Passage. In 1983, he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature.

Human nature, revealed

The marooned schoolboys in the novel must decide how to look after and govern themselves. They start by attempting to reproduce the structures of the world they have left behind. An assembly is called and rules are agreed upon. A conch shell becomes a symbol of authority, granting the one who holds it the right to speak. A signal fire is lit in the hope of rescue.

At first, there is a real sense of possibility. The island appears abundant and beautiful. Freed from classrooms and the drudgery of routine, the boys experience a surge of excitement. Golding’s description of Ralph, one of the novel’s primary figures, captures that early exhiliration:

He patted the palm trunk softly; and forced at last to believe in the reality of the island, laughed delightedly again, and stood on his head.

But then things start to fall apart. Consensus proves difficult to maintain. Discipline falters. Responsibilities are shirked.

As allegiances shift, the boys divide and the balance of power alters. It unfolds gradually, through small concessions and the accumulated weight of slights and petty grievances. The island, once a setting for adventure, becomes an arena in which a darker understanding of human nature is revealed.

The names of Golding’s central protagonists are key to unlocking the work, written in the dying days of the British Empire. Ralph and Jack are borrowed from R.M. Ballanyte’s 1857 novel The Coral Island, a Victorian narrative in which a trio of shipwrecked English boys embody pluck, Christian virtue and imperial confidence.

In Ballantyne’s book, evil is external. It arrives in the guise of cannibals and pirates. The danger lies beyond the boys, not within them. Their moral certainty remains intact. Steadfast, they take solace in their own innate goodness. The island tests their ingenuity, but not their character.

Golding challenged those assumptions. Ballantyne’s island, he observed, belonged to the 19th century. His would belong to the 20th. If the earlier tale reflected what he called the “smugness” of its age, Lord of the Flies would interrogate the confidence of his own.

‘What one man could do to another’

The “truth” of the novel stemmed from Golding’s profound disillusionment. Before World War II, he believed in what he called “the perfectibility of social man” – the idea that the correct social structures would “produce goodwill” and that injustice could be cured through “reorganization” and reform. But after 1945, he understood “what one man could do to another”.

He was reflecting on the decades between the two world wars in Europe – the rise of fascism and the consolidation of autocratic regimes in Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia. What disturbed him more deeply than “one man killing another with a gun, or dropping a bomb on him” was “the vileness beyond all words that went on, year after year, in the totalitarian states”.

These crimes, he stressed, were carried out “skilfully, coldly, by educated men, doctors, lawyers, by men with a tradition of civilization behind them, to beings of their own kind”.

Western civilisation had neither eliminated cruelty, nor prevented brutality. In some cases, it had rendered them systematic and efficient. The problem had nothing to do with political systems or failed institutions. The problem was humanity.

He had come to believe “man was sick – not exceptional man, but average man”. He said “the best job I could do at the time was to trace the connection between the connection between his diseased nature and the international mess he gets himself into”.

He was clear about his book’s message:

if humanity has a future on this planet of hundred million years, it is unthinkable that it should spend those aeons in a ferment of national self-satisfaction and chauvinistic idiocies.

– ref. ‘It could happen here’: Lord of the Flies took its lessons from Hitler’s Germany. They speak to now – https://theconversation.com/it-could-happen-here-lord-of-the-flies-took-its-lessons-from-hitlers-germany-they-speak-to-now-275672

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/19/it-could-happen-here-lord-of-the-flies-took-its-lessons-from-hitlers-germany-they-speak-to-now-275672/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sebastian Maslow, Associate Professor, International Relations, Contemporary Japanese Politics & Society, University of Tokyo

Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi and her ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) got a historic landslide victory in last week’s parliamentary elections.

This marks the first time since its founding in 1955 that the conservative LDP controls a two-thirds supermajority in the lower house. If necessary, Takaichi’s cabinet could also overrule any opposition in the upper house of the Diet (Japan’s parliament), where her coalition still lacks a majority.

Given this, Takaichi now has a massive mandate to push her agenda. This includes boosting defence spending, strengthening the military and even potentially revising Japan’s pacifist constitution, which constrains the role of the Self-Defence Forces and forbids going to war.

So, does this mean Japan could become a more militarised state under Takaichi? And if so, what are the implications for regional security?

Countering China’s rise

Takaichi has portrayed herself as Japan’s Margaret Thatcher and the standard-bearer of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s legacy.

Abe, who led the LDP back to power in 2012, had pledged to “restore a strong Japan”. During his eight-year rule, Japan adopted a so-called “proactive pacifism”. Under this new security strategy, Japan began to depart from its postwar pacifism through a number of ways:

• strengthening the military
• lifting bans on arms exports
• building new security partnerships (including with NATO, the European Union and the Quad)
• consolidating its alliance with the United States.

In 2014, a new interpretation of the constitution also permitted Japan to engage in “collective self defence”, or aid an ally under attack.

Takaichi now sees her job as continuing Abe’s work. And her direction is clear.

Shortly after becoming prime minister last year, Takaichi triggered a spat with Beijing when she suggested Japan would come to Taiwan’s defence if it was attacked by China. Beijing retaliated with economic pressure and coercive rhetoric, but Takaichi refused to back down.

Neither Takaichi nor China’s leader, Xi Jinping, are in a hurry to improve diplomatic relations.

Beijing has urged Chinese tourists not to travel to Japan and warned that Takaichi’s moves threaten regional security and the international order.

Takaichi, meanwhile, is hoping an assertive China will help her overcome domestic opposition to her security agenda. So far, the public supports her government, too. In a poll after the election, 69% approved of her cabinet’s performance.

How Takaichi wants to transform Japan’s military

Takaichi’s government will soon begin work on a revision of its National Security Strategy from 2022. It is likely to adopt her declared “crisis management” approach, combining security and economic objectives with industrial policy.

Despite mounting public debt, Takaichi has already increased defence spending to 2% of Japan’s GDP ahead of schedule, and has pledged to spend more.

Her government is also considering acquiring nuclear submarines and has announced plans to further deregulate arms exports, ultimately allowing the transfer of lethal weapons.

Japan has already permitted the export of Patriot PAC-3 air defence missile systems to the United States to replenish stocks sent to Ukraine and Israel. Japan has also agreed to sell Mogami-class frigates to Australia and has signed deals with Italy and the United Kingdom to co-develop a next-generation fighter jet.

In addition, Japan is participating in a NATO-led initiative to supply Ukraine with military equipment. While Japan’s involvement is limited to non-lethal arms, this could lead to more defence cooperation with NATO overall.

On the domestic intelligence front, Takaichi has pledged to pass a new anti-spy law, establish a National Intelligence Bureau modelled on the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and issue a national intelligence strategy.

These initiatives are intended to bolster the country’s intelligence capabilities, which have often been hindered by bureaucratic infighting. The long-term aim is eventually joining the “Five Eyes” network.

Stronger ties with the Trump administration

Faced with threats from China, North Korea and Russia, Japan has little choice but to maintain its security alliance with the US.

At the top of Takaichi’s agenda, therefore, is managing the US–Japan alliance in the era of the so-called “Donroe doctrine”. This is Trump’s new security strategy that shifts the focus of US security towards the Western hemisphere, potentially distracting from the Indo-Pacific.

Trump endorsed Takaichi during her election campaign. And when she goes to Washington on March 19, she will likely attempt to influence the White House’s China agenda before Trump visits Beijing in April.

In order to offset the potential impact of a trade deal between the US and China, Takaichi could also use her new political capital to accelerate the implementation of Japan’s own US$550 billion (A$777 billion) investment pledge in the US.

Big challenges ahead

Ten years ago, Angela Merkel, then-chancellor of Germany, was hailed as the “new leader of the free world”. Now, Takaichi is being celebrated as the “world’s most powerful woman”.

How she uses her new-found power to manoeuvre in a world of great-power rivalry and uncertain alliances will define her legacy and shape the region for years to come.

– ref. Make Japan strong again: Sanae Takaichi’s plan to transform her country’s military – https://theconversation.com/make-japan-strong-again-sanae-takaichis-plan-to-transform-her-countrys-military-275676

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/19/make-japan-strong-again-sanae-takaichis-plan-to-transform-her-countrys-military-275676/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marten Risius, Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Psychology, The University of Queensland

Online chat service Discord has announced it will begin testing age verification for some users, joining a growing list of platforms trying to work out who is actually behind the screen.

The move comes as governments around the world push for stronger protections of young people online. The United Kingdom and France have imposed age verification for visitors of adult content pages. Australia now mandates that social media platforms ensure their account holders are older than 16.

Many people feel immediately uneasy about online age or ID checks. Will the log-in process become more time consuming? Will proving how old we are mean giving up anonymity and force us to hand over sensitive documents to private tech firms?

Will mandatory age verification impact our ability to browse, speak and participate online, making us “transparent citizens” tracked by corporations or the government?

These concerns are not unfounded. In fact, research points to even more risks. Sharing identity-related data makes breaches or identity theft more likely. Age verification systems could be abused for surveillance or lead to discrimination, especially for marginalised groups.

However, our research shows it is possible to provide truly anonymous, safe age checks online.

Not all age assurance works the same

Age assurance is the umbrella term for all kinds of methods that can help determine someone’s age online. This includes age verification – proving the user’s age, often with an official ID.

How age assurance is put into practice differs vastly across jurisdictions and platforms. The Australian government demands firms must take “reasonable steps” to prevent kids from making social media accounts, but the age assurance methods can vary.

The government of France provides more guidance, but still leaves implementation of age proofs to third parties. The European Union is actively preparing a reference implementation for an age verification solution, albeit it has not put age restriction policies in place yet.

To keep things simple, platforms are increasingly turning to facial age estimation. Users are asked to scan their face so an algorithm can guess how old they are.

At first, this may sound less intrusive than showing a government-issued ID. In practice, it often requires handing over highly sensitive biometric data to private companies. Unlike a password, your face can’t be changed if the data is stolen. Such age estimation is also prone to errors.

There is a plethora of alternative age assurance tech. These include user behaviour analysis, payment-based verification, document scans (such as government-issued IDs), video-based verification services involving these documents, and electronic attestations – such as the electronic passports familiar from border control at airports.

There’s no need to share sensitive data

One highly secure approach allows users to prove a single fact – such as being over 18 – not only with high certainty, but without revealing their name, address, or even date of birth. It’s based on cryptographic digital attestations.

For example, the German eID exchanges data directly between a microprocessor in a person’s plastic “eID card” and the platform. The microprocessor proves it belongs to a government-issued eID via a cryptographic key, which is shared with 9,999 other eIDs. This means the only thing a platform learns is that one of 10,000 potential people signed up.

When the service sends the current date and minimum age required to the eID, the microprocessor uses the date of birth, computes the current age and simply responds whether the user is old enough.

The EU digital identity and Google wallets are working on a slightly different approach. It doesn’t rely on special microprocessors built into physical cards, but on hardware components common in mobile phones.

This makes the approach more broadly applicable. These solutions involve highly advanced cryptography that communicates to the platform that a person possesses a digital document proving they’re older than 18, but without revealing any further details.

As you can see, age verification systems can be designed with unlinkability at their core. That means neither the government nor the platform can track a user’s activities despite being able to accurately verify their age.

The real issue isn’t age verification – it’s who runs it

If any government is serious about age assurance, the technical design will matter more than the policy itself.

Privacy-friendly age verification is complex and expensive. It will require governments to invest in the technical details, ensuring the age verification is robust while meeting privacy expectations.

And the software code will need to be open-access to allow for peer review. Transparency is the strongest safeguard against false promises made by the government or hidden attacks by cyber criminals trying to steal the data.

Government involvement must also convincingly resist looming threats of “function creep”, where the scope of data capture through an age verification infrastructure can quickly be changed through political decisions. There is no technical safeguard against such abuse – and governments need to earn their citizens’ trust in future legislation.

Indeed, the stakes are high: a single data breach can easily destroy public trust. If citizens don’t trust the age verification tool, they may just circumvent age controls altogether, as has happened in France.

The bigger picture

The internet is entering a new phase. For years, platforms avoided knowing the age of their users. That appears no longer politically or socially sustainable.

The real choice is not between safety and privacy. It is between two very different technical paths. One path normalises biometric (face, fingerprint and similar) checks, expanding the amount of sensitive data handed to private companies.

The alternative uses advanced cryptographic solutions that confirm age while protecting anonymity.

Age verification does not have to end anonymous participation online. Done properly, it could be the technology that protects it.

– ref. Age verification online can be done safely and privately. Here’s how – https://theconversation.com/age-verification-online-can-be-done-safely-and-privately-heres-how-276104

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/19/age-verification-online-can-be-done-safely-and-privately-heres-how-276104/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alex Fuerbach, Professor, Photonics Research Centre, Macquarie University

Scientists at Microsoft Research in the United States have demonstrated a system called Silica for writing and reading information in ordinary pieces of glass which can store two million books’ worth of data in a thin, palm-sized square.

In a paper published today in Nature, the researchers say their tests suggest the data will be readable for more than 10,000 years.

What tiny pulses of light can do

The new system, called Silica, uses extremely short flashes of laser light to inscribe bits of information into a block of ordinary glass.

These pulses are called “ultrashort” for a reason. Each one lasts mere quadrillionths of a second (aka femtoseconds or 10^–15 s).

To get your head around that: comparing ten femtoseconds to a single minute is like comparing one minute to the entire age of the universe.

These incredibly short flashes can be used to generate even shorter bursts of light lasting attoseconds (a thousandth of a femtosecond or 10^–18 s).

These attosecond bursts can be used to observe the motion of electrons inside atoms and molecules – and in 2023 the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded for pioneering work in this area, to Ferenc Krausz (coincidentally my former PhD supervisor), Anne L’Huillier and Pierre Agostini.

Writing in glass

Femtosecond laser pulses also have a practical technological application. They can be used to make changes deep inside transparent materials such as glass.

These lasers produce light of a wavelength that normally passes through glass without interaction. However, when ultrashort pulses of this light are tightly focused on a particular region, it produces an intense electric field that alters the molecular structure of the glass in the focal zone.

This means only a tiny three-dimensional volume, often less than a millionth of a metre to a side, is affected. This is called a “voxel”, which can be made at precisely controlled positions in the glass.

Decades of research

The idea of using laser-written voxels for three-dimensional data storage is not new.

Eric Mazur and co-workers at Harvard University in the US investigated volumetric optical storage back in the 1990s. Their groundbreaking work demonstrated that permanent data structures could be inscribed into common glass using femtosecond lasers.

In 2014, Peter Kazansky and colleagues at the University of Southampton in the UK reported data storage in fused quartz glass with a “seemingly unlimited lifetime”. This helped to to establish the idea of ultra-stable glass-based memory devices.

In 2024, Kazansky spun out a company called SPhotonix to commercialise what they describe as “5D glass nanostructuring”. Their vision of a “5D memory crystal” even made its way into popular culture: a similar device appeared in the latest Mission Impossible film, The Final Reckoning, portrayed as a secure vault capable of containing a powerful but sinister AI.

A complete system

The Silica project does not claim to have made a new scientific breakthrough. Instead the team presents the first comprehensive demonstration of a practical real-world technology.

Their work brings together all the key elements of such a storage platform based on femtosecond lasers and glass. It includes encoding data, writing, reading, decoding and error correction. The work explores different strategies for reliability, writing speed, energy efficiency and data density, and involves systematic assessments of the data lifetime.

Silica looked at two main types of laser-written voxels.

The first consists of tiny elongated void-like features created by laser-driven “micro-explosions” inside the glass. These allow an extremely high storage density of 1.59 gigabits per cubic millimetre.

The second type involves making subtle changes in the local refractive index of the glass. These can be written faster, using less energy – but each cubic millimetre of glass can hold less data. This method can write about 65.9 megabits per second, and the authors say this could be increased with more laser beams.

Finally, accelerated ageing experiments suggest that the written data, even in the case of the more sensitive phase voxels, could remain stable for more than 10,000 years. This vastly exceeds the lifetime of conventional archival storage media such as magnetic tape or hard drives.

The future

When I began my PhD in the late 1990s at the Vienna University of Technology, we were one of only a handful of laboratories worldwide that had the expertise to build lasers capable of generating femtosecond pulses.

Today, after decades of technological development, ultrafast lasers with the reliability, power and repetition rates required for industrial use can be purchased off the shelf.

Dense, fast and energy-efficient archival data storage is an exciting real-world application of these lasers. As ultrafast photonics continues to mature, I have no doubt more applications will follow. Exciting times ahead.

– ref. Is this glass square the long, long future of data storage? – https://theconversation.com/is-this-glass-square-the-long-long-future-of-data-storage-276263

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/19/is-this-glass-square-the-long-long-future-of-data-storage-276263/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Timothy Graham, Associate Professor in Digital Media, Queensland University of Technology

A new study published today in Nature has found that X’s algorithm – the hidden system or “recipe” that governs which posts appear in your feed and in which order – shifts users’ political opinions in a more conservative direction.

Led by Germain Gauthier from Bocconi University in Italy, it is a rare, real-world randomised experimental study on a major social media platform. And it builds on a growing body of research that shows how these platforms can shape people’s political attitudes.

Two different algorithms

The researchers randomly assigned 4,965 active US-based X users to one of two groups.

The first group used X’s default “For You” feed. This features an algorithm that selects and ranks posts it thinks users will be more likely to engage with, including posts from accounts that they don’t necessarily follow.

The second group used a chronological feed. This only shows posts from accounts users follow, displayed in the order they were posted. The experiment ran for seven weeks during 2023.

Users who switched from the chronological feed to the “For You” feed were 4.7 percentage points more likely to prioritise policy issues favoured by US Republicans (for example, crime, inflation and immigration). They were also more likely to view the criminal investigation into US President Donald Trump as unacceptable.

They also shifted in a more pro-Russia direction in regards to the war in Ukraine. For example, these users became 7.4 percentage points less likely to view Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy positively, and scored slightly higher on a pro-Russian attitude index overall.

The researchers also examined how the algorithm produced these effects.

They found evidence that the algorithm increased the share of right-leaning content by 2.9 percentage points overall (and 2.5 points among political posts), compared with the chronological feed.

It also significantly demoted the share of posts from traditional news organisations’ accounts while promoting or boosting posts from political activists.

One of the most concerning findings of the study is the longer-term effects of X’s algorithmic feed. The study showed the algorithm nudged users towards following more right-leaning accounts, and that the new following patterns endured even after switching back to the chronological feed.

In other words, turning the algorithm off didn’t simply “reset” what people see. It had a longer-lasting impact beyond its day-to-day effects.

One piece of a much bigger picture

This new study supports findings of similar studies.

For example, a study in 2022, before Elon Musk had bought Twitter and rebranded it as X, found the platform’s algorithmic systems amplified content from the mainstream political right more than the left in six out of the seven countries.

An experimental study from 2025 re-ranked X feeds to reduce exposure to content that expresses antidemocratic attitudes and partisan animosity. They found this shifted feelings towards their political opponents by more than two points on a 0–100 “feeling thermometer”. This is a shift the authors argued would have normally taken about three years to occur organically in the general population.

My own research offers another piece of evidence to this picture of algorithmic bias on X. Along with my colleague Mark Andrejevic, I analysed engagement data (such as likes and reposts) from prominent political accounts during the final stages of the 2024 US election.

Our findings unearthed a sudden and unusual spike in engagement with Musk’s account after his endorsement of Trump on July 13 – the day of the assassination attempt on Trump. Views on Musk’s posts surged by 138%, retweets by 238%, and likes by 186%. This far outstripped increases on other accounts.

After July 13, right-leaning accounts on X gained significantly greater visibility than progressive ones. The “playing field” for attention and engagement on the platform was tilted thereafter towards right-leaning accounts – a trend that continued for the remainder of the time period we analysed in that study.

Not a niche product

This matters because we are not talking about a niche product.

X has more than 400 million users globally. It has become embedded as infrastructure – a key source of political and social communication. And once technical systems become infrastructure, they can become invisible – like background objects that we barely think about, but which shape society at its foundations and can be exploited under our noses.

Think of the overpass bridges Robert Moses designed in New York in the 1930s. These seemed like inert objects. But they were designed to be very low, to exclude people of colour from taking buses to recreation areas in Long Island.

Similar to this, the design and governance of social media platforms also has real consequences.

The point is that X’s algorithms are not neutral tools. They are an editorial force, shaping what people know, whom they pay attention to, who the outgroup is and what “we” should do about or to them – and, as this new study shows, what people come to believe.

The age of taking platform companies at their word about the design and effects of their own algorithms must come to an end. Governments around the world – including in Australia where the eSafety Commissioner has powers to drive “algorithmic transparency and accountability” and require that platforms report on how their algorithms contribute to or reduce harms – need to mandate genuine transparency over how these systems work.

When infrastructure become harmful or unsafe, nobody bats an eye when governments do something to protect us. The same needs to happen urgently for social media infrastructures.

– ref. A few weeks of X’s algorithm can make you more right-wing – and it doesn’t wear off quickly – https://theconversation.com/a-few-weeks-of-xs-algorithm-can-make-you-more-right-wing-and-it-doesnt-wear-off-quickly-276153

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/19/a-few-weeks-of-xs-algorithm-can-make-you-more-right-wing-and-it-doesnt-wear-off-quickly-276153/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gregory Radisic, Fellow at the Centre for Space, Cyberspace and Data Law; Senior Teaching Fellow, Faculty of Law, Bond University

On January 30 2026, SpaceX filed an application with the US Federal Communications Commission for a megaconstellation of up to one million satellites to power data centres in space.

The proposal envisions satellites operating between 500 and 2,000 kilometres in low Earth orbit. Some of the orbits are designed for near-constant exposure to sunlight. The public can currently submit comments on this proposal.

SpaceX’s filing is just the latest among exponentially growing satellite megaconstellation proposals. Such satellites operate with a single purpose and have short replacement life cycles of about five years.

As of February 2026, approximately 14,000 active satellites are in orbit. An additional 1.23 million proposed satellite projects are in various stages of development.

The approval process for these satellites focuses almost entirely on the limited technical info companies have to submit to regulators.

Cultural, spiritual, and most environmental impacts aren’t taken into account – but they should be.

The night sky will drastically change

At this scale of growth, the night sky will change permanently and globally for generations to come.

Satellites in low Earth orbit reflect sunlight for about two hours after sunset and before sunrise. Despite engineering efforts to make them less bright, truck-sized satellites from many megaconstellations look like moving points in the night sky. Projections show future satellites will significantly increase this light pollution.

In 2021, astronomers estimated that in less than a decade, 1 in every 15 points of light in the night sky would be a moving satellite. That estimate only included the 65,000 megaconstellation satellites proposed at the time.

Once deployed at a scale of millions, the impacts on the night sky may not be easily reversed.

While the average satellite only lasts about five years, companies design these megaconstellations for nearly continuous replacement and expansion. This locks in a continuous, industrialised presence in the night sky.

All this is causing a space-based “shifting baseline syndrome”, where each new generation accepts a progressively more degraded night sky. Criss-crossing satellites become the new normal.

And for the first time in human history, this shifting baseline means kids today won’t grow up with the same night sky every previous generation of humanity had access to.

Houston, we have a ‘mega’ problem

Concerns over the sheer volume of proposed satellites come from many sides.

Scientific concerns include bright reflections and radio emissions from satellites that will disrupt astronomy.

Industry experts also note traffic management and logistical concerns. There’s currently no form of unified space traffic management in the same way that exists in aviation, for example.

Megaconstellations also increase the risk of Kessler syndrome, a runaway chain reaction of collisions. There are already 50,000 pieces of debris in orbit that are ten centimetres or larger. If satellites stopped all collision avoidance manoeuvres, the latest data shows we can expect a major collision in 3.8 days.

Major cultural concerns abound, too. Satellite light pollution will negatively impact Indigenous uses of the night sky for longstanding oral traditions, navigation, hunting, and spiritual traditions.

Launching so many satellites uses up vast amounts of fossil fuels, damaging the ozone layer. After the satellites have served their purpose, the end-of-life plan is to burn them up in the atmosphere. This poses another environmental concern – depositing vast quantities of metals into the stratosphere, causing ozone depletion and other potentially harmful chemical reactions.

All this feeds into legal concerns. Under international space law, countries – not companies – are liable for harm caused by their space objects.

Space lawyers are increasingly trying to understand if international space law can actually hold corporations or private individuals accountable. This is especially important as the risk of damage, death or permanent environmental damage grows.

---

Read more: Property and sovereignty in space − as countries and companies take to the stars, they could run into disputes

---

We can no longer ignore the gaps in regulation

Currently, the main regulations concerning satellite proposals are technical, such as deciding which radio frequencies they will use. At national levels, regulators focus on launch safety, lessening environmental impacts on Earth, and liability if something goes wrong.

What these regulations don’t capture is how hundreds of thousands of bright satellites change the night sky for scientific study, navigation, Indigenous teaching and ceremony, and cultural continuity.

These are not traditional “environmental” harms, nor are they technical engineering concerns. They’re cultural impacts that fall into a regulatory blind spot.

This is why the world needs a Dark Skies Impact Assessment, as proposed by space lawyers Gregory Radisic and Natalie Gillespie.

It’s a systematic way to identify, document, and meaningfully consider all the impacts of a proposed satellite constellation before it goes ahead.

How would such an assessment work?

First, evidence must be gathered from all stakeholders. Astronomers (both amateur and professional), atmospheric scientists, environmental researchers, cultural scholars, affected communities, and industry all bring their perspectives.

Second, it’s essential to model any cumulative effects of the satellites. Assessments should analyse how constellations will change night sky visibility and skyglow, orbital congestion, and the risk of casualties on the ground.

Third, it will define clear criteria for when unobstructed sky visibility is critical for science, navigation, education, cultural practice, and shared human heritage.

Fourth, it must include mitigation pathways such as brightness reduction, orbital design changes, and deployment adjustments to lessen harm. This should include incentives for using as few satellites as possible for a given project.

Finally, the findings must be transparent, independently reviewable, and directly tied to licensing and policy decisions.

It’s not a veto tool

A Dark Skies Impact Assessment doesn’t prevent space development. It clarifies trade-offs and improves decision making.

It can lead to design choices that reduce brightness and visual interference, orbital configurations that lessen cultural impact, earlier and more meaningful consultation, and cultural considerations where harm can’t be avoided.

Most importantly, it ensures that communities affected by satellite constellations aren’t finding out about them after approval has already been granted and bright lights crawl across their skies.

The question is not whether the night sky will change – it’s already changing. Now is the time for governments and international institutions to design fair processes before those changes become permanent.

– ref. Too many satellites? Earth’s orbit is on track for a catastrophe – but we can stop it – https://theconversation.com/too-many-satellites-earths-orbit-is-on-track-for-a-catastrophe-but-we-can-stop-it-275430

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/19/too-many-satellites-earths-orbit-is-on-track-for-a-catastrophe-but-we-can-stop-it-275430/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian A. Wright, Associate Professor in Environmental Science, Western Sydney University

There’s little worse as a pool lifeguard than hearing the words “code brown” come through your radio. For swimmers on a hot day, there’s also little worse than being told to immediately get out of the water because there’s poo floating in the pool.

During hot summers, public pools in Australia are often crowded with families and children. The risk of “code brown” incidents at your local pool is probably substantial.

So how is a public pool cleaned after poo or vomit accidentally ends up in the water – and how long before it’s safe to get back in?

The short answer is: it depends. Let’s dive in.

The dangers of poo in the pool

Contaminated swimming pools are hazardous for swimmers. They have been linked to outbreaks of “crypto”, short for cryptosporidiosis. It’s a highly contagious gastric illness and has unpleasant symptoms including diarrhoea, stomach cramps, fever, nausea and vomiting.

New crypto cases are monitored as it’s a notifiable disease in Australia. If multiple cases are traced to a swimming pool, the pool will be closed for extra cleaning and chlorine treatment.

There are other pathogens, such as viruses, that can infect swimmers using pools exposed to poo or vomit incidents. For example, one study in the United States found rapid onset vomiting and diarrhoea (acute gastroenteritis) affect 28% of swimmers who’d used a norovirus-contaminated swimming pool.

Dealing with an ‘aquatic incident’

Responses for a code brown or vomit follow the official health guidelines for public swimming pools under state or territory public health laws.

However, the specific protocol for the staff will also differ depending on the age of the pool, the type of filtration system, chemicals used for disinfecting the water, and … the type of the poo.

Broadly speaking, if a solid stool or vomit is found, the pool is closed and the poo or vomit must be scooped out using a pool scoop or bucket. Then, it should be discarded down the sewer.

When all the particulates have been removed, a pool vacuum is placed in the water for additional cleaning, and the chlorine concentration is raised for an extended period to disinfect the entire pool.

A pool can be reopened once all of the water has been through the pool’s filtration system. This is known as pool “turnover”. How long this takes depends on the age of the pool and its filtration system. Older pools may take eight hours or longer, but newer pools can be as quick as 25 minutes.

Generally, when staff have followed all the proper guidelines, you can assume the water is safe to swim again when the pool is reopened.

Sometimes, you need superchlorination

The protocol changes for loose stool or diarrhoea. The pool is still closed to the public and the particles are scooped out as best as possible.

Then, the chlorine levels are raised and kept at a higher-than-normal level for a bit over a day. This is called shock superchlorination. After this the chlorine levels fall back to safe swimming levels, the other pool chemicals are rebalanced, and the pool reopened.

Chlorine is one of the most common types of disinfectants used in public swimming pools. You might hear lifeguards talk about free chlorine and total chlorine when referring to pool water quality.

Free chlorine is the “active” part of chlorine. Once it makes contact and kills potentially harmful germs (such as bacteria, protozoa or virus), the chlorine is “inactivated” upon reacting with various compounds, and turns into combined chlorine.

In fact, that strong chlorine smell around swimming pools comes from combined chlorine products called chloramines. These are produced when free chlorine reacts with substances such as urine or perspiration in the water.

Lifeguards also monitor pool water quality throughout the day, performing manual checks and keeping an eye on automatic measurements.

On busy days chlorine might be checked every three hours to ensure levels are maintained within specific ranges to maintain optimal pool water quality. This is known as “balancing the water”.

Don’t go to the pool when sick

It’s important to take precautions when visiting a pool to ensure that you and everyone around you stays healthy during and after your visit.

The best way to do this is to not visit the pool if you’re feeling unwell or have had diarrhoea in the past two weeks, or if you have been diagnosed with cryptosporidiosis or infections such as E. coli, shigella or viruses.

Swimming can be fun and exciting for kids who might forget about a bathroom break. Parents should take their babies and toddlers to the toilet every 20–30 minutes to prevent accidents from occurring.

For babies and toddlers, swim nappies are encouraged to prevent accidental code browns. However, the disposable option are usually not effective at containing urine or poo. Reusable swim nappies are a far better option, designed to provide a snug fit.

If you see a poo or vomit at the pool, get out of the water and tell a lifeguard or staff member immediately. Then, follow all directions given by staff members and seek medical attention if you feel unwell in the days following the incident.

– ref. After ‘code brown’, how long before the pool is safe again? Water quality experts explain – https://theconversation.com/after-code-brown-how-long-before-the-pool-is-safe-again-water-quality-experts-explain-274856

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/19/after-code-brown-how-long-before-the-pool-is-safe-again-water-quality-experts-explain-274856/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

After a coup by the Liberals’ conservative faction, the party has dumped its first female leader Sussan Ley, who had dire polling, in favour of Angus Taylor.

Jane Hume, from the moderate side of the party, won the position of deputy leader. Before entering politics Hume worked in the financial sector. Her win in last week’s ballot came after a turbulent year for her, with mistakes in the election campaign, and then being removed from the frontbench by Ley.

Now back in a big way, Hume takes the shadow portfolio of employment, industrial relations, productivity and deregulation, which will give her a major role in the economic debate.

On her new roles, Hume says she wants to get Australia’s industrial relations system working for employees and employers:

I can understand why previous Coalition governments have been timid on industrial relations reform. They are still scarred by WorkChoices back in 2007. And that’s an easy slogan, I think, for Labor governments to throw, or Labor oppositions to throw, at Liberals and at the Coalition. I’m really not interested in revisiting WorkChoices.

I’m very much interested in looking at job opportunities and career opportunities. What is it that my kids and their kids are going to be looking for in a workplace? […] How do we get our industrial relations system working for both employees and employers? And to some extent, I think that requires a new level of imagination. We want workplace flexibility.

On what a Coalition childcare policy may look like, Hume points to restoring choice and rejecting “dependency” in Labor’s one-size-fits-all approach to childcare:

I do think that there has been an objective, if you like, of dependency that has been part of the Labor Party’s tactics of government, but that’s not healthy. And we can see it in something like childcare.

We need to make sure that we encourage innovation and aspiration, that we reward effort so that when people want to step up and say, hey, I’d really like to start a business, I’d like to really start a family, I’m going to work really hard so that I can send my child to the school that I choose, that there are opportunities for families and individuals to do exactly that.

[A] one-size-fits-all approach [makes] the place a little greyer. I’d like to inject some optimism and some colour back into the Australian economy and to society.

On women in the Liberal party, Hume says the party needs to attract more women but rejects the idea of quotas, saying she’s proud to have made it on merit alone:

I fundamentally believe that we need more women in parliament from every party, not just the Liberal Party. Women’s voices are more than 50% of the Australian population. It’s really important that their voices are heard loudly and clearly in the places where decisions get made about their lives. And I have always been a champion of women within my party.

When we talk about female representation, it’s almost like people say the word “quotas” in the same breath and it’s not that binary. […] There are so many different ways of doing this and quotas is only one way. And it’s one that doesn’t necessarily suit the culture or the nature of the Liberal Party.

I think that the women that I know within the Liberal Party, both those that aspire to be in parliament and those that are already there, would feel a level of insult if they felt that they needed special dispensation just for their presence. […] I love the fact that I know that I got to where I am on merit alone and that my female colleagues did the same. It makes us more powerful, more confident and more able to do our jobs.

Asked whether the Liberals need to run a female candidate in the Farrer by-election to maximise their competitiveness, Hume says a women candidate be “terrific” but stresses the decision is up to the party organisation.

There’s no doubt that female candidates are hard workers, they’re great communicators, they feel very representative of the community and they tend to know their communities extremely well.

I’d like to see female candidates in every seat across the country because the more women we have in parliament, the better represented women’s voices are.

Reflecting on how she has changed in her nearly 10 years in parliament Hume said she was surprised how little of her business experience translated to politics:

I think I’m far less naive. I did come in bright-eyed, bushy-tailed, nothing but a ponytail and a dream. And I did feel at that stage too that perhaps my business experience would translate over easily to politics. They are very different beasts.

In business, when teams work together, […] you can be part of the boat that rises on the tide. Politics is a little bit more of a zero-sum game, one in one out. You’re either the party of government or the party of opposition, you’re in the ministry, or you are out of the ministry. […] Because of that, it can create interesting relationships, challenges that perhaps I hadn’t expected before I entered parliament. But I love it. […] What I didn’t realise, but I love most about the job, is that every single day is different.

I think it’s a far better workplace now than it was when I first arrived. It’s far more welcoming to newcomers and to those that might not necessarily fit the cookie-cutter mould of an Australian politician.

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: New Liberal Deputy Jane Hume on why she wants a woman contesting every seat – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-new-liberal-deputy-jane-hume-on-why-she-wants-a-woman-contesting-every-seat-276271

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/19/politics-with-michelle-grattan-new-liberal-deputy-jane-hume-on-why-she-wants-a-woman-contesting-every-seat-276271/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Johra Kayeser Fatima, Senior Lecturer, Marketing, University of Canberra

In Australia, around 16% of major road accidents (such as multi-vehicle crashes and pedestrian collisions) involve distracted driving.

Distracted driving happens when people shift their attention from the primary task of driving to a secondary task such as using a mobile phone or eating.

We recently examined the specific effects of different distraction types on driving performance – and discovered some carried a greater risk than others.

What we studied

Driving distractions that cause accidents can happen for any of these reasons:

• auditory distractions, such as listening to music, having a conversation or hearing a baby cry

• visual distractions, such as looking at a navigator or passengers

• cognitive distractions such as thinking, daydreaming, or future planning

• behavioural distractions such as texting, calling, fixing a mirror or eating/drinking.

In our study we used a driving simulator in a controlled laboratory setting to systematically manipulate distraction conditions and assess their impact on driving.

The simulator had three screens with nearly 180° peripheral vision in a driving scenario.

We distracted participants in four ways. We:

• called their mobile phone while they were driving (auditory distraction)

• asked them to locate a specific key of a computer keyboard located in front of them, which was a part of the driving simulator (visual distraction, as drivers need to look at the key by moving their eyes from road on the screen)

• engaged them in a conversation (cognitive distraction)

• instructed them to move a cup from one side of their driving seat to the other (behavioural distraction).

We studied 103 Australian drivers aged 16–82 in the Australian Capital Territory, using a road deviation measure to reflect the “sway” of the vehicle.

How did these distractions impact driving?

Participants’ driving was worse when they were involved in listening (auditory distraction) and when they were asked to do a task (behavioural distraction) compared with the other two types of distractions (cognitive and visual).

The reason is likely to be that our brains struggle to concentrate on driving and deal with these distractions at the same time. The result? An increased risk of making a mistake on the road.

The results did surprise us. Before the study, we assumed visual distractions would impact drivers most but that was not the case with our results.

A possible explanation is that when drivers intentionally look away from the road, they mentally predict what will likely to take place during the next few seconds. This is an internal decision.

That is not the case for most auditory distractions – these are largely created by others and often happen unexpectedly, like a baby crying or hearing a favourite song on the radio. Drivers may not be mentally prepared for this type of distraction.

Also, audio distractions can happen any time, even in a complex driving moment (such as high traffic or merging). Drivers are less likely to take their eyes off the road in these complex moments.

It must be noted these four distractions can be interrelated (a phone ringing is mainly an auditory distraction but it also sparks the brain to do something, which is cognitive). And you may also look at your phone, which is is a visual distraction.

In our study, we used verbal conversations as a measure of cognitive distractions but drivers can also be cognitively distracted by thinking about problems or being in a hurry.

Our study supports previous research investigating in-vehicle distractions.

Mobile phone usage is the big one – a United States study found using (not just hearing it ring) a phone while driving increases the chances of a collision by up to four times.

Australian research found non technology-based activities – such as eating, drinking, smoking and interacting with passengers – all have the potential to increase crash risk as well.

So, how do we make our roads safer?

Our findings suggest there are a few key takeaways for drivers, educators, government bodies and road safety organisations.

On an individual level, drivers need to be aware of the auditory and behavioural distractions they face, and the potential impact on road safety. We found people often don’t know which distractions negatively influence their driving the most.

While many drivers talk with passengers, it can affect their locus of control and driving behaviour. They therefore need to be mindful of the level of noise inside the vehicle and try to avoid arguments or noisy conversations.

Podcasts and audio books can have a similar effect on driving performance.

Inside vehicle distractions are increasing with the rapid growth of technologies such as smartphones, smart watches and navigation systems. It is therefore essential drivers are also aware of how to use (or not to use) these gadgets safely.

---

Read more: Yes, those big touchscreens in cars are dangerous and buttons are coming back

---

Road safety organisations and government bodies must develop road safety promotions that highlight inside vehicle distractions (in particular, auditory and behavioural types). Often, these promotions only focus on external distractions such as poor weather, road conditions and pedestrian behaviour.

---

We would like to acknowledge Hilmi Khan, research assistant in this project for his contribution.

– ref. Using your phone while driving is dangerous. What about listening to music or eating? – https://theconversation.com/using-your-phone-while-driving-is-dangerous-what-about-listening-to-music-or-eating-273236

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/19/using-your-phone-while-driving-is-dangerous-what-about-listening-to-music-or-eating-273236/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Troy McEwan, Professor of Clinical and Forensic Psychology, Swinburne University of Technology

In 2024, 38 Australian women were murdered by a partner or ex-partner. Thankfully, new data show the number of women killed by intimate partners has reduced to 32 over the most recent reporting period. The annual rate to June 2025 was among the lowest on record.

Nonetheless, more needs to be done to get the number of intimate partner homicides to zero. Thanks to tireless advocacy by many, the federal government has a target to reduce female victims of homicide by 25% per year. It’s part of the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children.

One common way of trying to prevent intimate partner and family homicide is through risk assessment and management. Risk assessments are used by police, family violence sector agencies and others to prioritise cases where harm seems most likely.

Sadly, our new research, published in the Journal of Family Violence, suggests it’s almost impossible to use these risk assessments to accurately predict who will attempt to kill their partner.

How do we assess risk?

Completing a risk assessment involves identifying the presence of “risk factors” in a potential perpetrator: characteristics that are thought to be associated with increased risk of homicide.

Past research has found women who are killed by a partner are more likely than abused women generally to have experienced things like strangulation, stalking, controlling behaviour and threats to kill.

Because they are more common in homicide cases, many people believe these kinds of characteristics are risk factors that can help them predict future homicide. Unfortunately, that’s not true.

Homicide is (thankfully) extremely rare. In Victoria, there were about 18 family violence-related homicides for every 100,000 family violence reports made to police in 2024–25.

Because it’s so rare, it’s virtually impossible to predict who might be a victim of homicide, or who will commit a homicide, even when lots of risk factors are present.

Our research

Our recent research showed this in a population of nearly 40,000 family violence reports recorded by Victoria Police.

We followed every person for 12 months in police databases to see who was involved in a subsequent family violence homicide or an incident that could have resulted in death (such as a very serious assault).

We tested the most commonly identified risk factors for intimate partner homicide to see if any of them alone, or combined, could predict a fatal or near fatal outcome.

We found none of them could. More than 99% of people with these risk factors were not involved in a fatal or near fatal attack in the 12 months we followed them.

For example, police recorded that 7,337 people had, in the past, threatened their partner or family member with serious harm or death. Among those who did go on to very seriously harm or kill, about 22% had previously made such threats.

However, 99.84% of those who had made a threat did not kill or attempt to kill a partner or family member in the 12 months after the police risk assessment.

The same is true of those who used jealous and controlling behaviour towards a partner or family member. Police recorded 12,123 people as having done this, and of those who very seriously harmed or killed, 29% had a history of jealous and controlling behaviour.

But again, 99.87% of people with jealous and controlling behaviour at the time of the original police report did not go on to kill or seriously harm.

The same was true of strangulation, stalking, and other risk factors for homicide.

We then tested whether combinations of these risk factors could predict homicide, with similar outcomes. Whichever way we looked at the data, the result was the same – every previously assumed risk factor or combination of risk factors got it wrong more than 99% of the time.

It’s possible we could have made more accurate predictions if we followed people for a longer period, say ten years.

But, while more homicides would have occurred, the overall rate of lethal and near lethal violence would have still been extremely low. Even more importantly, the results would not mean much in practice because risk assessments tend to guide responses in the short to medium term, not over many years.

What’s behind this?

We got these results because fatal or near fatal violence is very rare. It was only present in 55 cases in our sample of nearly 40,000 police reports.

While 55 deaths are of course 55 too many, all the risk factors we examined were unfortunately much more common.

Access to firearms was the least common factor, recorded in about 1,300 family violence cases. The most common factor, the perpetrator having identified mental health problems, was present in around 13,500 family violence cases.

Together, this means that even when a risk factor is present, most of those with it do not go on to use fatal or near-fatal violence.

These results don’t mean we should stop paying attention to strangulation, stalking or threats to kill. They do mean we should stop thinking these behaviours can help us predict homicide.

Of course, we must respond when these awful behaviours are identified and prevent people who’ve done such things from causing further harm.

But risk management should not be based on the idea that all people who act in this way are likely to kill, when the reality is that the overwhelming majority will not.

In some circumstances, very intrusive risk management is warranted to ensure immediate safety (such as remanding the person who has been violent). But in most cases, the presence of these risk factors doesn’t indicate that a homicide is imminent.

Rather, they indicate the need for interventions that can reduce family violence and its harms. Examples include psychological treatments that can change emotions and thoughts linked to violence, mental health and substance use treatment where it is required, effective multi-service collaborations, and wrap-around victim support services.

The evidence suggests while prediction is not possible, prevention is. The best way forward is not to create a false expectation that we can ever know who will kill.

Instead, we must adopt evidence-based preventative strategies and fund them fully, so they are available to everyone who needs them. Perhaps then the goal of zero intimate partner or family homicides will be closer to a reality.

---

The National Sexual Assault, Family and Domestic Violence Counselling Line – 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) – is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week for any Australian who has experienced, or is at risk of, family and domestic violence and/or sexual assault.

– ref. Can we predict domestic homicide? New research suggests we can’t – https://theconversation.com/can-we-predict-domestic-homicide-new-research-suggests-we-cant-268290

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/19/can-we-predict-domestic-homicide-new-research-suggests-we-cant-268290/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern Studies, Australian National University; The University of Western Australia; Victoria University

While the world is focused on the fate of a ruined Gaza, Israel has accelerated its creeping annexation of the West Bank.

Israeli legislative moves, security operations, settlement expansion and support of settlers’ violence are forcing the Palestinians out of their lands at an unprecedented rate.

US President Donald Trump has publicly opposed Israel’s annexation of the occupied territory, but he may not be able to stop it – unless he acts now and acts decisively.

Creeping annexation

Last July, the Israeli parliament (Knesset) passed a resolution in support of the annexation of the West Bank. It was non-binding, but clearly signalled where the legislative body stood on the issue.

Then, when US Vice President JD Vance was visiting Israel in October, the Knesset approved two bills calling for the formal annexation of the territory. Vance called the move a “very stupid political stunt” intended to embarrass him.

The bills were aligned with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s avowed opposition to the creation of an independent Palestinian state on his watch.

Then, earlier this month, the Israeli security cabinet approved a series of measures that furthered the de facto annexation of the West Bank.

The measures, pushed by the far-right finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, and Defence Minister Israel Katz, are designed to remove any “legal obstacles” to the expansion of Israeli power across the territory, in violation of international law.

The measures provide more immunity for Israelis – the settlers, in particular – to purchase and own land in the West Bank.

They also give the Israeli state control over some historical and religious sites and limit further the Palestinian Authority’s administrative functions in the zones that are supposed to be under its jurisdiction under the 1993 Oslo Accords.

Netanyahu’s broader ambitions

The moves came at a crucial time in US-Israel relations. In January, the Trump administration announced the start of phase two of the US-brokered ceasefire in Gaza. Immediately after the measures were approved, Netanyahu made his sixth visit to the United States in a year to ensure Trump remains aligned with his course of action.

Netanyahu wants the fate of the Gaza Strip to be shaped according to his vision of Israel’s interests. He has been very vocal about his ambition for a “Greater Israel” stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

Netanyahu also remains adamant Israel stays the most powerful actor in the region. Israel has already degraded the capabilities of Hamas and Hezbollah, the two main regional proxies of its chief adversary, the Islamic Republic of Iran. It has also widened its military footprint in both Lebanon and Syria.

Now, Netanyahu is determined to see a favourable regime change in Tehran. While Trump wants a deal with Iran over its nuclear program, Netanyahu is significantly less supportive of such an outcome.

He has repeatedly stressed the need for a US-led military campaign to not only dismantle Iran’s nuclear program, but also degrade its missile capability and force it to severe ties with its proxies.

He regards this as the only way to remove the “existential threat” posed by the Iranian regime.

What will Trump do?

The new Israeli measures in the West Bank will no doubt embolden settlers to engage in more violent acts against the Palestinians. The stories coming out of the territory show how Israel is rapidly slicing away the Palestinians’ territorial, social and cultural existence.

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) says more than 37,000 Palestinians were displaced in the West Bank in 2025, with record-high levels of violence.

The United Nations and the European Union have strongly condemned the new Israeli measures and settler violence.

However, Netanyahu and his extremist ministers have, as usual, brushed aside international criticisms and ignored the illegality of Israeli occupation under international law.

They have instead accelerated efforts to make the internationally backed two-state solution an impossibility. The recent measures help establish deeper “facts on the ground” that render the annexation of the West Bank a fait accompli. This would give Trump no other option but to go along with it.

Yet, Trump has the power and leverage to restrain Netanyahu. And he can stand firm behind his own stated opposition to West Bank annexation.

As an unpredictable, transactional leader, the president may even go so far as to attack Iran on behalf of Netanyahu in return for Netanyahu holding back from formal annexation of the West Bank.

Trump now faces the biggest tests of his presidency. The first is how he will manage Netanyahu, whom he has praised as a “war hero”. The second is how he will settle the conflict with Iran – whether it will be a deal or yet another devastating war.

– ref. Israel is accelerating its creeping annexation of the West Bank. Can Donald Trump stop it? – https://theconversation.com/israel-is-accelerating-its-creeping-annexation-of-the-west-bank-can-donald-trump-stop-it-276074

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/19/israel-is-accelerating-its-creeping-annexation-of-the-west-bank-can-donald-trump-stop-it-276074/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matevz (Matt) Raskovic, Professor of International Business & Strategy, Auckland University of Technology

On the face of it, New Zealand’s positive placing in a newly-released scorecard of perceived corruption seems reassuring.

The country remains among the world’s least corrupt in the latest Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), published annually by global civil society organisation Transparency International.

But the 2025 rankings hide a more troubling story. New Zealand’s score has been falling for a decade, even as its position near the top holds.

The index scores more than 180 countries on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 means highly corrupt and 100 means very clean. With a score of 81, New Zealand now sits joint fourth with Norway, after a two-point drop from last year.

That pattern reflects not just mounting challenges at home, but a wider global shift that is dragging down even top-performing countries.

A decade ago, a dozen nations would have earned “A-grade” rankings at the top of the board. Today, that group – including Denmark (scoring 89), Finland (88), Singapore (84), Sweden (80) and Switzerland (80) – has nearly halved.

Some might argue a top-four ranking is still strong, especially when two-thirds of countries receive failing grades (below 50). But that misses the broader point.

New Zealand’s score has fallen from 91 in 2015 to 81 today. If that trend continues, it risks slipping out of the top tier altogether.

A global slide

At a global level, the picture is also deteriorating. The average CPI score fell by one point this year to a historic low of 42. That may not sound like much, but it is the first drop in a decade – and from an already low baseline, even small declines are notable.

There is now a clear pattern of gradual but noticeable slips among top performers, including New Zealand, Sweden, Canada and the United Kingdom. The United States is the only other country near the top to have seen a drop as steep as New Zealand’s, with its score falling from 76 in 2015 to 64 today.

For Aotearoa, that global slide has real-world consequences. Falling in the corruption rankings weakens “Brand New Zealand” and makes the country potentially less attractive to investors, tourists, skilled migrants and trading partners.

Around 30% of New Zealand’s exports go to countries with CPI scores above 70, including Australia, Japan, Singapore and the UK – markets where reputation and trust carry weight.

At the same time, about a third of New Zealand’s exports go to countries with CPI scores below 50, including China and several Southeast Asian nations.

In those markets, strong domestic integrity systems and robust safeguards in trade relationships are even more important, to ensure foreign corrupt practices do not spill back into New Zealand.

NZ’s lingering weak points

Several reports have laid out where New Zealand’s anti-corruption framework is falling short.

They point to the absence of a national anti-corruption strategy and a central agency. This comes alongside lax lobbying rules, inadequate reporting on political donations and gaps in electoral safeguards.

Successive governments have been slow to address these issues. The current government has faced scrutiny over the role of well-resourced lobby groups – including the tobacco and gun lobbies – and millions of dollars in political donations from the property industry.

Several high-profile fraud cases have rattled sectors ranging from construction and building inspection to infrastructure, health, procurement and IT. There have also been concerns about judicial appeal processes being bypassed through ministerial approval or alternative resolution mechanisms.

More recently, local election breaches and allegations of misuse of personal data in national elections have further eroded public trust in politics – something playing out alongside declining trust in news media.

Formulas and fixes

To stop sliding further down the global rankings, New Zealand requires a dedicated anti-corruption strategy – one focused more on prevention than response.

New Zealand is now the only one of its four other key security partners without a central anti-corruption agency, after Australia established its own in 2023. Since then, Australia’s CPI score has risen by two points.

A similar body in New Zealand could strengthen information-sharing, improve early-warning systems and provide ongoing oversight of integrity risks.

There is also a need for more competitive markets and stronger checks and balances to help counter the influence of special interest groups.

It is ironic that much of New Zealand’s drop in the 2025 CPI index has stemmed from growing concern from business leaders about public sector conduct, including how public contracts and licences are awarded.

While the government pitches itself as “business friendly”, limited competition across retail, construction and banking helps explain why more business leaders feel the market is not working for everyone.

US academic Robert Klitgaard, a leading authority on anti-corruption, devised a simple formula: “corruption equals monopoly power plus discretion minus transparency”. By that equation, New Zealand would need to address monopoly power across several sectors, reduce ministerial discretion and fast-tracking processes, and increase political transparency.

In an election year, politicians should understand that the public’s satisfaction with the political system is mainly driven by the interplay between how well the economy is performing and perceptions of injustice and corruption.

There are of course trade-offs between the two. But given the steady drop in New Zealand’s index score over the past decade, any government will need to pay more attention to fighting real or perceived corruption more effectively.

– ref. NZ is slowly slipping on the global corruption index. Is it time for an anti-corruption agency? – https://theconversation.com/nz-is-slowly-slipping-on-the-global-corruption-index-is-it-time-for-an-anti-corruption-agency-275781

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/19/nz-is-slowly-slipping-on-the-global-corruption-index-is-it-time-for-an-anti-corruption-agency-275781/

ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on February 19, 2026.

Ads are coming to AI. Does that really have to be such a bad thing?
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ilayaraja Subramanian, Lecturer in Marketing, University of Canterbury American artificial intelligence (AI) company Anthropic this month attracted applause – and a surge in users – for clever advertisements poking fun at its competition. In the commercials, an AI assistant awkwardly breaks away mid-conversation to push products such

‘I feel I’m making a difference’: how Blak women are working to build safer workplaces
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sharlene Leroy-Dyer, Director, Indigenous Business Hub, UQ Business School, The University of Queensland Blak women make up a growing part of the Australian workforce, with 57% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women aged 15 to 64 employed in 2022-23 (the latest figures we have). That’s a

Racing enjoys special treatment under NZ gambling laws. Why?
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa Marriott, Professor of Taxation, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington Despite the harm it is known to cause to a significant number of New Zealanders, the gambling industry as a whole is commonly defended for its contribution back to the community. Lotto NZ, for

Gambling for children? Why Australia should consider regulating blind box toys like Labubu
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By César Albarrán-Torres, Associate professor, Swinburne University of Technology If you walk through any major shopping mall in Australia, chances are you’ll encounter products and experiences that are uncomfortably similar to gambling – yet they are available to anyone, including children. Our soon-to-be-published research has found claw machines,

Labour’s Chris Hipkins accuses Winston Peters of ‘pure racism’ in Parliament
By Craig McCulloch, RNZ News deputy political editor Winston Peters has been accused of “pure racism” in Parliament by Labour leader Chris Hipkins, who has called out National ministers for failing to combat or challenge it. The Greens say Peters is scapegoating migrants, while ACT’s David Seymour — his own Cabinet colleague — says Peters

Remembering Frederick Wiseman: the filmmaker who changed documentary cinema forever
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Thomas Moran, Lecturer in the Department of English, Creative Writing and Film, Adelaide University Frederick Wiseman, who died yesterday at the age of 96, was an American filmmaker whose carefully observed works changed documentary cinema forever, shedding light on institutions, individuals and everyday life. Born into a

Fiji’s president warns against sowing ‘seeds of fear’ ahead of elections
By Koroi Hawkins, RNZ Pacific editor Fiji President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu has urged legislators not to sow seeds of “fear and division” as the country moves towards a general election later this year. Speaking at the opening of the fourth and final session of Parliament before the polls, Ratu Naiqama called on political leaders and

Real wages have gone backwards. Even earning $100,000 isn’t what it used to be
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christopher Hoy, McKenzie Research Fellow, The University of Melbourne Figures released today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) show that over the year to December, wages grew by 3.4%. For households, however, the number that really matters is what happened to wages after inflation. Over the

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/19/er-report-a-roundup-of-significant-articles-on-eveningreport-nz-for-february-19-2026/