Healthy lifestyle
A healthy lifestyle is one which helps to keep and improve people's health and well-being.Many governments and non-governmental organizations have made big efforts in healthy lifestyle and health promotion.
Mental Health
Mental health can be considered a very important factor of physical health for the effects it produces on bodily functions. This type of health concerns emotional and cognitive well-being or an absence of mental disorder.
Public health
Public health can be defined in a variety of ways. It can be presented as "the study of the physical, psychosocial and socio-cultural determinants of population health and actions to improve the health of the population.
Reproductive Health
For the UN, reproductive health is a right, like other human rights. This recent concept evokes the good transmission of the genetic heritage from one generation to the next.
Health
Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.
mardi 9 janvier 2018
How the Roseanne Revival Is Tackling Trump's America Head First
Roseanne was never a show to shy away from tackling hot-button issues, and the ABC revival, premiering March 27, is about to continue that tradition.
Star Roseanne Barr has publicly spoken out in support of Donald Trump several times, so it was no surprise that the topic came up during her show's panel at the Television Critics Association tour on Monday. When asked about politics taking center stage in the premiere episode, the cast and creators said that they wanted to put forth an authentic representation of what many families in the country have been experiencing during and since the election.
In the revival, we'll see Roseanne and her sister, Jackie, feuding because of the 2016 election; Jackie supported democrat Hillary Clinton and Roseanne supported eventual-winner Trump.
"What we really wanted to do was find a way for this particular family, which represents a full cross section of values and beliefs . . . we wanted to get that debate going in a very honest way and a very real way," said executive producer Bruce Helford. "So whether you are pro-Trump or anti-Trump or pro-Jill Stein - whoever you were going for - it was really about getting that dialogue going in an honest way. There's no agenda on anybody's part but to get honest feelings out there."
Helford also cited perhaps wanting to start to heal things in this country, and star and executive producer Sara Gilbert echoed his sentiments.
"Our country is very divided, and we did have a wonderful opportunity to talk about this in the context of a family," said Gilbert. "I think what's going on is people feel like they can't disagree and still love each other or still talk to each other, so to me it was a great opportunity to have a family that can be divided by politics but still is filled with love, and what a great thing to bring to this country right now."
Barr herself feels like her show is reflecting where society currently stands in this country.
"The Roseanne show, I've always tried to have it be a true reflection of the society we live in. So I feel like half the people voted for Trump and half didn't, so it's just realistic," said Roseanne. "My show has always been . . . a realistic portrait of the American people and of working-class people, and, in fact, it was working-class people that elected Trump, so I felt like that was very real and something that needed to be discussed, especially about polarization in the family and people actually hating other people for the way they voted, which I feel is not American, so I wanted to bring it right down the middle, and we did."
Barr later said that she's not a Trump apologist - "There's a lot of things that he's done and said that I don't agree with" - but many poor and working-class people in the country focused on Trump's promises of bringing jobs back to those struggling to make ends meet. That's what they voted for, even if they disagree with the other things he says or stances that he takes.
Gilbert added, "This divide in our country and the fact that the working class has been under-represented in politics and on television, this just felt like a wonderful time and opportunity to try to give some people a voice in this country."
The panel ended with Barr saying that she hopes these kinds of dialogues can put an end to all the hate the country is experiencing right now.
"I think it's time to close ranks, and I would really like to see an end to hate-triotism in this country."
Why This Black Mirror Episode Is Actually Pretty Problematic
There are a lot of reasons to get upset about the events in Black Mirror - because yikes. The show is pretty much the only thing that can make you want to give your smartphone a wide berth, and in its fourth season, there are even more technological terrors to think about than ever before.
Surprisingly, though, perhaps the most controversial element of the Netflix series's newest run isn't the souvenir copies of an electrocution victim in perpetual agony in "Black Museum" or even the WTF factor of a woman who mows people down to cover up an old obstruction case in "Crocodile." It's the dangerous misrepresentation of contraceptives found in "Arkangel," the episode about helicopter parenting gone very, very wrong.
The segment centers on a single mother who decides to sign up her daughter for an experimental implant that will let her track her whereabouts - sort of a roving GPS system, permanently embedded in her BRAIN - as well as put parental blocks on frightening imagery, let her mom see what the girl sees, and better (read: worse) still, keep tabs on her vitals at all times.
It backfires once the girl reaches school age because the child needs to have her independence and, yes, even exposure to discomfiting realities of the world. So, our mom puts her creeper device away for years and the daughter spends the next decade in unmonitored bliss. But once she becomes a teen and starts shirking the rules and lying - namely, about getting experimental with her new beau - mommy dearest cranks the old system up and starts snooping around her head again.
What she finds out is that not only has her daughter been doing the horizontal mambo with her fella, but she's also gotten pregnant as a result of their tryst. So, momcopter races off to the pharmacy and slips an emergency contraceptive into her breakfast shake, essentially forcing her daughter's pregnancy to terminate without her knowledge.
The trouble here is that not only is that not what the medicine does in real life, but the scene also plays into a recurring trend of portraying the medication as one that can easily be forced on an unwitting woman.
Immediately after the airing, advocates for reproductive health education lashed out at the episode for showing emergency contraception as an "abortion pill," rather than a dose of medication that prevents pregnancy before it even has a chance to occur, because it falls right in line with certain disinformation efforts by antiabortion advocates.
According to Dr. Gretchen Sisson, a qualitative sociologist at University of California San Francisco's reproductive health research group, "There's a lot of misinformation out there about emergency contraception and how it works . . . part of that is an intentional effort of antiabortion groups to conflate emergency contraception with abortion."
It's not the first time a television series has treated the medication as being equivalent to an abortion: in The Walking Dead, for example, Lori Grimes is shown contemplating termination of her pregnancy by way of a batch of birth control pills. But the fact that it's just the latest installment in a continuing trend is beyond troubling and could have some serious consequences.
"A lot of shows have conflated emergency contraception and abortion or showed pills as a way to secretly coerce a pregnancy termination," Dr Sisson says. The danger of that false equivalence and villainization of the drug is that those who are opposed to abortion might see even more reason to fight against the availability of morning-after pills, even despite the fact that they don't simulate an abortion, in actuality.
But it's supposed to be the future, you say?
Yes, some have argued that because the episode is imagining a future scenario in which the pill might be able to terminate an early pregnancy because, sure, the show is all about minor advancements of current devices. Kids have locator bracelets now, but the "Arkangel" tech is nowhere near to happening (yet). In that case, though, the medication wouldn't be titled "Emergency Contraception," since it wouldn't be contraceptive, and they maybe should choose a less politically stigmatized and scientifically sound route to showcase that advancement than another pill.
"If they wanted to imagine some novel way for abortions to be happening in the future, then that would be interesting, that would be more creative, that would be something we haven't seen from science fiction," says Sisson. "So, that's an opportunity that they missed."
Here's Some Much-Needed Good News: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Isn't Retiring Any Time Soon
It's been 25 years since Ruth Bader Ginsburg was appointed to the Supreme Court by Bill Clinton, and fortunately, the associate justice plans on serving for several more years. On Jan. 4, Above the Law reported that Ginsburg has hired law clerks to assist her until 2020 - meaning she intends to remain on the Supreme Court through Donald Trump's first term of office.
As CNN noted, the 84-year-old legend would have likely retired if Hillary Clinton had been elected president. Following the unexpected outcome of the election, however, it seems she's changed her mind. When asked about a possible retirement in October 2017, Ginsburg said, "As long as I can do the job full steam, I will do it."
The justice's relationship with the current president has been contentious since even before the election. In July 2016, Ginsburg criticized Trump's ego and called him "a faker" - a comment which she later said she regretted and apologized for. Following her comment, Trump took to Twitter and said, "Justice Ginsburg of the U.S. Supreme Court has embarrassed all by making very dumb political statements about me. Her mind is shot - resign!" Unfortunately for Trump, it seems like Ginsburg won't be resigning any time soon.
The Social Video App of Our Dreams Has Finally Arrived
When Apple first launched Clips back in April, it was done quietly; the app was sold as an easy way to edit your videos to post on social, and though it was clearly positioned to take on juggernauts like Snapchat and Instagram, it didn't come across as anything that was revolutionary. Six months later, Clips 2.0 is open for business - and I can officially say that there is nothing quite like it available in the App Store, and I am hooked.
Clips brings all the functions of creating a video - recording, editing, reorganizing, compiling, publishing - into one user-friendly interface, making it feel like an easier version of iMovie or Final Cut. And while the value of having all these tools in one place may not have been clear in the first iteration of the app, 2.0 makes it even more obvious that this should be your go-to when you're about to shoot a video. The buttons are more clearly labeled, the app allows a full-screen viewing of the video content you're using, and it's way easier to have a friend take over the controls as you don't have to know what you're doing in order to make a masterpiece - and if their vision doesn't match yours, you can easily tinker with the footage to make it seem as though it was shot in the exact way that you wanted it. In other words, it puts the kind of high-quality editing we would expect from a professional within reach of anyone with an iPhone.
It's the features, though, that really sell the app for me. Take, for example, Live Titles. It's real-time, on-video captioning done via the technology behind Siri that is outstandingly spot-on. If for whatever reason your digital assistant can't pick up exactly what you were trying to say, you can edit it with just a few taps of your keyboard and add emphasis or punctuation where you want it. You can also change those captions to a variety of different styles, colors, and on-video placements to make it easy for anybody to see what's going on without having to turn on their sound. Or, if you're feeling really snazzy, you can just use Posters to drop in animated graphics and custom texts between scenes to say what you mean without having to speak it.
Then there's the Effects and Stickers portion of the program - tools that enable you to do things like transform yourself into a live-action oil painting or describe your day while sitting beside Minnie Mouse - which are even easier to use than ever and provide for a whole lot of ways to really set yourself apart from the other things that people are seeing on their social media feeds. It's all done in real time, too - so no need to go back and start from scratch after watching the footage playback after the fact. And there's no rendering or time-consuming "loading" screens to sit through; it's all just right there when you need it. And, bonus, you can seamlessly work on the same project on different devices with iCloud and never lose your place.
But it's iPhone X users who get the biggest update of all with Clips 2.0 - and it's one function in particular that I've found myself playing with for hours at a time. Selfie Scenes allows you to place yourself in a variety of 360-degree scenes while you're recording a selfie - that's right, this also happens in real time! - and that means you can instantly transport yourself inside the Millennium Falcon or drop into a famous painting with just one single tap. It's like the old-school Photo Booth feature where you could put yourself in a fishbowl, only you are actually part of what's going on in the scene - and it's jaw-droppingly accurate. Though there are only 10 scenes available right now, the idea is that these will be expanded upon - allowing your video diary to broadcast live from the middle of Times Square (in your bedroom) or at a French cafe (on the subway).
If you aren't sold on just how cool Clips 2.0 really is, there's one additional piece of information that might help you on your way: the app is completely free to use and can be easily downloaded in the App Store right now. So give it a spin, test the features, and see what you think; I'm fairly certain that you won't be disappointed (and, like me, you'll be waiting eagerly for the third iteration and what the team at Apple will come up with next).
Um, Did Donald Trump Just Forget the Words to the National Anthem? It Sure Looks Like It
Someone should teach Trump the old drag queen trick of repeatedly mouthing "watermelon" when you forget the words. http://pic.twitter.com/mNocb0Z1sG #NationalChampionship
- shauna (@goldengateblond) January 9, 2018
Just days after describing himself as "like, really smart" and "a very stable genius," Donald Trump attended the CFP National Championship football game between the University of Georgia and the University of Alabama in Atlanta, GA, where he joined the Zac Brown Band and a gospel choir in singing the national anthem . . . or, at the very least, attempted to. As cameras panned to Trump on the field, some viewers were quick to call out that Trump had messed up the lyrics or had forgotten them altogether.
"It looked like Donald Trump just kept repeating 'applesauce' during the National Anthem," one Twitter user wrote. Another person tweeted, "Trump was mouthing some words during parts of the national anthem, but it was unclear what he was saying. He didn't open mouth during other parts."
It's also worth pointing out that Trump tweeted about the importance of the national anthem earlier today, saying that he wants our flag respected and "we want our NATIONAL ANTHEM respected also!" Hmm . . . well, that's one way to show respect, I guess.
We are fighting for our farmers, for our country, and for our GREAT AMERICAN FLAG. We want our flag respected - and we want our NATIONAL ANTHEM respected also! http://pic.twitter.com/16eOLXg6Fi
- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 8, 2018
Yes, Trump Really Did Confuse "Consensual" and "Consequential" in a Tweet
It's one week into 2018, and we can officially confirm that President Donald Trump still does not have a proofreader for his tweets. On Jan. 7, the president wrote "consensual" instead of "consequential" in a self-praising tweet about his administration. Trump was quoting a New York Post column entitled "We're Still Better Off With Trump Than Clinton," but he mixed up two very different words from the article. The New York Post's piece reads, "His is turning out to be an enormously consequential presidency," and Trump failed to quote it correctly, writing, "His is turning out to be an enormously consensual presidency."
Ladies & Gentlemen, I present to you, The Stable Genius! #ConsensualPresidency http://pic.twitter.com/o69kEHS2M3
- I'm like, really smart (@ms_sawyerbrown) January 8, 2018
Naturally, it didn't take long before Twitter started the hashtag #ConsensualPresidency and absolutely roasted Trump for such a stupid mistake. A few minutes after the original tweet was posted, it was deleted and replaced with the intended wording.
"His is turning out to be an enormously consequential presidency. So much so that, despite my own frustration over his missteps, there has never been a day when I wished Hillary Clinton were president. Not one. Indeed, as Trump's accomplishments accumulate, the mere thought of...
- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 8, 2018
The irony of the typo was not lost on the people who recognize the weight of Trump associating himself with the word "consensual" at all. Multiple women have made allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump, actions for which the president has not faced any consequences. The fact that he mixed up the two words suggests he might not even know what "consensual" means.
Glad you corrected the tweet, we all know you don't know what consensual means. #ConsensualPresidency #Genius #likereallysmart
- Sarah Derrick (@shopgirlatsando) January 8, 2018
You can't make this stuff up.
Meet HQ Trivia, the Mobile Trivia Game That Will Take Over Your Damn Life
Twice a day, every day, without fail, my phone lights up with the same notification: "HQ is live! Are you ready to play?" I hear the same chime all around my office, and many of my friends promptly pull out their phones with rapt attention, ready for the chance to finally win HQ Trivia.
But . . . what is it? You've probably seen people mention it on your Twitter timeline, or maybe you've even watched the hysterical video of a woman having an emotional breakdown over winning $11 in the game. So allow me to introduce you to 2018's hottest internet phenomenon, HQ Trivia.
What is it?
HQ Trivia is an addictive live trivia game that all takes place within an app, and, bonus, comes with a possible cash prize. The games take place twice per day - noon and 6 p.m. PT - and consists of 12 questions ranging from easy to hard. As hundreds of thousands of viewers tune in, they are presented with multiple-choice options that they must decide on within mere seconds . . . and with every round, more folks choose incorrectly, disqualifying themselves.
Whichever players succeed in answering all 12 trivia questions correctly then split the cash prize - which sometimes means each winner receives mere cents, while other times it can amount to thousands of dollars!
Who can play?
Anyone with a smartphone and a fast WiFi connection can play HQ Trivia by downloading the free app (available for iOS and Android) and creating a player profile.
Who hosts the game?
There are several live HQ Trivia hosts, but most notable is quirky personality Scott Rogowsky - sometimes referred to as "Quiz Daddy." Since HQ started in Fall 2017, Rogowsky has become a cult-favorite of trivia fanatics, with some publicly lamenting his absence while he was away for his holiday break and others creating meme videos all about Scott.
How does it operate?
The trivia game comes from the app workshop of the guys who founded Vine, which explains how they know a thing or two about gaining a viral following! Moneywise, the prize pot for every game of HQ Trivia comes courtesy of venture capital.
What It Feels Like to Travel While Black
I woke up at 6 a.m. in a tiny hotel room in Tokyo, checked my phone, and found an email from our hostel in Kyoto: "You missed your check-in date." In a half-awake frantic moment, I rummaged through my bag to find the itinerary I had printed out before we left New York. We were supposed to have left Tokyo the day before to head to Kyoto. It slowly hit me that we had accidentally overstayed our reservation at this accommodation and no one at the front desk had said a thing. I woke up my boyfriend, screamed at him to pack up as quickly as possible, and we ran out of there like criminals in the early morning light.
The jet lag had overcome me since our arrival, and I had gotten my days mixed up, which was the most innocent of blunders. However, the main feeling overflowing me in that moment wasn't shame over this simple mistake, but instead, "Oh God, they're going to think I'm a horrible, stealing, gross, American black woman with no respect for their hotel." My white boyfriend couldn't fathom why I was so upset over this mishap. But as a white person, of course he'll never understand what it is like to not just inhabit a person of color's body, but to travel while black.
When I go abroad, I feel the weight of the world on my shoulders to be a good example of a black woman.
When I go abroad, I feel the weight of the world on my shoulders to be a good example of a black woman so negative stereotypes don't continue, especially in homogeneous cultures where there is a lack of diversity. The media doesn't exactly portray black people incredibly well, and people watch it and make assumptions about what we're like based on the color of our skin. In some places, they've rarely even seen a black person in real life.
I am constantly aware of every move I make when I step outside of the United States. There is not a single moment when I am not cognizant of how I'm representing myself as I walk through the streets of Bangkok or photograph the monuments of Paris. It's a stinging fear of my presence in their country not being a positive one and therefore contributing to their biases toward people who look like me. When a white person does something unfortunate, they don't become an example of their entire race. But when one black person does something wrong, it paints us all that way in the eyes of others.
I feel that I am lucky that my travels have not included overt racism toward me, and that shows me the world is changing a lot in its ideals and how it treats people. For some, an article such as this might be talking about the moments of discrimination they've faced while journeying, but I am thankful that I've seemingly been born in a time that lends better to my presence in a place not leading to a negative slur or race-based attacked. The worst treatment has unfortunately come from my being a woman more than anything else.
When a white person does something unfortunate, they don't become an example of their entire race. But when one black person does something wrong, it paints us all that way in the eyes of others.
I think of all the people in the past who looked like me and had adventurous spirits but couldn't go anywhere, and I feel that I have no right at all to complain about what it's like today. Black people are traveling more than ever. It's not a secret that there are many websites and Facebook groups out there that cater to a diverse group of travelers to inspire and connect with one another. There are finally amazing travel bloggers of color going to places in the world and reporting on what it's like to actually be there, sharing their experiences as diverse globetrotters.
But the numbers are still small compared to affluent white voyagers. Fear of how you may be treated, discouragement from your family and peers, or even just lack of resources to make a trip happen mean that there are still fewer people of color stepping out into much of the world, and there are instances of black people being stared at or even pulled into photographs like a celebrity because of their rare appearances in certain cultures. I have yet to be the subject of a selfie, but I have gotten called "Beyoncé" and "Oprah" before, despite looking nothing like them.
Traveling as a black woman is a form of activism to me. I strive to change perceptions through my actions abroad. I never want to leave a country having made a local citizen think lesser of black people due to something I have done. I act respectfully, dress according to cultural standards, attempt to learn basic words in their language, respond politely, and interact cordially with those I meet. It's all done in order to maintain some sort of picture that I am not whatever ill-willed nonsense American media wants to portray me as and that there's no reason to be afraid or suspicious of my actions, just in the same way I wouldn't want a security guard following me through a store as I shop.
I still think back to when we stayed the extra night in Tokyo and what the owner of the hotel must think of me or if they even noticed or cared, and I hope it didn't reflect badly on my kinfolk who stay there in the future. Perhaps I'm overthinking it too much and should relax, but it's because I do care about the future of black travel that I pour so much of my heart into my behaviors abroad and only want to be the best I can be so things are better for everyone in the times to come.
Minnesota May Be the Happiest State in America - But You'll Get a Whole Lot More Sleep in Colorado
Happiness isn't an easy thing to measure. Millions of things can happen in the blink of an eye, instantly changing a person's outlook from sunshine and rainbows to eternally bleak. It's also often far easier to put forth a placid facade than to deal with the emotional thunderstorm that's going on inside. But on a more universal level, happiness can be measured as the environmental factors that add up to one's day-to-day existence - in other words, where you live can determine a whole lot about how you feel about your life. And while it's one thing to sometimes ponder whether or not you'd be happier living somewhere else, it's often an insurmountable task to pinpoint exactly where it is you'd need to move to change the one thing that's got you down. And that's where WalletHub comes in.
On Sept. 11, the company released 2017's Happiest States of America, a study that uses "the findings of 'happiness' research to determine which environmental factors are linked to a person's overall well-being and satisfaction with life." In order to establish the overall ranking for all 50 states, experts used "28 key metrics, ranging from depression rate to sports participation rate to income growth" to identify just how you would feel on a day-to-day basis in each and every state. While the summary of that data is helpful - spoiler: Minnesota is the happiest state, and West Virginia is the unhappiest - those key metrics provide the most insight into life in each state.
Ahead, you'll find 10 of these metrics, from income growth to divorce rate, and the five states that ranked highest and lowest in each category. You never know . . . you just might find out that you really have been living in the wrong place all along.
You Know Who Else Wanted Oprah in the White House? Donald Trump
After Oprah Winfrey's epic speech at the Golden Globes on Jan. 7, the internet lit up with speculation about a potential 2020 presidential bid being in the cards for the TV legend. But well before "Oprah 2020" began trending on social media, there was one other person who kept throwing her name into the ring as a potential running mate on more than one occasion - and that man happens to be our current president, Donald Trump.
The first mention came in 1999, when Trump appeared on CNN's Larry King Live. "I love Oprah," he told King, adding that when it came to his vice president, "Oprah would always be my first choice." But it didn't stop there. The second time Trump floated Winfrey as a potential VP was a mere two years ago, when he told ABC's George Stephanopoulos that she was his dream second-in-command. "I'd love to have Oprah," he said. "I think we'd win easily, actually."
Obviously, the pairing did not work out - and as we all know, despite Trump's lavish praise of Winfrey in a variety of settings, she did not endorse him in the 2016 election. But the long history here does provide a bit of a reality check to all those hyping a 2020 bid - one that becomes even more stark when considering that in 1988, Trump confessed to Winfrey on her national television show that he might have presidential aspirations in mind for the future.
"I think I'd win," Trump says in the decades-old clip, which you can watch in full below. But it's the second part of what he says that will stick with you and haunt you in all sorts of ways. "I tell you what," he says, "I wouldn't go in to lose. I've never gone in to lose in my life. And if I did decide to do it - I would be inclined to think I'd have a hell of a chance of winning."
Shark Tank Winner Julia Cheek on Female Entrepreneurship: "Build the Life and the Business You Want"
Five months after Julia Cheek filmed her appearance on Shark Tank, on Nov. 27, she finally got to watch it on TV. "I hadn't seen any of the episode," she told me by phone a couple of days later. "I've been really surprised by the positive reaction to the company and to the idea." As founder and CEO of diagnostic testing start-up EverlyWell, Cheek has poured her heart and soul into her business. Now that the episode has aired, she can finally share with the world that her hard work has paid off: EverlyWell now counts Shark Tank panelist Lori Greiner among its investors.
EverlyWell is poised to completely change the healthcare industry as we know it, and judging by the $1 million line of credit Greiner pledged on air in exchange for a five percent stake, corporate America is now keenly aware of it, too. But from where the company's founder stands, the most important thing is making the lives of Americans better in the one way she's found she can: by making it just a little bit easier to understand your health. A transcript of the conversation I had with Cheek on Nov. 30 about EverlyWell, the Shark Tank experience, and her role as a female founder is printed below with light edits, condensed for clarity.
EverlyWell At-home Health Tests from EverlyWell on Vimeo.
POPSUGAR: What was your "eureka!" moment, the one that made you decide to start EverlyWell?
Julia Cheek: I had just turned 30 - maybe 31 - and was working around the clock. I had a great corporate job, but then I started not feeling well. I was getting really tired, I had random aches and pains, I felt like I had some sort of chronic fatigue - but I couldn't pinpoint it. I'd tried a bunch of stuff first before going to the doctor, but then I spent six months in early 2015 going to different types of specialists, all of whom ran all different types of tests. I never got the results and nothing about the tests were on paper; I would never even get a phone call explaining the results to me. I just got an email saying everything was normal. I wasn't even diagnosed! But because I was on a high deductible plan, months later I ended up getting these bills from the labs for hundreds and hundreds of dollars – totaling up to over $2,000 in out of pocket in costs.
I wound up at an acupuncturist - a functional medicine provider - and found out I had a severe vitamin D deficiency, a magnesium deficiency, a B12 deficiency, and that all of my cortisol levels - which regulate your stress and sleep - were completely off. In the end , it was actually a very manageable issue - I just didn't have a proper way to manage the medical system. So I started researching it, and I thought, "This makes no sense; you don't have to invent a new type of lab test. You just have to use technology to make accessing testing easier for consumers in a way that's still accurate and regulatory compliant."
So I left my job in July of 2015 and immediately started the company. Everyone's always like, "Wow, that sounds pretty radical!" But I've known since business school that I wanted to start a company and had never come across that idea that I felt like I could commit my life to, that I was passionate about and felt like it was the right time to hit the market with. So I needed that intersection, and once I had it, I was like, "I have to do this. I will regret it for the rest of my life if I don't try to do this." There's this whole concept of founding a company and having it sell for a billion dollars, and that of course has happened, but I think the reality is that these things take years. It takes day after day of getting to the next step. So if you're not totally passionate and feel like you're changing the world with what you're doing, it's not going to be worth it.
PS: How did you end up pitching the panel on Shark Tank?
JC: I'm a big Shark Tank fan and I've watched for a number of years. One of our investors, Halle Tecco (the founder of Rock Health, a significant angel investment fund) is actually the person who tracks and publishes the Shark Tank deal database. So she had approached me, along with another board member, and said, "Hey, we really think you should think about doing this - we have a consumer product, and people don't even know that this option exists for lab testing. And, by the way, it'd be great to have a Shark on board." So I ended up applying. You submit a 20-page application - this happened in March - and I was contacted by a producer about two days before the application date. I'd already been thinking about doing it, but they reached out and said, "Hey, we would encourage to apply" - so I did. It took about 15 to 20 hours just to complete the application, and then from there you do a video pitch application and then a phone interview and a number of filmed pitches and you work with your production team all the way until you get to filming. And then you do a dress rehearsal when you arrive on set - not with the Sharks, but you know, a pitch on set once you're there. And that was in June.
I don't know the exact statistic, but the show receives well over 100,000 applicants per season. So to even get the chance to film . . . you know, you go through the process and it takes so much time, but you can't rely on anything because it's such a low probability that you make it filming, and it's an even lower probability that you make it from there to airing. But we were really committed; we felt like the audience for Shark Tank is where we wanted to tell our story and to have the opportunity to pitch to these incredible people. I was targeting Lori and Mark, but getting a Shark involved in a consumer product in a really challenging space like health care . . . I just felt like that was a huge opportunity.
PS: So you were targeting Lori!
JC: I was! I was targeting Lori and Mark. The guest Shark that I didn't know would be on the show until right before, Rohan Oza . . . his background is obviously in consumer brands, and he's part of a venture firm actually based out of Austin. So once I found that out, I was like, 'Oh, well, maybe Rohan would be great as well." But from the typical Shark pool, I was really excited to try to convince Mark and Lori. So that's one of the reasons on the show you see me accept so quickly - because, well, first of all, she was the only Shark in. But I felt like her brand, how she understands consumer products, how she understands retail and marketing and packaging and messaging - I just felt like we'd be crazy not to get her on board. She's so authentic and in touch with her consumer base - and with the American consumer! It's a really great relationship to have, to get to work with her. She's been amazing so far - she called in to the watch party that we had on Sunday night, which was so fun, and she's obviously had a couple great Facebook videos and some other things that have been super helpful.
PS: I'd love to hear a bit more about the STD testing kits you mentioned in the episode and how those work.
JC: We currently have two STD panels - it's a seven-test comprehensive panel - one male, one female. What's really great about that product is that it's $189, but that includes, at no extra cost, a telemedicine physician consult and a prescription if your test comes back abnormal and if relevant for your particular infection. That's a big cost saving for many people, and it's totally private and anonymous. We launched that product in February and it's quickly grown to be one of our top three bestsellers. For us, our goal across the board is to to get the prices down on our tests, to pass that along to the consumer - but it's also to provide products that can actually change the outcome of health. So whether that's reducing STD rates, improving heart health . . . things like that, that's where I get really passionate.
From a demographic standpoint, the test is heavily male - and obviously a little on the younger age demographic. But think about it; for college kids, it may be that you can go to a clinic, but many people don't go, as it's something that they want to keep private. They want to have access to their own information on their own terms, and the more that we can encourage this, the better. Next year, we'll be launching individual STD markers, so if you only wanted an HIV test, for example, you'd be able to get that. But the product is a great example of how can we bring things direct to consumer, physician reviewed and approved, at a reasonable price point - and the consumer gets to control the decision-making around how they want to use and access the test.
PS: You also mentioned a new offering in the genomics space - what's the current status on that?
JC: In July of this year, we launched a DNA partnership with Helix. Helix is an incredible company backed by Warburg Pincus that essentially allows you to get your DNA sequenced once at a really reasonable price, and then query that data through different partners that Helix has on its platform. We've actually developed our own genomic panels that are thematically combined with our biomarkers tests based on that data. We have three right now: a food sensitivity plus, a metabolism plus, and a breast milk DHA test. What's so huge about this is that when you get a panel done, that's just data from a point in time. It's infinitely more helpful to have both the point-in-time data as well as your underlying genetic predisposition. Because if you just have the genetic data, it's important information to help inform your lifestyle - but if you have the genetic data AND you know exactly what your current labs are, you can then actually start to put together a really good plan for how you're going to manage your health.
PS: So what's next for EverlyWell, now that you've got Lori on board?
JC: We ended up closing the deal with Lori on slightly different terms and actually just signed our series A term sheet, which will close by the end of the year - we're really excited about that. On the show, you heard me say we had done about $2.5 million in sales in about a year - and now we will do, just in 2017, about $6 to $7 million in sales. So the numbers are quite different! We're closing out today, but we're actually 99.9 percent sure that we're going to end this month as a million-dollar month for November, which is really exciting. But the main next step is to get to two-and-a-half times growth next year through a multichannel strategy. Ninety-nine percent of our sales are done through EverlyWell.com, and we really want to get these kits on shelves where people live and work, accessible through their physicians, accessible through their employers, and that sort of thing. We also want to really expand our test menu, so wherever people are, in whatever phase of their life, we've got them covered. If they're considering having a child, how do we ensure that they can have all kinds of testing options, pre- and postpartum? If they're pre- or postmenopausal, how can we make products that can help manage their hormones? These are some of the strategic developments we're looking at in the next year. We're also looking at how can we really improve the technology platform. We have beautiful custom results, but we want to help integrate those results so that they'll automatically be sent to an individual's doctor.
PS: And what about integrating EverlyWell into existing health plans and coverage?
JC: We're actively working on enterprise partnerships with healthcare plans, self-insured employers, clinical trial companies, and corporate wellness groups. And the reason for that is that there's an extremely low rate of lab testing compliance. It's a little bit hard to gauge nationally, but anywhere between 30 to 40 percent of lab tests that are ordered by doctors are never fulfilled. So there's this huge opportunity to empower individuals for three reasons. It's super inconvenient, people don't know how much it's going to cost, and then once you do it, you have no idea whether it mattered or not. We saw these problems, and so did others - and that means that a lot of big companies are now approaching us and saying, "Hey, can you help manage this with our consumers and get them excited about this and engaged? And we'll pay you to do that." So we absolutely are focused on the consumer access and adoption of certain consumer behavior around that testing, but you'll start to see us work with companies that can really broaden our scale and allow us to do that in a really big way.
PS: Finally, who's your biggest entrepreneurial role model, and what would you recommend to other women looking to get into business?
JC: I'm going to go ahead and say Kat Lake, the founder and CEO of Stitch Fix. She's a friend of mine from business school. I just think the way that she has managed the building of Stitch Fix is truly remarkable. She built her business smartly, it was quick, she never gave up - and I know her personally, so it's a little weird to say she's my role model - but she's been someone that I would love to model our path after in what she's been able to do.
Being a female founder is particularly challenging, and there's been more and more narratives being drawn around female founders and entrepreneurs. It's so important that we're bringing all these narratives to light, but if I'm reading it and I'm not a founder, I'd be like . . . "Why would I ever do this?" But it can be amazing, and I want to encourage people to do it. I would love for women to know it can be amazing and rewarding and it can be the best career path in the world - and not to get discouraged by what you read, to really encourage people to build the life and the business you want.
This Video Game Might Solve All of Your Relationship Woes
Image Source: POPSUGAR Photography / Benjamin Stone
It feels like forever ago, but last July I fell down an insane rabbit hole with Pokémon Go. And I didn't go alone. I took my boyfriend along with me, and we religiously followed all the great things that were happening in the world as a result of the game. But once Fall rolled around, I was totally over it and actively looking for the next great thing.
I'm one of those people who can't just passively binge-watch television on the couch in my off time. I'm always playing Two Dots, completing a crossword puzzle, or scrolling through Twitter. When I dropped Pokémon Go, I lost one important thing: the competitive spirit that was built between me and my boyfriend. We used to race through the streets and secretly drop cash on items to try to outpace each other in the game. It became my mission to find something that we found equally as satisfying - and I got really lucky when that search coincided with the release of the much-anticipated Civilization VI.
As of today, I can tell you unequivocally: Civilization VI is the best thing that's ever happened to my relationship.
What Makes Civilization VI Different Than Other Games
Civilization first debuted in 1991 as a computer game that enables players to craft, build, and protect an empire over the course of time. The game revolves around keeping your empire happy and making the right decisions for them. And though it's nothing like decorating a room for your Sim, it's just as addicting. I started playing it in school after I got bored of Oregon Trail and though it's been many years since then, I know several people who play it out of nostalgia, like my boyfriend.
These days, however, Civilization looks totally different. It's focused on urban development, religious spread, and a better life span for characters. This time around, Civilization takes on an entirely new generation of gamers by making it easier to engage with your citizens and harder to just stick to autopilot. There's also the fact that it's just so damn nice to look at, as the graphics have been significantly upgraded and the gameplay itself feels more like a video game than an old-school computer game.
How I Got Hooked
Image Source: Giphy
As I mentioned earlier, I was on the hunt for a new game to play and the timing couldn't have been more perfect. The game only costs $60, a justifiable amount that was equivalent to a rowdy night out, so of course, my boyfriend and I downloaded the game. We started off in our own separate games at first but later found that one of the best parts of Civilization VI is the ability to play a game over your local network and that we could build our empires side by side without existing in our separate worlds.
Within hours, it became clear that this was a good thing for us. We shouted at the barbarians who tried to mess up our developments, warned each other about the computer players who were gathering at the borders we couldn't see past, and gloated about our respective abilities to pull ahead of the pack. It was pure and simple fun.
Was It Really That Fun Playing With Your Boyfriend?
Image Source: Giphy
Real talk: the first couple rounds we played together, I got creamed. I'm more of the build-up-your-city-type player, whereas my boyfriend is a warmonger in the extreme, and he got an incredible amount of pleasure out of coming out of nowhere and tearing down my civilization. To be fair, I found myself constantly checking the stats to make sure that I was focusing my resources on one-upping him in our shared world.
After a while, though, we realized we were spending a whole lot of time trying to trick each other and not focusing on what was going on around us. I started to leave a lot more dirty dishes than usual for the first few nights and accidentally "forgot" to take out the trash just so I could peep at his screen!
Ultimately, though, we both came to our senses. It took us a couple of days, but we figured out that the best way to approach the game was to try to beat out the computer players instead. By baiting them and sharing intel, we could quickly rise up the ranks and tackle progressively harder levels of play.
How Does This Game Make Your Relationship Better?
Image Source: 20th Century Fox
Never underestimate the ability of joint gameplay in bringing you and your significant other together. With Civilization VI specifically, you feel like you're learning something about the world you're creating and ways to improve. When you're playing side by side with a partner, you'll find yourself talking through the moves you're considering or the things you wish you'd done first. It creates an entirely different level of conversation that serves as an incredible escape from everyday life.
There are few games that allow you to do what you want and in the same universe, a feature Civilization VI has. As I mentioned, my focus in the game and the focus of my boyfriend are completely different, yet I can periodically direct my scouts over to where he's set up shop and investigate what he's got going on. It allows us to put something on Netflix, sit side by side, and not feel like we're ignoring each other. And while that sounds like such a First World problem, it's something you need to consider and often don't when there's social media to browse or solo games to play instead.
But Couldn't You Just Talk to Each Other?
Image Source: NBC
My boyfriend has a theory: the appeal of a movie or a long drive is that you don't have to make eye contact and constantly look at someone else while you're talking - and it opens up a new type of intimacy. As we're existing virtually in the game, we open up to each other more, discussing our lives freely as we scroll through our maps and saying things we might not have said otherwise if we were just sitting there trying to fill empty space. I'm not advocating a complete and utter surrender to a second screen, but there are few things more appealing than a quick round of a video game on a night where it's too cold to go out or you come home late from work. It's a break that we've woven into our lives that has helped us open up to each other more.
So Should You Try It With Your Significant Other?
Image Source: Courtesy of Chelsea Hassler
Civilization VI is the game that you never knew you needed, and it will surpass your expectations at every turn. It's a delightful, nonpolitical, only semiviolent escape that can foster a competitive relationship that enables you and your partner to achieve something individually but not alone. As we head into Winter and there's less to do outside, I can't recommend enough that you sacrifice the cost of one wild night out for many nights snuggled up on the couch together playing this game. Civilization VI can be downloaded via Steam, iTunes, or Amazon at any time, from anywhere.
Paul Ryan Magazine Is the Satirical Publication We All Need Right Now
Satire isn't easy. For a piece of satire to work, it needs to strike the perfect balance of humor and truth - and to be received by an audience that has enough knowledge of the original subject to appreciate all the intricately crafted, slightly askew details contained within. As a result, a successful piece of satire can provide the most astute commentary on life as we know it. And with the release of a parody magazine called Paul Ryan, a brand-new bar has been set for how to knock satire out of the park.
The brainchild of Andrew Lipstein and James Folta - the creative force behind last year's New Yorker parody, Neu Jorker - Paul Ryan takes the form of a glossy magazine, right down to the full-page ads and bonus puzzle section. For all intents and purposes, it's a publication that you might find on a table in the waiting room of a dentist's office or slotted into a rack in an airport kiosk . . . right down to every last, perfectly placed detail. But there's a very good reason you probably won't be thumbing through the pages of Paul Ryan anywhere but in the comfort of your own home: at the end of the day, it's a blistering parody of the unwavering adoration that the GOP has for our current speaker of the House. Yet there's so, so much more to the magazine than just the jabs it takes at Paul Ryan.
"We figured, like everyone, that Hillary [Clinton] was going to win and that Paul Ryan would be the guy left holding the bag," Folta told me when I caught up with him and Lipstein by phone in early December, describing how they'd started working on the idea before Donald Trump became president but decided to stick with it regardless. "Like a lot of Republicans, Paul Ryan paved the way for - and abided - Trump's rise, so he still seemed like the perfect paradigm figure to go after."
And there's a very good reason Paul Ryan is the perfect candidate for a satirical publication: he barely seems real. "I think that it only works because a lot of people do wonder about Paul Ryan and have some idea of what he stands for, but overall it seems like he is this impenetrable vacuum that you can get at from any angle, which sort of allowed us to do just that," Lipstein said. "To have an ESPN mock draft about him or a People-esque story about him - you can see him through any angle because that's sort of what he represents to America is a kind of 'fill in the blank.' Whatever you believe in, whatever your values are, as long as you're relatively conservative, Paul Ryan is your guy."
Knowing that they had the perfect subject matter was only half the battle, though. From there, they had to deal with the fact that the duo couldn't just ignore the fact that Trump was president. Instead, they rallied the contributors who were already on board, pushing them toward a more intense vision of what was to come. "We ended up upping the satire and upping the aggressiveness of a lot of the jokes after the election, which came from both us as well as our writers having increased zeal for wanting to go after Ryan and the others," Folta said.
"We first contacted writers last year," Lipstein said, noting that the process for recruiting talent was fundamentally different this time around than with their last endeavor. "When we were parodying The New Yorker, we basically found someone for each piece. It was like, one person's going to do this food-and-drink story - and before I even saw the piece, I knew the concept. But for Paul Ryan, we really just took pitches [for one-off stories]. There's a huge overlap in the writers and illustrators who are involved with both projects . . . but this time, we asked people what they wanted to do."
"The Neu Jorker was based on one magazine, so the tone and the style and the design - the general thrust of the content, really - was all decided beforehand," Folta added. "But for this one, the pitches were a little more complex in that we were asking people to not only come up with a piece and a comedic angle, but also format it like a magazine, column, article, or some existing reference point that they would be directly satirizing. So there was an added layer of complexity in it that made things a little trickier on all levels, which we did intentionally. We wanted to do something much crazier and more intense."
But finding the right writers to shape each section of the magazine was crucial - and not something that Folta and Lipstein took lightly. The idea was that each person had to be able to successfully conjure up a piece that brought you into an alternate universe that resembles our reality, but with the right level of skew. To make the whole magazine work as a cohesive unit, they needed to make sure that each piece felt like it added up to an organic whole. But that's what the duo is best at: working together, as a team, to create a work far larger than what they would've done alone.
Lipstein and Folta initially met while doing improv comedy years ago, and they instantly bonded over their shared love for reading, writing, and literature. As creative partners, they survive mainly on their dual willingness to do something they feel passionate about, without having to worry about it potentially going wrong.
"I think the reason why we were able to work together on both these projects is because we both have this blind willingness to do something that goes off momentum alone, going through the phases of actually accomplishing it as if we aren't aware of how much work it's going to be, or how many people are going to have to get involved, or the many things that don't make sense about it," Lipstein said. "Actually, both with this project and The Neu Jorker, I remember telling people about it, and while they didn't say it was a terrible idea, you could tell they just didn't get it or thought it just didn't make any sense."
Even if it didn't make sense to some people, neither Folta nor Lipstein felt like that was a deterrent to the creative process. In fact, it only drove them harder toward an idea that they knew was unique, untapped, and unparalleled. "I think that the opposite metric is used all the time, to terrible results, this whole 'this seems like a really good idea that doesn't have a lot of downsides' thing. If it seems like that, then there are probably a whole lot of other people who are doing it, or at least trying to. It's like that whole 'pivot to video' thing," Lipstein said. "'Everyone else is doing it. It seems like an easy thing.'"
But if there's one thing that has never, ever been an easy thing, it's satire. And in Trump's America, it's even harder to get the tone right in a way that doesn't feel like pandering or a cheap shot. And that sentiment is lost in the ever-increasing sea of content centered on Trump that is exaggerated, goofy, and clearly crafted toward outrage.
"I feel like a lot of people will tell us, 'Oh, wow. The Trump administration must be so good for you as a comedy person. You must be so happy - there's so much to do!'" Folta said. "But combined with the fact that everyone's making jokes on Twitter all the time, political jokes are as common as anything. All these first-level jokes like 'he has small hands' or 'his hair is ridiculous' have been around forever and will keep being beaten to death forever until Trump is blessedly out of office. It makes it hard to do something that feels fresh, that feels interesting, that feels like it's challenging in a way that satire kind of has to be or is pushing a boundary in a way that satire needs to be."
"I think that's one of the reasons why we really wanted Paul Ryan to push the boundaries," he added. "To challenge that first-pass, simple take on everything. But it feels hard to make jokes about politics now when the news is already so crazy. It's hard to know where to heighten things when it's already so heightened and so scary every day."
From Lipstein's perspective, the more we pile on the same topics, the less challenging and hard-hitting the humor becomes. And then it becomes more a matter of making people laugh on Twitter and not about crafting a perfect work of comedy that has a lasting effect.
"Before the Trump era, liberal comedians were actually more able to look inward to create humor and make fun of themselves. But because we now have a certifiable enemy and somebody who is so easy to poke fun of, we're all looking in that direction. And it's not that funny because it's like everyone's in on it, the humor's straightforward, and while it's political and it feels right, it isn't challenging," he told me. "And it doesn't create the sort of uncomfortable urge in yourself that, I think, is where all humor is. There's probably more humor out there than there's ever been. I mean, every single humor section of The New Yorker since Trump was elected has just been a kind of very straightforward poke at him, but it doesn't feel as angsty or even as existential - though I hate to use that word - as it did before that era."
The decision to create Paul Ryan, then, was more about bucking that norm than anything else. And the decision to create something that praised him to the heavens makes it a complicated kind of comedy that possesses a strength well beyond anything we see on TV or read on blogs.
"In a lot of real ways, Paul Ryan actually is praiseworthy, and it's scary because he's such a political ninja," Lipstein said. "So there are a lot of aspects within the magazine that, of course it's satire, but if you are actually a fan of him, you might well just read that as actual praise for him. Which kind of feels like - what's the word? Subversive. Subversive against liberal comedy in a way that I appreciate."
Ultimately, the type of smart, savvy satire that is found in the pages of Paul Ryan is the most organic kind of humor that can be found in the world right now. It's the type of comedy that makes us feel disquieted, question what we know, and wonder if we're actually in on the joke after all - all while laughing our asses off. And that, in my book, makes it something that we all should have a bit more of in our lives these days. And I can't recommend highly enough that everyone pick up a copy and spend some real quality time with one hell of a piece of satire.
What the Repeal of Net Neutrality Means For You
Net neutrality - or the right to a free, open internet - took a massive hit on Dec. 14 when federal regulators voted to repeal the Obama-era rules that prohibited telecommunications companies from commodifying the web into "fast" and "slow" lanes and from blocking access to certain websites and applications. With a 3-2 majority among the voting commissioners, Republicans took home a victory for the Trump administration's war on regulation. But just because it's on the Trump agenda doesn't mean that it's an issue that the GOP felt strongly about repealing. Instead, the vast majority of Americans - including four out of every five Republicans - were very much against this sort of repeal on the basis that it does far, far more harm than good. Ultimately, the driving motivation for those tasked with the decision was not making the internet better for consumers but increasing revenue for companies like Comcast and Verizon.
But what does this decision mean for us, as people who use the internet?
Firstly, it's important to note that we likely won't start feeling the brunt of the repeal in the next few weeks, or even months - at the end of the day, we're still talking about bureaucracy, and a decision of this magnitude doesn't appear on paper overnight. But once the decision has been fully entered into the federal register, internet service providers will then be able to carve out restrictions around the way we access, consume, and use the internet. At that point, companies will be able to take anticompetitive actions (slower speeds, fees for access) against platforms like Netflix and Hulu in order to drive consumers back to having monthly cable services and bundles, and, even more frighteningly, they'll be able to dictate the speed at which we can access certain parts of the web without having to explain themselves for it. That means that in a worst-case scenario, socially driven movements could have their online presence silenced (or, at the very least, slowed down) if their interests do not align with those of the cable providers, and there would be no repercussions for it.
Not all is lost just yet, though. We're now facing down what's sure to be a messy, widespread battle being fought not only in courtrooms across the country but on the floor of Congress as well. Ultimately, this means that now more than ever, it's crucial that we draw as much attention to this issue as possible - through calling representatives, staging protests, and taking action through the myriad organizations that will soon spring up to fight this - because the only way to ensure that this does not get pulled off as is is to make sure that it does not leave the news. There are a number of different lawsuits that are expected to be filed, and Congress has already started receiving bills to backtrack the action. But unless constant pressure is being put on those decision makers who have the power to change net neutrality's fate, it could be pushed aside for other pressing issues or used as an inappropriate bargaining chip in an already-gridlocked Congress.
For now, make your voice heard - and don't accept the fate of a blocked, gridlocked internet. We've come way too far to let this be decided by three individuals in a hearing, and as things develop, we will be sure to provide you with any and all actions you can take to ensure that we're able to keep the internet that we all deserve.
Here's What You Need to Know About Apple's Face ID on the iPhone X
After months of speculation, on Sept. 12, Apple finally gave us the technology we've been waiting on for years: facial recognition. That's right, the new iPhone X edition will have machine-learning-driven Face ID, giving your phone the ability to recognize your face and your face the ability to open your phone - and of course, completely doing away with the "home" button and the Touch ID feature.
Apple says that Face ID will be infinitely more secure than Touch ID; outside of any "evil twins" or genetic relatives, there's only a one in 1,000,000 chance that anyone outside of the owner would be able to unlock the phone with their face. How exactly did they do this? Well, there are a couple things going on here:
- The iPhone X comes fully locked and loaded with the TrueDepth camera system: It's made up of an infared camera, flood illuminator, proximity sensor, ambient light sensor, speaker, microphone, front camera, and dot projector. Combined, the TrueDepth system creates IR dots that are pushed through neural networks to create mathematical models, which are run through in order to unlock the phone. In other words, it's light years ahead of the tech that stood behind the Touch ID mechanism.
- Touch ID can recognize you under any circumstance: The TrueDepth system (specifically, the flood illuminator) shoots light at your face so you can be recognized at any time, with any hairstyle, in any light - no matter what you're wearing. Thanks to the A11 Bionic neural engine, your phone will now learn your face, instead of your passcode or fingerprint.
- Face data is pretty damn secure: Despite some early concerns, your face data will be protected by secure enclave and is processed completely within the iPhone X - which means you're not sending any of this data to external servers, and it all lives in the phone that you own.
- You need to be paying attention to the phone in order to unlock it: So if you were concerned about it just randomly unlocking and sharing your info with the world - don't be. The owner needs to look directly at it and be paying full attention in order for it to unlock.
- Face ID works with Apple Pay: In the checkout line, you just need to look down at your phone to open it before scanning it to pay for that splurge purchase you picked up at lunch.
- Most importantly, Animoji! The new technology enables these live-action emoji to contain even your most intricate expressions.
Ahead, check out Face ID in action and explore the features that will finally be part of our everyday lives in just a few short weeks. The iPhone X will enter presale on Oct. 27 and is expected to ship on Nov. 3.
lundi 8 janvier 2018
The Internet Is in a Tizzy Over What Color These Sneakers Actually Are
Move over, The Dress. There's a new optical illusion in town, The Sneaker, and it's blowing minds and starting fights all across the internet.
Weird!! I can see both pink and white or grey & teal depending on where I focus my eye first. So trippy. This beats the dress. http://pic.twitter.com/J1hWY3JUZ3
- Jen Lilley (@jen_lilley) October 13, 2017
It's been more than two years since The Dress divided households around the world into two camps: those who saw blue and black and those who swore it was white and gold. In the second week of October, however, it became instantly clear that there was a far more polarizing argument to be had. When you look at The Sneaker, do you see gray and teal? Or do you see pink and white? And, more importantly, is it even possible to see what it is that the opposing side sees?
Naturally, the internet had a lot of feelings about it. Here are some of the strongest arguments we came across on our Twitter travels:
If you said "pink and white" instead of "mint and gray" look at this pic for a second... http://pic.twitter.com/ViQXsomfgA
- Branden Hampton (@CEO) October 12, 2017
THE REAL SHOE IS PINK & WHITE OKAY⁉️
The second pic was with flash & darkened, so it looks teal & gray. (depends on what lighting ur in) http://pic.twitter.com/FlbO3OEEuC- alisha🎃 (@dolansmalik) October 11, 2017
I feel like the people who say this shit is pink and white are just trying to fuck with everyone https://t.co/wbJhawb7UL
- Bella Fiori (@IsabellaLFiori) October 12, 2017
To be fair, a quick Google Image search will pretty solidly point to these shoes being pink and white Vans. But what if all this time, what we've considered pink and white has really been gray and teal? As the internet continues to rage on about what it is that it sees, we'll leave this up to you to decide. Just don't let it get between you and your loved ones, OK?
The 4 Pieces of Advice Barack Obama Gave Donald Trump on Inauguration Day
As President Donald Trump prepared to take office on Inauguration Day, Barack Obama quietly vacated the West Wing. But Obama left something behind during his exit: a letter, one that traditionally passes between two presidents as the highest office in the land changes hands. "We just went to the Oval Office and found this beautiful letter from President Obama. It was really very nice of him to do that," Trump bragged to the press several days later, adding, "We won't even tell the press what's in that letter."
On Sept. 2, CNN finally obtained that letter, exclusively. The missive is a reminder of the grace and well-spoken nature of the 44th president and a testament to the time he spent reflecting on the state of the union. Most notable, however, are the incredibly astute pieces of advice that Obama wanted to pass on to the new commander-in-chief. From a tip on leadership to a reminder about the importance of those you surround yourself with, the gracious "reflections" feel like a stolen moment between two incredibly powerful men.
Below you'll find the four items Obama put forth to Trump in the note he left on the Resolute desk of the Oval Office.
Remember those less fortunate than yourself.
"We've both been blessed, in different ways, with great good fortune. Not everyone is so lucky. It's up to us to do everything we can (to) build more ladders of success for every child and family that's willing to work hard."
Lead by example, and lead the world.
"American leadership in this world really is indispensable. It's up to us, through action and example, to sustain the international order that's expanded steadily since the end of the Cold War, and upon which our own wealth and safety depend."
Protect the American democracy and its institutions.
"We are just temporary occupants of this office. That makes us guardians of those democratic institutions and traditions - like rule of law, separation of powers, equal protection and civil liberties - that our forebears fought and bled for. Regardless of the push and pull of daily politics, it's up to us to leave those instruments of our democracy at least as strong as we found them."
Spend time with your loved ones.
"Take time, in the rush of events and responsibilities, for friends and family. They'll get you through the inevitable rough patches."
Behold, Reddit's 10 Most Upvoted Posts of 2017
More than 12 billion upvotes were made on Reddit this year, a figure that almost doubles the total number of living, breathing human beings on planet Earth. In other words, you'd be hard pressed to find a platform that gets quite as much engagement on the stories of the day, every day - and why its annual year in review is essential reading for any reasonable person who spends time on the internet.
So in order to properly bid adieu to 2017, ahead you'll find the top 10 most upvoted posts of 2017. These are the subjects that attracted the most Redditors over the course of the year and are a testament to the power of shared passions and feelings. And, of course, it wouldn't be a Reddit year in review without a couple of posts that left us LOLing for days, too.
Maxine Waters's Tweet About Trump and Roy Moore Is the Purest Definition of Savage
Time and time again, Rep. Maxine Waters has proved that she's sure as hell not afraid to candidly express her thoughts about controversial political figures, whether it be on social media, during television appearances, or at political events. You certainly don't want to be on the California congresswoman's bad side, and it looks like President Donald Trump has officially sealed the No. 1 spot on her sh*t list, with Roy Moore coming in a close second place.
When Moore lost the Alabama Senate race to Democrat Doug Jones on Dec. 12 - a historic and notable moment for the deeply red state - Waters couldn't resist tossing in her two cents on the election results. She immediately fired off an epic (and, yes, rather savage) tweet aimed at Trump, who adamantly pleaded for votes in Moore's favor during the Alabama Senate race.
How many diet cokes did Trump consume while he gulped and waited for the defeat of his pedophile candidate?? #swishswish
- Maxine Waters (@RepMaxineWaters) December 13, 2017
The tweet digs at Trump's alarming Diet Coke addiction (ICYMI, the POTUS reportedly tosses back a whopping dozen cans of the beverage each day) while also referencing Moore's recent onslaught of sexual assault allegations. And can we please just discuss her hysterical hashtag choice? All we have to say is LOL. This woman has truly solidified her title as the ultimate Queen of Sass.
Needless to say, people are absolutely living for her shade-throwing abilities, which some may compare to that of a freakin' full-grown oak tree.
Aunt Maxine U CRAZY! Love you! Keep fighting for us!
- Alvin R. Gilchrist (@makeitwrite1128) December 13, 2017
DRAG THEM AUNT MAXINE http://pic.twitter.com/88bIqGOeJd
- DeMarko Gage :) (@DeMarko_Gage) December 13, 2017
#petty + #shade = perfection! lol
- RealTalk WithFelicia (@rtwfelicia) December 13, 2017
I was waiting on Aunt Maxine to drag Trump and whoever works with him http://pic.twitter.com/rL7V6qMEIY
- DeMarko Gage :) (@DeMarko_Gage) December 13, 2017
LMAO REP MAXINE COMING IN HOT
- Juan Aguas (@JuanAguas) December 13, 2017
Dear Auntie Maxine, please run in 2020!
-America 😩😩 http://pic.twitter.com/a94pvrXrYV- Jon Pierre (@Mr_Repertoire) December 13, 2017
dimanche 7 janvier 2018
As a Biracial Woman and Former Evangelical, Trump's Racism Is All Too Familiar
I used to be an evangelical Christian. I helped lead people in worship, or "ushered them into the presence of God," as we used to say. I traveled the world crooning out the message of the gospel at conferences hosted by my church, a mostly white evangelical megachurch in the suburbs of Chicago. On the weekends I sang for as many as 16,000 people. It was a lofty thing to be part of, a "calling" I believed in wholeheartedly. During the years that I served in this congregation, before I walked away from the religion I'd grown up with and embraced even more intensely in college, racial reconciliation as a ministry focus became more prevalent in my church. This term - "racial reconciliation" - may be most familiar to those in religious communities. Back then, I understood it to be a kind of evangelical model for tackling racism in the church, one that emphasized diversity, relationships, and the need to address systemic causes fueling racism in society. However, these same ideals and goals are also embodied in more widely known terms like racial justice and social justice.
When the leadership team decided to do a series of services focused on this topic, I was drafted to tell a piece of my story. As a biracial woman - and usually the only woman of color singing on stage - it seemed my time had come. I wrote a brief account, summarizing in one minute a personal experience with racism. The memory I chose to relate involved a family in that church, though I didn't reveal that detail. I told the congregation about how a former white boyfriend's parents, particularly his mother, persuaded him to end our relationship because they were uncomfortable with my blackness. I said the fact that they were all Christians undermined my confidence in God's love for me; it made me wonder if He loved white Christians more than black ones. I sang a song about love and unity and building bridges.
People came up to me afterwards, some weeping, apologizing for random things. Looking for absolution that I could not give. Seeing in me - at least for a moment - the entire black community, because for better or worse, we are never singular, always plural. I soaked it up. In that era of my life, I wanted to believe I was like Esther and had been called "'for such a time as this' (NIV, Esther 4:14)." I was inspired and hopeful. Maybe the church could help bridge that space between black and white. Maybe because I'd come from both places, I was uniquely equipped to be part of that healing. I love my family - black and white. But there had been a rift long ago, and I'd grown up occupying the expanse between them. It was lonely and I was sick of it. I wanted healing for myself and, on a larger scale, for all of us.
That was in 2001. By the time Barack Obama was elected to his first term in 2008, I no longer wanted to be part of any church environment. Disillusionment festered over that 7 year period as I witnessed a hyper-image-conscious handling of ministries and the people in them, a theological certainty among fellow congregants I couldn't relate to, and culminated in a manipulative and misleading interview process for a ministry job in the church. Ultimately, the thread of racism running through my time there put me over the edge. Indeed, in the years that followed the experience with my ex's family, I racked up more than a few racially charged confrontations with white Christian friends and acquaintances from the church. There were comments about darker black skin looking like an ape's; there was an email I received warning me that Barack Obama was not a citizen. All these moments left me with a nagging skepticism about the efficacy of racial reconciliation as a ministry in the church. Did the white evangelicals who subscribed to it in theory really want to help? Did they really want justice? Maybe a better question is were they able to see something in themselves that needed to change to bring any of this to fruition? Or were they in denial?
The 2016 election of Donald Trump and its aftermath incited that skepticism about racial justice in me once again. In fact, on a recent Sunday, as the banal melodies of contemporary worship music wafted up through my dining room windows from a nearby nondenominational church, my thoughts began revisiting the past. I recalled that moment on stage at the megachurch, talking about my ex's family. I thought about what it had been like for me as a biracial woman in a mostly white evangelical congregation. Why white evangelicals voted for a man like Mr. Trump and why I'd experienced the racism I did while among them seemed like twin inquiries comingling in my mind as I got my daughter's breakfast ready that morning. Two spoonfuls of cottage cheese and one poached egg later, I puzzled over one simple fact: Trump spoke in the language of racists and xenophobes and it seemed to be of minimal concern at best or resonate with them at worst. It was certainly not enough to dissuade them from casting their votes in his favor.
Even now, it appears they continue to stand by him: even after Charlottesville; even after chastising black athletes for peaceful protests against police brutality, suggesting they are ungrateful, calling them disrespectful "sons of b*tches." Even after Trump's tepid response to Puerto Rico's suffering following Hurricane Maria, his "blame the victim" stance, and his thinly veiled threats to remove aid, he is rewarded with their loyalty. In fact, it seems as if the "conversation" happening now only includes them while the rest of us watch and listen on the sidelines.
It is not my intention to paint all of evangelicalism with a broad brush. I know there is a contingency within this branch of Christianity that is sincere about racial justice. They are inspired by people like Reverend Jim Wallis and Reverend Dr. William Barber. They are comprised of mostly blacks, Hispanics, and Asian and Pacific Islanders, but also a large number of whites. They did not vote for Donald Trump. (I don't personally see how anyone that truly cares about such things could.) But they were not - and seemingly are not - the majority. I can only speak to what I was exposed to while active in a predominantly white evangelical subculture. Perhaps all of these scenarios I've related were unique to the church I once attended. But I suspect it is symptomatic of a bigger problem in the church at large.
For a good portion of my life, I have been timid when faced with racist comments or behaviors demonstrated by white people. I default to the social survival instincts born out of a childhood spent in racial isolation. Giving the "benefit of the doubt" has typically been my modus operandi. It often translates to silence or the most palatable, watered-down version of what I really want to express. On those infrequent occasions when I've called out a white friend or family member's propensity for racial bias and/or racist thinking, they are not able to own it for long, if at all. The deflection and defensiveness that often follows comes in various forms of "you should be grateful," "what aboutisms," and other false equivalences or excuses.
This was the way with my ex-boyfriend's mother. Not long after I spoke during the racial-reconciliation-themed services at my old church, she called to apologize "for the way we treated you," she said. There had been a pang of conscience. Maybe she'd heard me speak or someone close to her had. I could hear anxiety in her voice, a rushing through sentences and marginal regret. She couldn't commit to it, though, and quickly began defending her actions. She objected to us as a couple "out of concern for what her son would face." She had students who were biracial and saw "how hard it was for them, caught in the middle." It's a twisted logic that masquerades as caring but seems to suggest I, and others like me, would be be better off not existing. She lectured me, a biracial woman, as if I had no clue what my hypothetical children would face. I wanted to say, "It's people who think like you that make it difficult." Instead, I listened and thanked her for calling. She was afraid and embraced a response to that fear which she knew was inappropriate. Nevertheless, her discomfort with interracial marriage and biracial children rated above doing the right thing. In the end, she let herself off the hook. And to my regret, so did I.
While I was part of the megachurch, I often observed this same troubling attitude around race, typically in moments when I did not strive to be palatable but was more straightforward, less "sugar coated." It articulates itself with an air of kindly smugness, in which the righteousness of an evangelical Christian is sacrosanct. It can not be challenged with charges of racism. They have, after all, been remade in Christ's image and imbued with the power of the Holy Spirit. How can they be guilty of racism? They don't use the "N" word and they may even have black friends. They don't engage in lynchings or burn crosses or march with neo Nazis and white supremacists. They denounce these things publicly, so isn't that proof they are blameless? They are good, Christian people. And yet, they have empowered and continue to support a man who repeatedly demonstrates that he does not value the lives of black and brown people as much as white ones. He has put me and my family in harm's way with his inability or unwillingness to definitively and authentically disavow white supremacy. Like my ex-boyfriend's mother, white evangelicals are so thoroughly convinced by and invested in a sense of their own righteousness and moral high ground, they have undone the work of reconciliation.
That Sunday morning in church all those years ago, I did not share what were, for me, profoundly more intense details of the relationship with my ex-boyfriend's family. Granted, I was one of many people on the stage that day. I had to be brief. But I often wish I hadn't tried so hard to make what I needed to say easier for the church to hear. I still remember the shame and bewildered frustration in my ex's voice as he repeated his mother's words to me over the phone: "If the two of you date, that's fine . . . but if you got married and had children . . . I'm not sure I could love them as much as I love your sister's kids." Such words took my breath away then and still have the power to suffocate, especially now that I do have a child who is biracial. I wish I'd told the congregation about those remarks and that they'd been made by a woman among their own ranks. As long as white evangelicals believe this mindset is only wreaking havoc in other places, they are absolved from having to address it among themselves.
Even though I no longer see myself as a part of that community, I still carry a certain amount of love for it and residual pain from it. There is some piece of me that still hopes the church has something valuable to contribute to the cause of racial justice. It's probably why I feel the need to, in my own way, hold white evangelicals accountable. I want them to do better.
But when I consider the very real danger of war as Trump threatens North Korea, angers our allies, and alarms even those close to him enough to speak out about it, I can see that opposing ideologies and differences aside, we are all of us bound together in our shared vulnerability against a true existential crisis. This awakens my compassion, my desire to find common ground, and a willingness to have those hard conversations. My past with the evangelical church is akin to being wounded, soul-deep, by a family member or close friend: you may want to make peace with them somehow, but you do so with the knowledge that you might never be as close as you once were. A price has to be paid, and truth is the currency.
Articles
