Racism is a “widespread” and “systemic” problem in Australian universities, a major new report has found. According to the Australian Human Rights Commission, about 80% of surveyed Indigenous, Chinese, African, Jewish and Middle Eastern students and staff say they have experienced racism at university.

Race Discrimination Commissioner Giridharan Sivaraman described the findings in the Racism@Uni report as sometimes “harrowing reading”. He added it shows “universities have not met their duty of care”.

What is happening on Australian campuses? And what can be done to fix it?

What did the report find?

This report was commissioned in response to a recommendation from the 2023 Australian Universities Accord final report. It follows an interim report in December 2024 which also found serious problems with racism.

This final report is based on a survey of more than 76,000 students and staff at 42 Australian universities. The survey asked about experiences of racism over the past two years at university. There was also a focus groups with 310 participants. It found:

• almost 15% of all respondents reported experiencing direct interpersonal racism at university

• almost 70% reported experiencing indirect racism at university, such as hearing or seeing racist behaviour not aimed at them personally, but directed towards the racial, ethnic, cultural or religious group with which they identify

• almost 20% of those who did not report experiencing direct or indirect racism at university said they had witnessed racism directed at others at university.

Racism was reported at all universities at similar rates, indicating this is a systemic issue. Students said the racism happened in lectures, tutorials, via marking and elsewhere on campus. Staff said it also happened in meetings and performance reviews. It included being singled out or excluded, racist jokes and comments.

What is the impact?

Some respondents reported their experiences of racism led to them them limiting their participation at university and had negative impacts on their mental health and studies.

Jewish, Israeli, Palestinian, Muslim and Middle Eastern staff and students told researchers they experienced unprecedented levels of racism during the Israel-Hamas war. As a Middle Eastern staff participant shared:

I’ve never seen it worse than this. In terms of suppressing or the fear around expressing views in university if you’re from the Middle East.

A Jewish student similarly shared how things were worse than ever:

I’d encountered antisemitism before, but I had never been scared to be Jewish. In uni, I frequently feel the need to hide my religion.

What are the recommendations?

The report’s 47 recommendations include:

• a national framework to address racism in universities

• better training and complaints processes to ensure universities are free from racism

• more public oversight of racism incidents and anti-racism measures at universities

• curriculum reform, to embed First Peoples’ knowledges, scholarship and texts across all disciplines

• targets and accountability measures to improve workforce diversity in unis.

This problem is not new

Events overseas and domestically, such as the devastating war in Gaza and Bondi terrorist attack, have provided the context for much of the recent discussion on the rise of racism. But racism on campuses is by no means exclusively linked to such recent events.

Over the last few decades, many studies and social surveys have reported persistent discrimination against certain racial groups. This includes exclusion from leadership and workforce representation.

This new report rightly acknowledges racism in Australian universities does not just involve interpersonal encounters, but systemic problems. This means power and representation structures need to be changed in higher education.

The report particularly touches on this in its fifth outcome – which seeks to boost diversity in university leadership and workforce.

What do we need to remember?

Of course much will depend now on how government and universities respond to these findings, which are addressed to them both. Federal Education Minister Jason Clare said he would now “consider” the recommendations.

In dealing with racism on university campuses as elsewhere in society, there must be clear guiding principles and laws. These can be applied in relation to all forms of racism, to avoid claims or concerns one form of racism is prioritised over another.

As governance experts argue, trust can be restored in our unis when there is genuine commitment to tackling racism and discrimination in all their forms.

A challenge ahead

Finally, it is absolutely imperative that in the pursuit of a robust anti-racism strategy, universities are also able to to ensure academic freedom and freedom of speech.

This means students and staff are able to express their views on domestic and international affairs without fear of being harassed or prosecuted. As the report notes, “academic freedom must enable robust discussion” while also providing a learning environment free from racism.

This can be difficult in practice. As the report notes,

[universities] face the challenge of creating respectful learning environments while allowing some discomfort in engaging with difficult ideas.

As the report recommends, this can be improved if more students and staff are given anti-racism and cultural competency training.

What do unis do?

In 1987, former education minister John Dawkins observed of universities:

we must ask the institutions themselves what they see as their role in the social, cultural and economic lives of Australians, and ask them to examine how effectively they are discharging their roles.

This question has become even more pressing as our community tackles challenges to social cohesion. This new report raises the stakes even higher. It demands university leadership strikes the right balance between anti-racism and freedom of speech, so legitimacy and trust are both maintained.

Or, as the report notes,

[universities] must be accountable for creating safe environments, free from discrimination, and where academic freedom is balanced with respect.

Fethi Mansouri, Deakin Distinguished Professor/UNESCO Chair-holder; Founding Director, Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation, Deakin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

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.

Timothy Graham, Associate Professor in Digital Media, Queensland University of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

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.

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.

Gregory Radisic, Fellow at the Centre for Space, Cyberspace and Data Law; Senior Teaching Fellow, Faculty of Law, Bond University and Samantha Lawler, Associate Professor, Astronomy, University of Regina

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The federal government plans to sell A$3 billion of Department of Defence properties on prime land across Australia, including Paddington in Sydney, St Kilda in Melbourne and Victoria Barracks in Brisbane.

The sales may help the budget in the short term, but at the time of a housing crisis, is this using public land in the best way?

Instead of selling these sites outright, the federal government could take a lead in redeveloping the land to deliver more affordable homes and long-term value for our cities.

It wouldn’t be the first time government has played this role. There are lessons to be learned from a 1990s urban redevelopment programme called Building Better Cities, which redeveloped Ultimo and Pyrmont in Sydney among other sites.

A quick fix, or a lost opportunity?

Australia’s housing crisis is one of the most urgent challenges facing federal and state governments. At the same time, the federal government plans to sell more than 60 publicly owned defence sites across the country.

Selling land can bring a quick boost to revenue. But public land is a limited resource, so we need to make sure we are getting public value from it. Once it is sold, governments lose control of how it is used in the future.

Many of the sites listed for private sale are located in capital cities, often close to jobs, public transport and services.

They range from the small, such as two office buildings on Grattan Street, Carlton, to the large, such as the 127-hectare Defence site in Maribyrnong, in Melbourne’s inner west. Locations like this are where homes are most needed. But redevelopment is not always easy, as the sites may have contaminated land or heritage buildings.

Selling these sites to private developers with limited conditions may maximise short-term revenue for defence purposes. Housing will likely be delivered.

But rather than selling land unrestricted to the private market, the government has other options to deliver better outcomes for current and future generations.

Government as master developer

One option is the federal government could transfer ownership of the sites to state governments, as long as they follow an agreed process. Government development agencies, such as Renewal SA or Hunter and Central Coast Development Corporation, would act as master developer.

These agencies work with the community to establish a vision for the future of each site. This could include social and affordable housing, employment and community uses and open space.

Then the federal and state governments would fund upfront any land remediation, public transport, streets and open spaces. This sets up what is required to make a liveable neighbourhood, and de-risks the process for private developers. Then smaller sites are sold to private developers or community housing providers at a higher value, with the government retaining that profit.

With government as custodians of the redevelopment process, high quality neighbourhoods are delivered, with more affordable housing. A project such as Bowden in Adelaide, led by Renewal SA, is a great example.

Back to the 1990s

If this level of government vision and coordination seems a stretch, it’s worth considering we have done it before. The Building Better Cities program of the 1990s invested federal and state money into 26 places around Australia, including Ultimo-Pyrmont in Sydney, Subiaco in Perth and Kensington Banks in Melbourne.

The program focused on improving the urban development process and the quality of urban life. It included the redevelopment of land no longer required by state and federal governments.

Not only did the program create high-quality places to live, it also improved Australia’s economic growth over the following decades. The $268 million investment in the transformation of industrial wasteland at Honeysuckle in Newcastle encouraged $768 million in private investment and led to over $2 billion in direct and indirect economic benefit by 2012.

Long-term leases

There are other ways for government to guide the transformation of these smaller sites in the defence portfolio. One option is to set up a long-term ground lease, to enable the delivery of homes but retain the land for future generations.

The Victorian government has shown the potential of this approach with its ground lease model, with the first neighbourhoods completed in 2024 on public housing land in Brighton, Flemington and Prahran.

Through a development agreement, private developers build affordable, social and private housing on public land. The land and buildings return to government after a 40-year period.

Alternatively, the federal government could set minimum affordable housing or sustainability requirements with the sale of sites, to support better outcomes.

Finance Minister Katy Gallagher has mentioned that sales will consider remediation, heritage and community impacts. But the focus is on achieving “market value” for the land, rather than any broader ambition.

What happens next?

Now that the defence land has been declared surplus to needs, it will go to the Department of Finance’s Property Clearing House.

This process allows other government departments to buy a site before it is sold on the open market.

Let’s hope the government sees the bigger social and economic benefits in leading the strategic transformation of these sites, rather than a short-term cash fix.

Katherine Sundermann, Senior Lecturer in Urban Planning and Design, Monash University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

A recent case before the Fair Work Commission has revealed the limits of being able to work a second job when you are employed full time.

An employee was sacked for holding a second job, which he says he had fully disclosed to his employer. The worker took his case to the Fair Work Commission, claiming he was unfairly dismissed by his employer.

Dismissal is the termination for a breach of conditions of employment. An employee may go to the Fair Work Commission and make a claim of “unfair dismissal”. The commission then considers the legal aspects of the situation and makes a decision or ruling on the merits of the case.

The Fair Work Commission ruled the dismissal was not unfair, citing two key points:

• the employee was running a side business in an area similar to their main job
• running their own business caused the employee to spend his normal work time on his second job.
  

When is it OK to run a side hustle?

Some employers do not allow employees to hold a second job or run a side business, and include this requirement in the letter of offer for a new job.

Others specify an employee must ask permission to hold a second job. The employer can then decide if the other job may affect the worker’s safety and wellbeing. This includes being too tired to do your main job, or if it creates competition with their business.

Second jobs can take various forms ranging from formal to informal jobs.

A side job is a formal type of employment and usually has regulated times for work and required tasks. These can be jobs such as working in restaurants and bars or teaching classes in the evening after normal daytime working hours.

A side hustle is an informal activity from which you earn money and is undertaken alongside your full-time job.

This might be in the gig economy or an online business.

Side hustles are entrepreneurial and flexible and can be as simple as turning a hobby or interest into a paid gig, such as selling refurbished furniture, playing in a band, dog walking or teaching yoga in your spare time.

Practical tips to avoid crossing the line

1) Read your letter of offer when you started your job. If it contains a statement prohibiting you from taking on a side hustle, you cannot undertake a second job.

If your letter of offer states you need to ask permission to take on a side hustle, let your employer know.

2) Make sure your side hustle doesn’t operate in competition to your main job.

3) As an employee, your loyalty to your employer matters. Taking on a side hustle may take your attention and support away from the main business that is paying you.

4) Your side job can’t spill over into your main job. There is a reasonable expectation you will totally focus on your full-time job during your agreed working hours.

5) It is not just your employer’s time that can’t be used: you should not use any of your employer’s resources to carry out your side hustle, either.

How many hours do people work in their second job?

While it’s hard to separate out data just on side hustles, the Australian Bureau of Statistics reports almost 1 million people hold more than one job. That’s out of a workforce of 10 million full-time workers.

The bureau says employees with multiple jobs worked about eight hours each week in their second job, and they worked slightly fewer hours than single job holders, putting in around 30.5 hours a week in their main job.

These figures may be the tip of the iceberg, because multiple job holders include people with second jobs, as well as side hustle workers.

Motivations for the side hustle or side job

An increase in the number of people holding multiple jobs over the past five years has mirrored the increase in cost of living, especially driven by higher housing prices.

The rise of the side hustle has also been attributed to the greater use of digital platforms, such as ride share, food delivery and holiday homes, and the consequent highly flexible work options created by the gig economy.

While financial issues loom large in why people have second jobs, other reasons include:

• forging a new and different career
• developing new skills, and
• personal fulfilment.

Some employers allow their employees to take on side gigs so they don’t lose them, and to give them increased motivation for their main jobs.

So if your passion project, great idea or hobby can be converted to a paid side hustle – and you can do it in your own time around your main job without creating competition with your employer – there should be a clear path for you to try something different.

Kerry Brown, Professor of Employment and Industry, School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

For years, big tech companies have placed the burden of managing screen time squarely on individuals and parents, operating on the assumption that capturing human attention is fair game.

But the social media sands may slowly be shifting. A test-case jury trial in Los Angeles is accusing big tech companies of creating “addiction machines”. While TikTok and Snapchat have already settled with the 20-year-old plaintiff, Meta’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, is due to give evidence in the courtroom this week.

The European Commission recently issued a preliminary ruling against TikTok, stating that the app’s design – with features such as infinite scroll and autoplay – breaches the EU Digital Services Act. One industry expert told the BBC that the problem is “no longer just about toxic content, it’s about toxic design”.

Meta and other defendants have historically argued that their platforms are communication tools, not traps, and that “addiction” is a mischaracterisation of high engagement.

“I think it’s important to differentiate between clinical addiction and problematic use,” Instagram chief Adam Mosseri testified in the LA court. He noted that the field of psychology does not classify social media addiction as an official diagnosis.

Tech giants maintain that users and parents have the agency and tools to manage screen time. However, a growing body of academic research suggests features like infinite scrolling, autoplay and push notifications are engineered to override human self-control.

A state of ‘automated attachment’

My research with colleagues on digital consumption behaviour also challenges the idea that excessive social media use is a failure of personal willpower. Through interviews with 32 self-identified excessive users and an analysis of online discussions dedicated to heavy digital use, we found that consumers frequently enter a state of “automated attachment”.

This is when connection to the device becomes purely reflexive, as conscious decision-making is effectively suspended by the platform’s design.

We found that the impulse to use these platforms sometimes occurs before the user is even fully conscious. One participant admitted: “I’m waking up, I’m not even totally conscious, and I’m already doing things on the device.”

Another described this loss of agency vividly: “I found myself mindlessly opening the [TikTok] app every time I felt even the tiniest bit bored … My thumb was reaching to its old spot on reflex, without a conscious thought.”

Social media proponents argue that “screen addiction” isn’t the same as substance abuse. However, new neurophysiological evidence suggests that frequent engagement with these algorithms alters dopamine pathways, fostering a dependency that is “analogous to substance addiction”.

Strategies that keep users engaged

The argument that users should simply exercise willpower also needs to be understood in the context of the sophisticated strategies platforms employ to keep users engaged. These include:

1. Removing stopping cues

Features like infinite scroll, autoplay and push notifications create a continuous flow of content. By eliminating natural end-points, the design effectively shifts users into autopilot mode, making stopping a viewing session more difficult.

2. Variable rewards

Similar to a slot machine, algorithms deliver intermittent, unpredictable rewards such as likes and personalised videos. This unpredictability triggers the dopamine system, creating a compulsive cycle of seeking and anticipation.

3. Social pressure

Features such as notifications and time-limited story posts have been found to exploit psychological vulnerabilities, inducing anxiety that for many users can only be relieved by checking the app. Strategies employing “emotional steering” can take advantage of psychological vulnerabilities, such as people’s fear of missing out, to instil a sense of social obligation and guilt if they attempt to disconnect.

Vulnerability in children

The issue of social media addiction is of particular concern when it comes to children, whose impulse control mechanisms are still developing. The US trial’s plaintiff says she began using social media at the age of six, and that her early exposure to these platforms led to a spiral into addiction.

A growing body of research suggests that “variable reward schedules” are especially potent for developing minds, which exhibit a heightened sensitivity to rewards. Children lack the cognitive brakes to resist these dopamine loops because their emotional regulation and impulsivity controls are still developing.

Lawyers in the US trial have pointed to internal documents, known as “Project Myst”, which allegedly show that Meta knew parental controls were ineffective against these engagement loops. Meta’s attorney, Paul Schmidt, countered that the plaintiff’s struggles stemmed from pre-existing childhood trauma rather than platform design.

The company has long argued that it provides parents with “robust tools at their fingertips”, and that the primary issue is “behavioural” – because many parents fail to use them.

Our study heard from many adults (mainly in their 20s) who described the near-impossibility of controlling levels of use, despite their best efforts. If these adults cannot stop opening apps on reflex, expecting a child to exercise restraint with apps that affect human neurophysiology seems even more unrealistic.

Potential harms of overuse

The consequences of social media overuse can be significant. Our research and recent studies have identified a wide range of potential harms.

These include “psychological entrapment”. Participants in our study described a “feedback loop of doom and despair”. Users can turn to platforms to escape anxiety, only to find that the scrolling deepens their feelings of emptiness and isolation.

Excessive exposure to rapidly changing, highly stimulating content can fracture the user’s attention span, making it harder to focus on complex real-world tasks.

And many users describe feeling “defeated” by the technology. Social media’s erosion of autonomy can leave people unable to align their online actions – such as overlong sessions – with their intentions.

A ruling against social media companies in the LA court case, or enforced redesign of their apps in the EU, could have profound implications for the way these platforms are operated in future.

But while big tech companies have grown at dizzying rates over the past two decades, attempts to rein in their products on both sides of the Atlantic remain slow and painstaking. In this era of “use first, legislate later”, people all over the world, of all ages, are the laboratory mice.

Quynh Hoang, Lecturer in Marketing and Consumption, Department of Marketing and Strategy, University of Leicester

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Weight-loss injections have rapidly moved from specialist clinics to social media feeds and high-street pharmacies. Known as GLP-1 medications, they were originally developed to support those with type 2 diabetes but are now widely used to support weight loss.

These medicines mimic a hormone called glucagon-like peptide-1, which helps regulate appetite and blood sugar. By slowing digestion and increasing feelings of fullness, they often lead people to eat less and lose weight.

Evidence suggests they can support weight loss, at least in the short term. But as use has grown, so have questions about possible unintended effects on nutrition and overall health.

A recent review of evidence suggests that some people taking GLP-1 medications may not be getting enough key nutrients. These include vitamins A, C, D, E and K, dietary fibre and minerals such as iron, calcium, magnesium, zinc and copper.

Nutritional deficiencies occur when the body does not receive enough of a nutrient to function properly. Estimates of how common these deficiencies are in those using GLP-1 medications vary widely. Some research suggests that more than 20% of people may be at risk within the first year of starting GLP-1 medications, while other studies indicate the impact may be much smaller, affecting less than 1% of users.

As concern about potential deficiencies has grown, so has a new market. Supplement companies are launching “GLP-1 support” products that claim to offset side-effects such as muscle loss and vitamin deficiencies by providing the “right” nutrients for people using these medications.

But do people taking GLP-1 medications actually need these supplements?

The use of vitamin and mineral supplements has long been debated in nutrition science. Evidence supporting their benefits in generally healthy people who already eat a balanced diet is limited. Supplements can be helpful for people who are deficient in a specific nutrient.

For example, many people in the UK are at risk of vitamin D deficiency during the winter months because there is less sunlight, which the body needs to produce vitamin D. However, if someone already gets enough of a nutrient from their diet, taking extra supplements usually has little or no additional benefit.

Much of the research linking GLP-1 medications to nutrient deficiencies is observational. These studies studies look for patterns and associations in data but cannot prove cause and effect. In other words, they can show that two things occur together but cannot confirm that one causes the other. This means we cannot yet say for certain that GLP-1 medications directly cause nutrient deficiencies.

Even so, the concern is reasonable. GLP-1 medications often lead to reduced food intake. Eating less food can also mean consuming fewer essential nutrients, which increases the risk of deficiencies over time.

So can these potential deficiencies be addressed without expensive specialist supplements? Often, yes. Small dietary changes may be enough. Eating a range of nutrient-dense whole foods, including fruit and vegetables, whole grains, nuts and seeds, dairy or fortified alternatives, and lean or plant-based proteins, can help maintain adequate nutrient intake.

If supplements are needed, standard vitamin and mineral products available on the high street are often sufficient. There is rarely any need to pay premium prices for products marketed specifically for GLP-1 users. The evidence used in marketing for these products is often weak.

Selective science

While there is some evidence to support the use of certain supplements in specific situations or for certain groups, many GLP-1 support supplements contain ingredients that are not clearly linked to the needs of people taking these medications. These products are often described as “science-backed” or “evidence-based,” but the research behind these claims is frequently selective. Much of it has not been carried out in people using GLP-1 medications at all.

For instance, many GLP-1 support supplements include biotin, a vitamin often promoted for improving hair and skin health. However, the evidence supporting this claim is weak. There is also no strong research showing that biotin offers specific benefits for people taking GLP-1 medications. Most people already get enough biotin from their everyday diet. This means there is no clear evidence that adding more through supplements will help.

Nutritional and lifestyle support for people using GLP-1 medications should be tailored to personal needs and goals. This approach is often described as personalised care. It recognises that people differ in their diets, health status and risk of deficiency. Guidance suggests that support should be personalised to meet individual needs to meet specific needs, ideally with advice from a qualified healthcare professional such as a registered dietitian or nutritionist. This is particularly important for anyone at higher risk of nutrient deficiency.

Where deficiencies are identified or likely, support may include small dietary changes or the use of standard supplements. However, this does not justify the routine use of expensive GLP-1 support supplements. These products are unlikely to offer benefits beyond those provided by basic, affordable supplements. A higher price does not guarantee higher quality or effectiveness.

The key message is simple. Supplements are most useful when someone has a confirmed deficiency or cannot meet their nutritional needs through diet alone. Taking supplements without a clear need is unlikely to provide any benefit and may simply be a waste of money.

Jordan Beaumont, Senior Lecturer in Food and Nutrition, Sheffield Hallam University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Cholesterol has long been seen as a key culprit in cardiovascular disease. While it’s true that cholesterol does play a role, not all cholesterol is bad for us.

There are two main types of cholesterol.

The first type is low-density lipoprotein or LDL cholesterol. This is often referred to as the “bad” cholesterol because it causes fat to collect in the arteries as plaques. This makes it harder for blood to pump throughout the body, leading to greater risk of a heart attack or stroke.

The second type is high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol — often referred to as “good” cholesterol.

HDL cholesterol has two key roles in the body. It removes excess bad cholesterol from the tissues and arteries and returns it to the liver so it can be removed from the body. HDL cholesterol also protects the artery walls so there’s less risk of a blockage forming.

Boosting HDL

The ratio of LDL to HDL in a person’s body is related to their cardiovascular disease risk. If you have a higher ratio of HDL to LDL, your cardiovascular disease risk will be lower. But if you have a lower ratio of HDL to LDL, you’ll have a higher risk of cardiovascular disease.

Fortunately, it’s possible to shift this ratio and increase HDL cholesterol levels. This can be achieved by exercising, quitting smoking and managing your weight, for example.

Certain foods can also improve HDL ratios.

The main way that diet helps boost HDL ratios is by reducing inflammation. Inflammation is a key problem in cardiovascular disease.

Inflammation makes it possible for blood platelets to stick together in our arteries at a much higher rate. This makes it difficult for the HDL cholesterol to do its job, which increases risk of blood clots forming and raises likelihood of heart disease.

By eating anti-inflammatory foods, it makes it easier for HDL cholesterol to do its job of sweeping away excess LDL cholesterol. Here are four examples you can include in your diet:

1. Fruits and vegetables

Research shows that people who have diets high in fruits and vegetables have higher HDL cholesterol levels and a better total cholesterol ratio. They also have lower blood pressure and healthier blood sugar levels, all of which can be supportive to heart health.

Fruits and vegetables exert their positive effects by trapping free radicals.

Free radicals are highly reactive, unstable molecules that can cause damage to cells and trigger inflammation in the body. By preventing inflammation, this makes it possible for HDL cholesterol to continue doing its job of removing bad cholesterol and protecting the arteries.

2. Oily fish and olive oil

Oily fish (such as salmon, sardines and tuna) and olive oil are rich in a type of fat called “polar lipids”.

These lipids are able to reach the bloodstream more quickly compared to other types of fat, allowing them to reduce inflammation and prevent the aggregation of platelets more effectively.

Cell and animal studies have shown that a diet rich in the polar lipids from oily fish is effective in preventing blood clots from forming. This effect can help cholesterol ratios stay balanced, meaning cardiovascular disease risk is lower.

3. Fermented dairy

Fermented dairy products, such as yoghurt, kefir and cheese, can all have a positive effect on HDL levels.

During fermentation, the lipids are broken down into smaller compounds that have a greater anti-inflammatory effect than milk. They can also be metabolised faster by the body.

Fermented dairy products are also rich in polar lipids, which means that they can considerably reduce cardiovascular risk.

Research found that for every 20g of fermented dairy products people consumed each day, there was a modest reduction in cardiovascular disease risk.

4. Red wine

Finally, red wine is completely misunderstood. According to the latest research, moderate consumption of red wine (the equivalent of one to two small glasses per day) is linked with better HDL ratios.

Wine reduces inflammation when consumed in small quantities because it contains polar lipids. However, if wine intake is high, the negative, pro-inflammatory effect of alcohol outstrips the positive effect of the lipids.

This is why it’s important only to drink small amounts and in moderation – otherwise, alcohol can have many negative effects on the body. Indeed, the World Health Organization has said there is no safe level of alcohol consumption as the negatives, such as increased cancer risk even from light drinking, outweigh any positives.

Non-alcoholic wines also contain polar lipids. Research suggests that polar lipid extracts from non-alcoholic beverages have comparable benefits on preventing the formation of blood clots as their alcoholic counterparts.

Inflammation is a key factor in heart disease. By eating foods that reduce inflammation in the body, it’s possible to look after your heart health and lower cardiovascular disease by improving the ratio of HDL to LDL in the body.

Ioannis Zabetakis, Associate Professor, Food Chemistry, University of Limerick

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Thanks to an unprecedented lift in public funding in the 2020s, an extra 55,000 new, good quality homes around Australia will be available to people on the lowest incomes by 2030. That’s almost triple the increase of 20,000 homes in the previous decade.

Residents in these modern “social” homes will generally pay only 25% of their income in rent. Social housing refers to government-subsidised homes, with below market rents.

You’d think federal and state politicians would be shouting about an extra 55,000 social homes by 2030 from those new rooftops.

But, surprisingly, there are no official projections on how many more total dwellings we’ll have in coming years, thanks to recently boosted investment.

For the first time, our new research fills this gap. It shows that even with the recent investment boom, we’re still not building enough to cut the backlog of need – leaving hundreds of thousands of Australians without an adequate, affordable home.

What’s being built vs demolished

Up until now, we’ve known how many social homes Australia has at the end of each year. Remarkably, though, there is still no national data series tracking social housing in greater detail: showing the balance between annual construction, acquisitions and losses.

Filling this gap, our new research reveals around 70,000 new “social” homes are due to built across Australia during the 2020s – a number not seen since the 1980s.

However, many new social housing projects involve replacing ageing public housing. So, along the way, 15,000 older homes will also be lost, mainly when large public housing estates in Sydney and Melbourne are demolished.

After allowing for these demolitions and sales, we found Australia’s total stock of social housing will increase by a total of 55,000 by 2030. That’s up 13% compared to what we had in 2020.

Who’s building the most?

A substantial share of this new housing comes from the Albanese government’s headline initiative, the Housing Australia Future Fund.

The fund is set to deliver 20,000 new social homes by 2029 (as well as 20,000 more “affordable” units targeted at low-income renters).

Strikingly, though, we found even more social housing will be delivered by state and territory government-funded programs across the decade. They’re projected to contribute about two-thirds (64%) of all social housing construction from 2020 to 2030.

Overall, the standouts have been Tasmania and Victoria. Between 2020 and 2025, they each built enough to increase the overall share of social housing within their states.

Victoria led the way in 2020, announcing its Big Housing Build program to initially construct 12,000 dwellings. More than three-quarters of them are social housing, while the rest are affordable rentals.

Since then, most states have followed suit, although generally on a smaller scale.

In the Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales, new construction barely exceeded stock losses in the first half of the decade. In NSW, substantially ramped-up spending is only now flowing through.

In South Australia, more public housing units were sold or demolished than new social homes added.

Historically, state governments have generally invested in new social housing through the proceeds of land and property sales, or as a matching contribution alongside Commonwealth funds.

So it’s quite a big deal that, since 2020, most states have stepped up to do a lot more.

Why Australia is not keeping up

While we’re building far more than we did from 2000 to 2020, it’s still not enough.

Australia’s 13% increase in social housing this decade matches projected national household growth to 2030. In other words, what we’re building as a nation now is only enough to stop the share of social housing in Australia shrinking further.

Currently the sector accounts for only about 4% of all occupied dwellings in Australia, down from 6% in the mid-1990s.

In contrast, the average across similar wealthy OECD nations is 7%.

437,000 reasons to build more

Social housing plays a vital role in the housing system. It prevents and resolves homelessness. It also minimises harms including re-offending, and helps stabilise the wider housing market.

The projected net increase of 55,000 dwellings by the end of the decade is striking. Yet it pales alongside the estimate that 437,000 households had an “unmet need” for social housing on census night in 2021. That unmet need means they were either homeless at the time, or very low-income renters in rental stress.

The revival of public investment in social housing this decade is a notable policy reversal. But greater action is needed.

Our report finds we need clearer, more consistent rules for social housing providers and residents. These rules have remained neglected for decades.

More importantly, none of the current programs – state, territory or federal – come with committed funding beyond 2030. Australian governments need to extend recent investment into the next decade and beyond at similar, or expanded, levels.

The post-1990s history of social housing in Australia has seen gradual decline, punctuated by occasional bursts of activity, like the Rudd-era response to the global financial crisis of 2008.

For the future, we need assurance that stated government commitments are being met. That means starting to officially, transparently track social housing construction in more detail at a national level.

Thanks to Peter Mares for his input into this story.

Hal Pawson, Emeritus Professor of Housing, UNSW Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Angus Taylor has defeated Sussan Ley for Liberal leader by a hefty margin of 34-17, giving him strong authority to try to improve the fortunes of the debilitated federal opposition.

The meeting. starting at 9am and lasting under an hour,  first carried a motion to spill the leadership by 33-17, a much higher gap than had been expected. There was one informal vote.

The new deputy leader is Jane Hume, defeating Ted O'Brien - who has been shadow treasurer under Ley - by 30-20 in the final ballot. Eliminated in earlier ballots were Dan Tehan and Melissa Price.

Hume is a moderate and Taylor a conservative, so the new leadership team has gender balance as well as factional balance. Taylor and Hume, who was finance spokeswoman under Dutton, worked closely together during the last term and developed a good relationship.

Hume was left off the frontbench by Ley and became a big critic of her.

Hume reportedly told colleagues she would not seek the post of shadow treasurer, a pitch that improved her support, especially as having the deputy in the Senate had not happened since Fred Chaney in 1989-90.

There is speculation the shadow treasurer post could go to Victorian frontbencher Tim Wilson, who is currently industrial relations spokesman.

Momentum moved strongly to Taylor – who on Wednesday resigned from the frontbench to bring on the challenge – in the 24 hours before the vote. The size of the margin reflects the party’s desire to have a decisive outcome.

Ley, the federal Liberals’ first female leader, has had only nine months in the leadership but has suffered a devastating decline in the opinion polls. She is the second shortest serving Liberal leader, after Alexander Downer in 1994-95.

Ley fought to the end, running against Taylor even though she came under some pressure not to contest if the spill was carried.

Ley walked into the meeting with a group of supporters including Andrew Bragg, Andrew McLachlan, Melissa Price, Tim Wilson, Andrew Wallace, Anne Ruston, Paul Scarr, Richard Colbeck, Melissa McIntosh and Maria Kovacic.

Taylor entered parliament in 2013. He was energy minister in the Morrison government and shadow treasurer in opposition under Peter Dutton. He was shadow defence minister under Ley. He would have preferred to have delayed for a few months his challenge to Ley, but the timetable was effectively brought forward by pressure from Andrew Hastie, who wanted to challenge but found he did not have the numbers.

Labor immediately put out an attack ad against Taylor, saying he had worked from “day one” to undermine the first female Liberal leader.

Ley later announced she would quit parliament, which will mean a byelection in her regional New South Wales seat of Farrer – and early challenge for Taylor.

This story has been updated.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Angus Taylor has all the on-paper qualifications to be opposition leader. But there are big questions over how well he could do the job, when a miracle worker is needed to lift the struggling Liberal Party from its existential crisis.

Taylor’s political story so far is regarded by many observers and not a few colleagues as one of unfulfilled promise.

If he wins the leadership, he would take over with the party at its lowest, considered to have no prospect of victory at the 2028 election. The first realistic chance for Taylor, now 59, of becoming prime minister would be 2031 – a very long time to survive as opposition leader in this poll-driven era.

Taylor is a Rhodes scholar, with strong qualifications in economics, and an impressive business career behind him, which include having been a director at Port Jackson Partners, a business consultancy firm.

Rod Sims, also a Port Jackson director at the time (and later head of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) describes Taylor as “extremely intelligent. He was very, very good at what he did, advising boards of some of the largest companies on corporate strategy”.

Few would doubt Taylor, when elected for the NSW regional seat of Hume in 2013, had his eyes on the ultimate prize, a view reinforced by glowing publicity at the time.

Over the years, however, several personal controversies dogged him, ranging from questions over alleged illegal clearing of protected grassland by a company in which his family had a financial interest (he denied any wrongdoing) to the use of a mysterious and misleading document (which he could never explain) to attack Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore.

In his maiden speech, condemning political correctness, he made an inaccurate claim about living in the same corridor at Oxford University as feminist writer Naomi Wolf, later to be embarrassed when she said she wasn’t at the university at the time. When in trouble he never seemed able to find his way out of it cleanly.

Taylor’s frontbench experience includes serving as minister for industry, energy and emissions reduction in the Morrison government and as shadow treasurer in Peter Dutton’s opposition.

His time in the latter post wasn’t happy. He struggled against Treasurer Jim Chalmers. According to Niki Savva in her book Earthquake, Dutton thought Taylor a “terrible retail politician who produced policies that could not be sold or explained to the public”.

Taylor wanted the opposition to respond to the government’s 2025 budget tax cuts with an alternative tax policy. But Dutton rejected that, and the opposition went into the election (disastrously) giving the government a big break on the tax issue.

Former Liberal treasurer Peter Costello told The Australian’s Troy Bramston, “At the last election, [the Liberals] got themselves into a position where they were proposing to increase income taxes, run bigger deficits, no real plan to reduce debt”.

Regardless, Taylor as leader would be most comfortable talking about the evils of debt and deficit. But today’s voters no longer care so much about those, and want government to do more, not less.

One economist who has observed Taylor over the years describes him as “very smart and a very good economist”, not a hardline dry but with a market approach of the Howard-Costello era. “He’s in the right party – if it were the party of 20 years ago”. But things have changed.

“I’d be stunned if the times suited Angus Taylor,” this source says. “Would we see the Angus Taylor of his convictions, or Angus Taylor pushed around by the populism of the moment? How would he battle One Nation? That’s hard to do from the viewpoint of market economics.”

In economics Taylor is in the Liberal mainstream, but on climate policy he’s been something of a weather vane.

In his business career he was very alive to the climate change issue and a supporter of renewables. But years later, he was against Malcolm Turnbull’s attempt to bring in a National Energy Guarantee (the NEG), a plan to reduce emissions while ensuring the reliability of the grid. Under Scott Morrison he advocated the net zero by 2050 target. In opposition he was one of those opposing it, walking shoulder to shoulder with Andrew Hastie and other conservatives into the party meeting ahead of the dumping of the Liberal commitment to the target.

Turnbull says pointedly, “Angus’ views on energy were more enlightened when he was working for Rod Sims [at Port Jackson] and supported an economy wide carbon price”.

One of Taylor’s strongest supporters is former MP Craig Laundy, who was a close ally of Turnbull.

Laundy entered parliament at the same time as Taylor, and they’ve kept in touch in recent years. When Laundy had ministerial responsibility for deregulation and Taylor oversaw digital policy. Laundy found him “very good to work with”.

Laundy rejects the perception of some that Taylor has a “born to rule” attitude. “It’s harsh and unfair. He was always a very good communicator and I think [if he is leader] he will surprise many on the upside of how he will connect with the community across the board,” Laundy says.

In his personality Taylor is self-confident but reserved. One source notes a certain vulnerability – a nervousness before a speech, afterwards wondering how it went.

Many disagree with Laundy’s assessment that Taylor communicates well, and even fans see a need for improvement. A former parliamentary colleague says, “Like a lot of really bright guys, Angus can sometimes get into over-analysis of things”.

Certainly if he were opposition leader, how well he could communicate with women would be crucial. His views on quotas mean he would likely start with a handicap in the eyes of many women.

He said last year:“We absolutely need more women in the party at every level, whether it’s members of our branches, whether it’s on our executives, whether indeed it is as members of parliament, and I think there’s a huge job for us, [but] I have never been a supporter of quotas”.

One prominent Liberal woman outside the parliamentary party, who likes Taylor personally, says he is a “caricature of a Liberal male – males who have managed to progressively alienate women from the Liberal party”.

Another muses:“He’s very handsome, well read, tall and a good farmer – but entirely lacking in charisma. How can that be possible?”

As leader Taylor would have to reach out across the party in a way he has never needed to before. “Retail politics” can be as important within a party – especially a fractured one – as with the electorate.

As the most senior member of the conservative faction, Taylor saw himself as the logical opposition leader after the 2025 election. In a serious misjudgement, he encouraged the defection from the Nationals of Jacinta Nampijinpa Price as his potential deputy. Taylor lost to Ley (25-29); Price then did not put up her hand.

He assumed Ley would fail, although he did not want to bring on a challenge this soon. But when the pushy Hastie started to force the issue, Taylor was clear: it was his turn next.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

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.

Ian A. Wright, Associate Professor in Environmental Science, Western Sydney University and Katherine Warwick, PhD Candidate, Western Sydney University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

When it comes to autism, few questions spark as much debate as how best to support autistic people with the greatest needs.

This prompted The Lancet medical journal to commission a group of international experts to propose a new category of “profound autism”.

This category describes autistic people who have little or no language (spoken, written, signed or via a communication device), who have an IQ of less than 50, and who require 24-hour supervision and support.

It would only apply to children aged eight and over, when their cognitive and communication abilities are considered more stable.

In our new study, we considered how the category could impact autism assessments. We found 24% of autistic children met, or were at risk of meeting, the criteria for profound autism.

Why the debate?

The category is intended to help governments and service providers plan and deliver supports, so autistic people with the highest needs aren’t overlooked. It also aims to re-balance their under-representation in mainstream autism research.

This new category may be helpful for advocating for a greater level of support, research and evidence for this group.

But some have raised concerns that autistic people who don’t fit into this category could be perceived as less in need and excluded from services and funding supports.

Others argue the category doesn’t sufficiently emphasise autistic people’s strengths and capabilities, and places too much emphasis on the challenges that are experienced.

What did we do?

We conducted the first Australian study to examine how the “profound autism” category might apply to children attending publicly funded diagnostic services for developmental conditions.

Drawing on the Australian Child Neurodevelopment Registry, we examined data from 513 autistic children assessed between 2019 and 2024. We asked:

• how many children met the criteria for profound autism?
• were there behavioural features that set this group apart?

Because we focused on children at the time of diagnosis, most (91%) were aged under eight years. We described these children as being “at risk of profound autism”.

What did we find?

Around 24% of autistic children in our study met, or were at risk of meeting, the criteria for profound autism. This is similar to the proportion of children internationally.

Almost half (49.6%) showed behaviours that were a safety risk, such as attempting to run away from carers, compared with one-third (31.2%) of other autistic children.

These challenges weren’t limited to children who met criteria for profound autism. Around one in five autistic children (22.5%) engaged in self-injury, and more than one-third (38.2%) showed aggression toward others.

So, while the category identified many children with very high needs, other children who didn’t meet these criteria also had significant needs.

Importantly, we found the definition of “profound autism” doesn’t always line up with the official diagnostic levels which determine the level of support and NDIS funding children receive.

In our study, 8% of children at risk of profound autism were classified as level 2, rather than level 3 (the highest level of support). Meanwhile, 17% of children classified as level 3 did not meet criteria for profound autism.

Our concern

We looked at children when they first received an autism diagnosis. Children were aged 18 months to 16 years, with more than 90% under the age of eight years.

This aligns with our earlier research, showing the average age of diagnosis in public settings is 6.6 years.

From a practical perspective, our biggest concern about the profound autism category is the age threshold of eight years.

Because most children are already assessed before age eight, introducing this category into assessment services would mean many families would need repeat assessments, placing additional strain on already stretched developmental services.

Second, modifications will be needed if this criteria is going to be used to inform funding decisions as it didn’t map perfectly onto level 3 support criteria.

On balance, however, our results suggest the profound autism category may provide a clear, measurable way to describe the needs of autistic people with the highest support requirements.

Every autistic child has individual strengths and needs. The term “profound autism” would need to be promoted with inclusive and supportive language, so as to not replace or diminish individual needs, but to help clinicians tailor supports and obtain additional resources when needed.

Including the category in future clinical guidelines, such as the national guideline for the assessment and diagnosis of autism, could help ensure governments, disability services and clinicians plan and deliver supports.

What can you do in the meantime?

If you’re concerned your child requires substantial support, here are some practical steps you can take to ensure their needs are recognised and addressed:

Explain your concerns

Not all clinicians have experience working with children with high support needs. Be as clear as possible about behaviours that affect your child’s safety or daily life, including self-injury, aggression or attempts to run away. These details, while difficult to share, help give a clearer picture of your child’s support needs.

It can also be a challenge to find and access clinicians with appropriate expertise. Another potential benefit of having a defined category is that it can better help families navigate care.

Ask about support for the whole family

Our studies show that many caregivers want more support for themselves but don’t always ask. Talk with clinicians about supports for yourself as well, including respite, or family support groups.

Reach out

Coming together with other carers and families can reduce your own isolation and normalise many of the unique challenges you face. Connecting with like-minded people can provide a supportive, empathetic and empowering community.

Plan for safety

For children with high support needs, prioritise safety planning with your child’s care team. This can include strategies to reduce risks, as well as planning how best to support your child’s interactions with health, education and disability services over time.

Kelsie Boulton, Senior Research Fellow in Child Neurodevelopment, Brain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney; Marie Antoinette Hodge, Clinical Lecturer, University of Sydney, and Rebecca Sutherland, Lecturer & Speech Pathologist, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

If you go to the gym often, you might have been told you shouldn’t lift weights in runners.

The common belief is it is bad for your performance and can lead to injuries.

But is this really the case? Let’s unpack the science.

What your feet are doing when you lift

Your feet are key to exercising safely and effectively.

When you walk and run, they act like a springs and help propel you forward with each step. Your feet also help you maintain balance by supporting your weight.

When you lift any amount of weight (for example, doing compound exercises such as squats) your feet are working hard to keep you stable – even if you’re not thinking much about them.

Researchers have also suggested having a stable foot helps you push more efficiently into the ground. This may increase the amount of weight you can safely lift.

But what you wear on your feet may also contribute to this.

Can’t I just wear runners?

Unsurprisingly, given their name, running shoes are designed specifically to improve your performance and protect your feet while running.

They generally have a raised heel, a thick, cushioned sole to absorb shock, and a “rocker” shape that helps you roll from your heel to your toe. These features help reduce the impact of running on your body.

But in the gym, this cushioned sole may absorb the force you create when lifting weights, making you feel less stable, strong, and powerful. This is likely why some people may say you shouldn’t lift weights in running shoes.

Some people may be concerned this can lead to weightlifting injuries.

One 2016 study found wearing running shoes for exercises like squats can change how your ankle and knee joints move. But there is no peer-reviewed evidence linking these changes to injury.

What are my other options?

Aside from running shoes, there are three other shoe types people generally wear while lifting weights: minimalist (sometimes called “barefoot”), flat or weightlifting shoes.

Minimalist shoes are designed to simulate being barefoot. They have thin soles with almost no cushioning, and aim to let the foot interact with the ground as if you were not wearing shoes at all. Flat sneakers designed for casual wear, such as Vans or Converse, also have thin soles without cushioning.

As a result, these types of shoes may be a good choice for lifting weights because they will be more stable than runners.

In contrast, weightlifting shoes are designed to improve how you perform in the gym.

They typically have a raised heel and a solid, stiff sole without any give, often made of wood or hard plastic. This helps you stay stable at the bottom of a deep squat, which is particuarly useful for movements such as squats, cleans and snatches.

But how do these different shoes stack up?

Studies looking at the impact of footwear on gym performance is largely limited to the squat and deadlift, probably because these are focused on leg strength.

One study from 2020 comparing running and weightlifting shoes found the latter helped people squat with a more upright torso and more flexibility in their knees.

This can take stress off the lower back and make your leg muscles work harder, which is the main purpose of the exercise.

Similarly, research from 2016 showed people wearing weightlifting shoes felt more stable when squatting. This suggests they may be a better option for that specific exercise.

A 2018 study focused on people performing deadlifts. It found running shoes reduced how quickly people could push force into the ground compared to when they wore only socks. This may suggest that they were more stable without running shoes.

However, this difference was small and has not been consistently replicated in other studies.

So what shoes should I wear?

That ultimately depends on your personal goals and situation.

Weightlifting shoes might be your best bet when doing squats. But if you mainly stick to deadlifts, flat shoes may slightly boost your performance. That is if your goal is to lift as much weight as possible.

However, if you are an Olympic weightlifter who needs to get into a deep squat position for competition, weightlifting shoes are the ideal option.

For everyone else, what shoes you wear may not matter as much. So wear whatever is most comfortable and keep lifting those weights.

Hunter Bennett, Lecturer in Exercise Science, Adelaide University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Somewhere along the way to adulthood, time to play fades away. We tend to trade silliness and imagination for seriousness and busyness.

Yet there is clear evidence that adults benefit from playfulness just as children do.

Research shows that adults who engage in playful activities tend to cope better with stress, experience more positive emotions, show greater resilience when facing challenges, and report higher levels of life satisfaction.

Our research with New Zealand families highlights how supporting unstructured play can help adults feel less stressed and more connected, while also normalising playfulness in everyday family life.

In a world that demands constant busyness, play offers essential qualities we are at risk of losing: spontaneity, togetherness and the freedom to have fun.

Play in adulthood can look different from play in childhood. It is less about toys or games and more about how we approach everyday experiences.

Adult play can be physical, social, creative or imaginative. It might involve movement, music, humour, storytelling, problem-solving or simply doing something for the pleasure of it.

What makes an activity playful is not its form, but the mindset behind it: curiosity, openness and a willingness to engage without a fixed outcome. For adults, play is often woven into hobbies and moments of exploration that sit outside work and obligation.

The benefits of play in adult life

A recent study suggests a potential neurobiological pathway between playfulness and cognitive health in older adults.

At its core, play provides a space to reset, allowing us to step outside pressure and performance. In doing so, it supports not only stress regulation, but sustains emotional balance and quality of life across adulthood.

The value of playfulness also goes beyond the individual. Playful engagement in social contexts helps build shared emotional resources, shaping how people interact and cope together over time.

Playfulness in adults is also associated with higher emotional intelligence, including stronger ability to perceive and manage emotions in social situations. Observational studies further show that adults who engage playfully are more empathetic, reciprocal and positive in their interactions with others, reinforcing social connection and belonging.

Importantly, play has a unique ability to cut across age boundaries. When adults and children play together, even if unrelated, differences in age, role and status tend to fade, replaced by shared enjoyment and interaction.

Research suggests these inter-generational play experiences can strengthen relationships, support wellbeing and reduce age-based stereotypes. Play becomes a shared language, bridging age divides that are often reinforced by modern living.

As our work highlights, unstructured play remains both possible and meaningful in contemporary life, with families reporting benefits for children’s development as well as family cohesion and shared wellbeing. These findings suggest play can function as an ordinary, rather than exceptional, feature of family and community life.

Making room for play in everyday life

If play matters across the lifespan, the spaces we inhabit need to support it.

Yet most public environments continue to treat play as something designed primarily for children. Research in urban design suggests the most effective playful environments for adults are those that don’t announce themselves as playgrounds, but instead embed playful possibilities into everyday settings.

Features such as oversized steps, stepping stones, interactive seating or winding paths can invite exploration, balance and movement. In some cities, this extends to adult-sized play elements integrated into public space, such as musical swings that turn routine movement into playful interaction.

Despite these examples, play-oriented design remains the exception rather than the norm, with most public play infrastructure still concentrated in children’s spaces. Designing cities that invite adult play as part of everyday life could be a valuable investment in inclusion, social connection and population wellbeing.

Environments that support play are not just physical, but social. Just as urban design can invite or discourage playful movement, social norms shape whether play feels acceptable in adult life.

When play is treated as embarrassing, indulgent or something to apologise for, it quickly disappears. But when playful behaviour is visible and unremarkable, it becomes easier for others to participate.

Play has long been treated as something separate from adult life, confined to childhood or reserved for rare moments of leisure. Yet the evidence suggests playfulness continues to matter well beyond early development.

Reframing play as a legitimate part of adult life opens up new ways of thinking about wellbeing across the lifespan.

Scott Duncan, Professor of Population Health, Auckland University of Technology and Melody Smith, Professor of Health Science, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

As a career counterintelligence officer for the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Defense Intelligence Agency, I worked inside a fully integrated intelligence system.

Signals intelligence from the National Security Agency guided investigations. Satellite imagery from the National Reconnaissance Office provided visibility into hostile environments. Human intelligence came through Defense Intelligence Agency channels.

These streams were strengthened by reporting from domestic and foreign partners. It was a closed, tightly controlled system.

But things have changed. Now private companies are supplying “intelligence as a service” to government entities and others – and as the Amazon-owned Ring doorbell camera company found out when it advertised a new feature last week, the change is not without controversy.

The rise of private intelligence

For most of the 20th century, intelligence remained the exclusive domain of nation states. Collection systems were expensive and specialised. They were protected by strict classification rules designed to safeguard sources and methods.

Intelligence agencies controlled the entire life cycle: human spying, signals interception, satellite surveillance, analysis, and dissemination to decision-makers. This created a closed command economy, where states maintained their own capabilities with legal oversight and institutional tradecraft.

Today, that monopoly is eroding. It’s being replaced by a commercial intelligence marketplace operating alongside – and increasingly inside – government security structures.

The shift began in the late 20th century as open-source intelligence became more valuable. This happened with the rise of online forums, social media platforms and commercial satellite imagery.

Companies entered this market, scraping images from the web and content from social media sites. Clearview AI, perhaps the most well known, entered this market in 2017 – offering to identify people based on photos from social media.

Businesses quickly recognised the opportunity. Intelligence could be produced commercially, packaged, and sold.

The surveillance economy

At the same time, a broader surveillance economy emerged. It was driven by private companies, not governments.

Acoustic gunshot detection systems illustrate this convergence. Originally designed for military force protection, these sensors are now deployed across cities, providing real-time alerts to police. In Australia, this has manifested itself with hardware store chain Bunnings incorporating facial recognition technology from Hitachi.

Uncrewed aerial vehicles – better known as drones – have followed a similar pattern. Once limited to military reconnaissance, sensor-equipped drones are now widely available commercially. Parts of the battlefield surveillance grid have migrated into civilian life.

Perhaps the most significant shift comes from everyday consumer technology. Internet-connected door cameras, home security systems, and other “Internet of Things” devices now form a vast, privately owned sensor network. This is likely to grow, as products such as Meta’s planned facial-recognition smart glasses hit the market.

Real intelligence value but real privacy concerns

These systems were never intended as intelligence tools. Yet their intelligence value is undeniable.

In the recent case of the kidnapping of Nancy Guthrie in Arizona, for example, Nest door camera footage helped reconstruct movements and identify a possible kidnapper. The data was captured passively, through daily digital life.

This is intelligence collection by proxy. It is constant, ambient, and privately owned.

Amazon Ring’s attempt to launch its “Search Party” program demonstrates the tension.

Framed as a community safety feature, the program proposed using AI to scan neighbourhood camera footage to locate missing pets.

Concern escalated when Ring explored partnering with Flock Safety, whose automated license plate reader networks are widely used by law enforcement. Linking home surveillance cameras with other tracking systems signalled the emergence of a fully integrated commercial intelligence network.

Public backlash was swift – especially after the capability was advertised during the Super Bowl. Critics argued the pet-recovery narrative masked the normalisation of mass surveillance.

Facing mounting privacy concerns, Ring ultimately abandoned the partnership.

Intelligence as a service

Commercial surveillance partnerships continue to expand. Networked cameras and license plate readers equipped with AI-powered object recognition enable vehicle tracking across jurisdictions.

Data brokers feed into this ecosystem too. They sell credit histories, utility records, and behavioural data to government clients.

Taken together, these developments represent “intelligence as a service”. Governments now buy cyber threat reporting, commercial sensor data, facial recognition, and behavioural analytics through subscriptions and data-sharing agreements. Intelligence production has become scalable, modular and market-driven.

This transformation raises serious governance questions. Commercial intelligence providers often operate under far looser legal restrictions. They allow agencies to circumvent data privacy laws.

Consumer-generated data, door cameras, vehicle telemetry and biometric identifiers can often be used by investigators without the need for a warrant. This complicates privacy protections and civil liberties safeguards.

None of this makes state intelligence services obsolete. Governments still retain unique authorities: human espionage, covert action, offensive cyber operations, and classified technical collection.

However, these capabilities now operate within a broader intelligence supply chain. Also in the mix are satellite firms, data brokers, AI analytics companies, and cyber intelligence vendors.

Questions for the future

The integration of commercial surveillance and artificial intelligence is likely to deepen.

Technology leaders envision a near future where cameras on homes, vehicles and public infrastructure feed constant video into AI systems. Citizens and police alike would operate under continuous algorithmic observation. Automated reporting would aim to shape behaviour.

The privatisation of intelligence is neither temporary nor accidental. It is the outcome of technological diffusion, data proliferation, and commercial innovation meeting demand from national security and law enforcement.

The question is not whether intelligence as a service will expand. It will.

The real question is different. What happens to national sovereignty, democratic oversight, and personal privacy when the power to collect and analyse intelligence no longer belongs solely to the state? What happens when it belongs to private actors willing to sell it?

Dennis B. Desmond, Lecturer, Cyberintelligence and Cybercrime Investigations, University of the Sunshine Coast

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Coles has appeared before the Federal Court in Melbourne, as hearings for a high-stakes case launched against the supermarket by Australia’s consumer watchdog officially begin.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is alleging Coles misled consumers with “illusory” discounts between February 2022 and May 2023.

The watchdog alleges that in this period, Coles temporarily increased the prices of “at least 245 different products”, then placed them on “Down Down” promotions which were:

higher than, or the same as, the price at which each product had ordinarily been offered for sale.

In opening arguments on Monday, head counsel for the ACCC, Garry Rich SC, described the supermarket’s conduct as “utterly misleading”.

While Coles’ legal team only addressed the court for a short time on Monday, barrister John Sheahan KC said Coles customers were aware of price movements before making purchases.

Coles has signalled it will argue the price increases in question represented a genuine response to surging costs.

So, what exactly is at stake for one of Australia’s largest supermarket giants?

Behind the allegations

The ACCC alleges Coles offered misleading discounts on a wide range of products over the relevant period – ranging from Colgate toothpaste to Sanitarium Weet-Bix cereal.

In its court filing, the ACCC provides the example of a 16 pack of Strepsils Throat Lozenges Honey & Lemon. According to the ACCC, this product had been for sale on a “Down Down” promotion at a price of A$5.50 for at least 649 days.

The ACCC says on 12 October 2022, Coles increased the price to $7 for 28 days, then reduced it back to $6 on a “Down Down” promotion, 9% higher than the previous price of $5.50.

What does ‘Down Down’ mean?

In making this accusation, the ACCC is emphasising the overall impression created in the mind of the reasonable consumer was that the price drop related to a price set more than a short period before.

It argues consumers should be able to take the “Down Down” campaign at face value, without scrutinising the fine print price change or researching prices over the recent history.

Notably, the ACCC is arguing that the conduct by Coles was “planned”. In other words, that the allegedly misleading representations were deliberate.

Under Australian Consumer Law, conduct can be misleading without being intentional. However, if the ACCC can show that the conduct was indeed planned then an inference that the conduct was also misleading is easier to establish. Additionally, intentional misleading representations are likely to attract a larger penalty.

What might Coles argue?

By contrast, Coles’ case is likely to rest on two things. First, its right to raise prices, especially in response to what Coles has said were “significant cost increases”, including:

a surge in global commodity prices, and in the cost of packaging, freight, utilities and international shipping.

And second, that the “Down Down” price on the ticket was, strictly speaking, accurate – there was a price reduction from the shelf, just not a reduction compared to the historical, pre-increase price.

So it is a legal battle with potentially significant consequences for all parties.

A separate action by the ACCC against Woolworths, also alleging “illusory” discounts, will be heard later this year.

Clearly the outcome of the case against Woolworths will be influenced by what happens in the Coles litigation.

What’s at stake?

If Coles is found to have made the alleged misleading representations, any penalties will be determined by the court in a separate hearing. However, the amounts are potentially significant.

The maximum penalty could be $50 million per contravention, or more.

By comparison, in 2024, Qantas was ordered to pay $100 million for misleading consumers by accepting bookings for flights that had already been cancelled.

Separately, the Federal Court last year ordered Optus to pay $100 million after the telco admitted it had engaged in unconscionable conduct involving aggressive debt collection and mis-selling to vulnerable customers.

The big issues at play

A supermarket such as Coles is entitled to raise prices.

But the question raised by this case is whether it is misleading under consumer law to advertise a discount on a product that has only briefly risen in price, using a well recognised promotion strategy, without disclosing that not so long before, it was even cheaper.

In other words, can consumers rely on the headline of a “Down Down” discount to tell them they are getting a deal? Or should they be scrutinising the fluctuations in retail pricing more carefully and shopping around?

The case continues on Tuesday.

Jeannie Marie Paterson, Professor of Law (consumer protections and credit law), The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.