Cambridge Analytica was a British political consulting firm involved in influencing hundreds of elections globally. This data analytics firm was started in 2013 as a subsidiary of the private intelligence company SCL Group, with Alexander Nix as CEO. The firm had many close ties to the UK’s Conservative Party and the British military. Many of the Conservative Party’s largest donors were also investors in Cambridge Analytica.

From 2015-2018, Cambridge Analytica was heavily involved in many political campaigns, mainly in the United Kingdom and the United States, including providing data analysis services for Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign and Leave.EU, a political campaign established to support Brexit. However, Cambridge Analytica’s role in campaigns has been very controversial. Many political and data scientists have questioned the firm’s claims about its methods of targeting voters through its expertise in “psychological warfare and influence operations.” In 2018, the firm was caught amid a media firestorm where it was accused of harvesting the data of Facebook users without their knowledge for political purposes.

The Facebook-Cambridge Analytica Scandal

In early 2018, Facebook and Cambridge Analytica were implicated in a massive data breach where millions of users’ data were improperly obtained. Cambridge Analytica was accused of harvesting personal data to help political candidates win votes, improperly influencing the outcome of Trump’s 2016 election victory and the Brexit vote. According to the newspaper The Observer and the whistleblower, Christopher Wylie, Cambridge Analytica spent nearly $1 million on data collection and harvested data from over 87 million individual Facebook profiles of US voters without authorization. They did this through a personality test on an app called “thisisyourdigitallife,” claiming to collect data for academic use. The firm then used the test results to build an algorithm that could analyze individual Facebook profiles to determine personality traits linked to voting behaviour and predict choices at the ballot box. The database resulted in a powerful political tool that allowed campaigns to target possible swing voters with personalized political advertisements on their Facebook page. The firm was largely responsible for Trump’s campaign activity in 2016 through developing “psychographic” profiles of people and delivering them pro-Trump material online. In addition, Cambridge Analytica also used data manipulation to help skirt Brexit election spending limits and helped swing the results in favour of Britain’s withdrawal from the EU.

Facebook and Cambridge Analytica both denied the use of improperly obtained Facebook data as did the Trump Campaign. However, the whistleblower Christopher Wylie (former Cambridge Analytica director of research) passed on evidence of data misuse including emails, invoices and contracts that revealed the harvesting of Facebook user data. As Wylie states, “We exploited Facebook to harvest millions of profiles. And built models to exploit that and target their inner demons.” Later in 2018, Mark Zuckerberg testified before Congress about how Facebook would protect its users’ data. Facebook was slapped with a $5 billion fine by the Federal Trade Commission, and Cambridge Analytica was closed down in May 2018. But the question of how user data can be used for political manipulation remains.

The Great Hack

The Great Hack is a documentary film on Netflix about the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica data scandal. The film focuses on Professor David Carroll and Brittany Kaiser, the former business development director for Cambridge Analytica. The film details their stories and experiences and exposes the work of the data analytics firm in various countries’ politics showing the behind-the-scenes data collection and manipulation. This included raw copies of the data obtained by the firm, meetings with the Trump campaign when Cambridge Analytica was hired in June 2016 to help target ads using voter data and Brexit Leave campaigners in the run-up to the EU referendum. Overall, the film was a great eye-opener to how the data we generate affects society as a whole. Even if you have heard of the scandal before, it is definitely worth watching as the film uses the scandal as a framework to illustrate a greater relevant issue of how the algorithms undermine individual liberty and democratic society.

Key Takeaways: Data Manipulation

The Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal highlights a larger issue of how much social media users can trust companies such as Facebook with their data. Moreover, new evidence from uncovered emails in 2015 suggested that Facebook could have done something to stop Cambridge Analytica. They knew how dangerous the data firm could be as Facebook employees were flagging concerns relating to their practices as early as 2015, but Facebook didn’t act until 2018. Facebook’s allowance of a third-party to engineer an application for the sole purpose of gathering data of American voters to exploit was a great privacy awakening and the repercussions will continue to be felt across the tech industry. Larger questions emerge such as how Facebook may have given special data deals to device makers or why Google tracks people’s location even after their location tracking is turned off. If anything, Cambridge Analytica has proven that data manipulation is a threat to democracy.

There’s no doubt that 16 is a somewhat legendary age. Driver’s licenses, grade 12 courses (at least at UTS), parties, and more. There’s a feeling of expectation, risk, and independence about the year. Too old to be a kid and too young to be responsible, 16 is a fleeting opportunity. One’s “Sweet 16” is the only birthday to have earned an adjective for itself. And yet, rather than doing anything you might find in Mean Girls, we find ourselves in the middle of yet another lockdown, with the promised end more likely to become a renewal date.

There have been many attempts to label and neatly sort out the experience of the past year. Little catchphrases and one-liners to gently remind us of the ongoing situation, as if such a thing were necessary. At this point, each is so overused that simply uttering one such description may very well induce stomach cramps. I don’t want to pain you with “our new reality” or, God forbid, “these are strange times we’re living in”, but, alas, it is necessary to describe the year in some way. So, snide remarks and cynicism aside, how would I describe the past 12 months? Amorphous. Indeterminate. Minimal. Arbitrary. A whole host of vaguely uncomfortable adjectives that could also describe sitting in a dark room for three days on end. Above all else, the last year was not defined by what was, but rather, by what wasn’t.

All of this is to say, I didn’t feel 16 this year. I’m not sure anyone else my age did either. We often didn’t have many classes together, usually just a sad parody of a class consisting of three cameras on and an impenetrable wall of icons. There were no overnight trips. There were no parties to complain about not being invited to. There was no silly drama and no new friendships. There were no debate or DECA tournaments that required a suit. In fact, you could attend them in sweatpants. There was no last minute back and forth quizzing in the halls before a test and no air of silent anticipation as the test was handed back. There was little point to getting a G1, because where were you going to drive?

Instead, we had bad lighting and spotty WiFi.

During dinner one evening, my Dad surprised my brother and me by saying, “You guys are the people I feel most sorry for during this pandemic. The kids.” The contrarian in me was tempted to object with the fact that Covid poses negligible risk to those in our age group, but upon further reflection, I just nodded sadly. Obviously, the people most affected by Covid-19 are those who die due to the virus. But there’s something indescribably sad about kids and teens stuck at home, blue light casting faces in an eerie glow.

Perhaps the reason that this year feels particularly empty for those at our age is that teenagehood - among other tropes - is a period of life most defined by socialization with peers. It would only be a slight exaggeration to say that most of us live and die by what (some) others think of us. Obviously socializing isn’t dead, but it’s not the same. It feels impossible to keep in touch with everyone, and even with those you do, your relationship is often a shadow of its former self. There have already been multiple articles in Cuspidor about the difficulties of communication during the pandemic, from texting to dating, so I won’t belabour the point. This social death sentence leaves us in an ironic situation: at the time when you want to be meeting new people the most, you can’t, and at the age where your family relations are likely the worst, family time gets a significant uptick. It’s almost a Faustian bargain - the cost of immunity is that which you hold most dear.

Now this isn’t to say the last year was all bad, or that there was nothing that happened which fit the bill of cliched teenager things. But, even then, the year had far fewer teenage tropes, even to the degree that they might be better characterized as pity from the universe. So, despite my youth and privilege in regards to the pandemic, I can’t help but feel cheated out of being 16 years old. By the time this is published, I will likely be 17, when I’m really only just done being 15. Point not clear. You lost half a year?

Despite the downer mood of the article above, the news isn’t all bad. Zoom calls work if you plan them right. Classes have returned to hybrid learning. Above all, the current situation is not permanent. The Government of Canada plans to have the entire country vaccinated by the end of September (we’ll see how that goes), and other countries are doing better. Since we couldn’t be 16 this year, we’ll just have to make up for it next year.

Technology has led to major advancements for us. Just think about how quickly it’s progressed! Just 30 years ago, the idea of cheap and affordable laptops was unimaginable. Now, almost every Canadian household not having at least one laptop is unbelievable.

Nanotechnology may be one of the next major breakthroughs - potentially revolutionizing medicine and cancer treatment forever. But, first, let’s quickly define nanotechnology. Nanotechnology is the field that manipulates particles under 100 nanometers in diameter with useful properties. Nanotechnology has a wide range of applications outside of just medicine, ranging from architecture to water filtration. Throughout this article, I’ll be guiding you through a couple of amazing inventions, old and new, which will probably amaze you. We’ll be covering nanotechnology from nano-robots to Bluetooth pills to carbon nanotubes in agriculture.

Drug Delivery System

Targeted drug delivery is when the body delivers drugs to very specific tissues or even cells. This is particularly useful for chemotherapy. Even though there are thousands of different drug delivery systems, most of them have one major issue - they experience the “protein corona phenomenon”. This is an occurrence where hundreds of proteins in the body stick to the drug before it can reach the cancerous tissue. This means that the chances of the drug reaching the target are reduced, and if the drug manages to reach the target, it has a lower-than-optimal efficiency.

But, a solution has been found: researchers from UNIST discovered a way to create a protein corona shield (or a PSC) that can envelop the nanoparticle drug carriers. As such, no unwanted proteins attach themselves to the nanoparticles, and the immune system does not get involved unnecessarily. When they reach the cancerous tissue, they’re able to fight with improved accuracy.

Furthermore, there is also a different type of technology called nanosponges, which are an excellent prospect for drug delivery. They can be as small as a virus and are highly effective for targeting specific cancerous tissues without harming the individual’s healthy cells.

Other Cancer Treatment Technologies

That’s not all; there are many other ways nanotechnology is completely changing the way we treat cancer. Let’s take a look at dendrimers. They’re composed of a core, and several layers of small, twisting branches, which have an overall spherical shape. Dendrimers are carefully designed so that several of these twisting branches taper off into loose ends - perfect for attaching a plethora of molecules. For example, a targeting agent that can identify cancerous cells, and a drug that can kill the cell can be used together to create an efficient treatment. As the American Physical Society says, this turns them into a “cancer-fighting Trojan horse”. This has incredible potential: imagine being able to target cancerous cells without inflicting any harm on nearby healthy cells! Some other benefits of these dendrimers include increased hydrophilicity (greater drug-carrying potential) and their nonimmunogenic characteristics. This technology is already being used, but there’s still some way to go before it’s used more widely.

Smart Pills

Millions of people around the world have already willingly ingested a mini camera approved by the FDA. If you were a conspiracy theorist, this is where you would begin crafting your claims of how the government plans to track and control us. To that, I would respond that the government most likely allocates its budget to more fruitful investments, such as education for the next generation. But in all seriousness, the pill camera endoscopy can be used to detect intestinal cancer and several diseases that would be hard to observe otherwise. Identifying these medical conditions at earlier stages is paramount to a speedy and less costly recovery.

Imagine pills that can transmit signals to your phone through Bluetooth. These already exist and are completely safe to consume. Take, for example, the pill developed by Proteus Digital Health. Each pill has a sensor - a square millimetre of copper and magnesium - which are completely safe to consume. When swallowed, the sensor reacts with electrolytes in our body and sends a signal to a small patch on the user’s body. This patch then sends the data via Bluetooth to the user’s phone. This serves as a handy way to track medication consumption, especially for the elderly who live on their own.

Genetics

Interestingly, nanotechnology is already being used in agriculture to modify the genes of plants for more efficient production and greater amounts of desirable traits. However, the methods used to do so have a considerably low success rate. However, prospects are improving as we hone this technology better. In a 2019 study, scientists discovered that they could deliver DNA into plant cell nuclei and chloroplasts. This allows scientists and engineers to insert foreign DNA within plant nuclei without actually changing the plant genome, which opens up many new opportunities for genetic modification. How was this done, you ask? Through the use of carbon nanotubes, which are small enough to even pass through a cell wall (which are much harder to move through than cell membranes). Regularly, DNA is small enough to pass through cell walls, but it’s not rigid enough. Genes are grafted onto the carbon nanotubes, which are then inserted into the cells. By employing the use of a carbon nanotube, not only DNA, but other gene-editing tools (such as CRISPR) can also be passed into the nuclei of cells without worrying of DNA degradation.

Scientists are also applying their findings slowly but surely to animal cells. In 2017, a team of researchers used nanotechnology to turn off a “major cholesterol-related gene in mouse liver cells”. It got rid of the gene in at least 80% of the liver cells, causing an average decrease of 35% in cholesterol levels. In the future, perhaps nanotechnology will allow us to selectively turn off genes, which can help reduce the risks individuals have to develop certain diseases which they may be genetically predisposed to. Those who have taken M4 Biology may point out that a more common alternative for gene delivery is by using viruses. However, once an individual begins developing antibodies, this method may not be as effective due to a greater risk of immune response. This may not harm the viruses themselves, but also human cells.

Preventative Measures: Improved Water and Air Quality?

So far, we’ve mainly focused on diagnostic and treatment applications in the medicine field. However, nanotechnology doesn’t stop there. It also focuses on preventative measures. One specific example is water purification. Nanomaterials have a high surface: volume ratio and structure, which makes them extremely competent at removing heavy metals and other particles from polluted water. Nanomembranes in particular can not only filter out chemical impurities, but also bacterial contaminants. Carbon nanotubes are an example of a material used in nanomembranes; they are electrically conductive, which can help capture particles for desalination of brine and wastewater. Clean water can also prevent transmission of harmful bacteria and chemicals which can lead to health issues.

Future… Nanorobots?

Future nanotechnology will be even more specialized and efficient than it is today. With more research and experimentation into nanotechnology, we could potentially find even more cost-effective ways for diagnosis, treatment, and prevention. So far, nanotechnology has brought us cancer treatments, pills which can transmit information, advancements in genetic engineering, and improvements in air and water filtration If you’re interested in doing some further research into this topic, there are some websites to check out in my bibliography.

I love romcoms, Ariana Grande, and astrology.

Based on these three topics, how did you judge me? Did you think I was ‘basic’? Did you think I was just a regular teenage girl? Why did you think so?

In the light of the rapid uptake and consumption of technology, I (as well as many others) have witnessed a trend, where teenage girls are hated for all of their interests. Every single digital space has mobilized misogyny, trying to hide it under the pseudonym of a joke. We can look around at some of the social networks we use: Instagram, TikTok, Twitter, Discord, Twitch, and more. Each one of these digital platforms display tolerance for hatred that should be unpacked.

Think about the last time you called someone ‘basic’ or heard someone call you basic. What makes someone ‘basic’? Liking common trends? Wearing popular clothing? In the use of this term, it’s been weaponized to ridicule girls for what they like. This expectation has led people to be careful in what they express interest in. One aberration and that’s it - you become humiliated and ridiculed. The whole negative connotation of being ‘basic’ has no claim or hold in its roots, but its diction has ruined the confidence of girls worldwide.

These archetypes expand into terms such as ‘ACAB Emily’, making a mockery of the movement against defunding the police, or ‘alt girls’ who express themselves through the alternative subculture. It distinctly crosses racialized territory, especially in the phrase ‘hot cheeto girls’ to target marginalized communities, deriding their language, hair, and more. It predates internet culture, but has been amplified with the speed and networking of social media. We see here that this normalized misogyny takes many different forms and we wholeheartedly should work to analyze our own biases and interpretations.

Pure interests suddenly ramp up to the internalization and disgust towards one’s gender. We see this in the phrase, “I’m not like other girls.” The specific otherness of this double-edged phrase diminishes femininity and simple interests, perpetuating the narrative of hatred against teenage girls. Internalized misogyny is not just an ideology, but it carries out in eating disorders, lowered confidence, depression, and imposter syndrome. At a young age, especially on the internet, wanting to separate yourself from femininity harms people in a twofold manner, by (a) creating a competitive mentality between girls and (b) shaming others as a means to search for their individuality. It should not be so that every interest is therefore critiqued.

It would be foolish to ignore how this narrative perpetuates through our own school. Actively labelling a group of girls in a way to belittle them and their interests is a direct byproduct of misogyny. If you love posting your friends on social media, continue to do so. If you love shopping at a specific store, continue to do so. By targeting femininity as the root of their (nonexistent) problem, you are using gender as a reason to ridicule. Labelled as hilarious, these little jokes snowball into a movement against femininity. Through reposts, screenshots, and the cyclic aspect of social media, UTS is not immune to this behaviour. With the presence of ‘dark humour’ on many social platforms, we see distinct trivializing of communities to make the perpetrator feel better about themselves. The minute we raise a concern about it, we are targeted as ‘sensitive’ or ‘snowflakes.’ I implore you to take a step back and analyze the way words you’ve used have been weaponized as a means to destroy the confidence of teenage girls.

It is truly astounding to view the range of “American Firsts” former President Donald Trump has achieved. From the world’s highest COVID-19 death count to the number of Presidential impeachments, one can only marvel at how exceedingly well Trump delivered on his favourite campaign slogan. Despite the fact that Joe Biden has already taken office, it is not his policy agenda that will be dominating media airtime over the coming months. For the first time in American history—another “American First” moment—a former President will face an impeachment trial in the senate.

Much like his earlier impeachment, I doubt this one shall be adjudicated based on its merits. Trump’s rhetoric following his November 3rd loss has certainly been outrageous, but even at its worst (on the day of the storming of the Capitol), an impartial observer would be hard pressed to deem it as “incitement of an insurrection.” The fraught statements by some of the insurrectionists notwithstanding, very little of what Trump said in the weeks leading up to it called for any form of political violence. At best, one could point to the following statement made on January 6th, prior to the Capitol Assault:

'You’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and...be strong...I know everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building. To peacefully, patriotically make your voices heard."

And that’s at best. But as a shocked nation, reeling from an attack on one of her sacred institutions, waits with bated breath, Americans are unlikely to give much credence to matters of legality, instead opting to simply conduct the proceedings in a somewhat perfunctory manner. As I have written about in the past, presidential impeachments are similar to the rest of American politics, in that fact and fiction are subject to one's political beliefs. With this in mind, let us focus on what may occur in the trial. The direction of 50 senatorial votes can be fairly easily presupposed. Common knowledge dictates that every Democratic senator (their ranks bolstered by newly elected Georgians, Reverend Warnock and Mr. Ossoff) will vote in favour of impeachment. The question that lies ahead of 50 Republican senators and indeed, the entire American right wing movement is ‘what is in the right’s best interest, morally and politically (for those are two different questions) with regards to Donald Trump’s impeachment?’

As we speak, from primetime FOX News to comment sections on Twitter, it seems that popular Republican opinion swings heavily in favour of protecting the former President. While approximately half of the general electorate support his impeachment, just 8% of Republicans would say the same. Republican politicians ranging from Ted Cruz to Rand Paul stand firm in their defence of the President, even when they condemn parts of his actions prior to the January 6th insurrection. However, some chinks are appearing in Trump’s usually impenetrable armour. Some reports have suggested that former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is infuriated by Trump, perhaps finally viewing his actions as a ‘bridge too far.’ Most worryingly for Trump is the fact that those same reports indicate that McConnell may not put pressure on his caucus to vote against the impeachment (as he had done in 2019).

The agonizing decision that Republicans have to make is how to tactfully disentangle the party from the constricting grip of Trump, while also retaining his hard-core supporters and some of his policies. Herein lies the dilemma. Should Trump not be convicted (that is, by a supermajority of 67 senators, not just a bare majority of over 50), he will be free to run again in 2024. Many younger Republicans will be eager to get their shot at the mantle of the Presidency, but as long as Trump remains on the scene, he remains the frontrunner. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have spent more than four years as fairly loyal acolytes, but it is not implausible that they too seek the grandeur of the Presidency. One should note that even after Trump entered the Republican primary race in 2016, Cruz and Rubio remained dominant in the polls. Besides, perhaps Republican insiders share Trump’s sentiments about losers?

Over the course of the Trump administration, few Republicans dared cross the President. The tragic tale of Jeff Sessions keenly displayed how Trump delighted in eradicating the careers of even the most established conservative politicians. Of course, the aforementioned politicians who may seek the Presidential nomination surely hope to avoid the ire of Trump’s base, should they vote to convict. Yet there now exists a unique opportunity for some Republican senators. Many have been recently elected/reelected to a 6 year term, giving them quite a sizable buffer before having to worry about any real electoral challenge. In my opinion, it isn’t entirely unfathomable to expect a plethora of GOP senators to vote to convict. By doing so, they would ‘bite the bullet’ and eliminate Trump’s deathgrip on the Republican Party. Gone would be a 79-year-old Trump running for President again. Gone would be the worst nightmare of the Republican party: a Trump third party challenge, a challenge that would surely doom the right in 2024. I do not suggest that this is definitely going to happen, or even if it is a fairly likely situation. But, Republican senators may seek safety in numbers. While politicians are not creatures known for their firm backbones, if enough Republicans vote to convict—and we take into account the 6 years before a primary challenge/their individual political situations—I do think that a formal Trump impeachment is more possible than one may expect. As of writing, Mitt Romney (R-Utah), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Patrick Toomey (R-Pennsylvania) have all made gestures about prosecuting the former President. I wouldn’t be surprised if Susan Collins (R-Maine) would also vote in favour of impeachment, especially in the light of her statements following Trump’s first impeachment. If momentum starts to build, a handful of senators could quickly morph into a dozen and then into the 17 needed to impeach.

I steadfastly believe that there also exists a principled conservative case for Trump's impeachment, one that exists outside the scheming and machinations of politicians. Trump has been a Faustian bargain, with a few benefits. It is essential that the Republican party move swiftly into the future, not led by Trump but perhaps guided by some of his more successful policies. The new ‘Trump voters’ that joined the party in the Rust Belt were not just attached to his ‘tell it like it is’ attitude, but also the substance of his populist politics. The hour has long passed for the party to move on, and the only way that can occur is with his impeachment. But it is essential that conservatives all around note that Trump’s success is not uniquely tied to him; it can be replicated without him.

I couldn’t help feeling I was watching the finale of a great drama on Inauguration Day. But my eyes weren’t gazing at the Capitol as Joe Biden was sworn in. Instead, I was enthralled by the sight of Air Force One, in its brilliant blue-and-white livery, lifting off as Sinatra’s rich, melodious voice sang My Way from some unseen speaker on Andrews Air Force Base. If Shakespeare’s maxim ‘all the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players’ is to be believed, then it’s unquestionable that Donald Trump has been one of the great figures of our era. He has served as a perplexing Rorschach blot who appears to some as a ‘needed hero’ and a ‘treacherous villain’ to others. But there comes a time when any such ‘character’ must depart from the stage, regardless of whether he faces applause or jeers. To ensure that this is indeed the case, the Right must impeach Trump. It’s time for us to bid a final adieu to the 45th President.

After three years and eleven months of walking on eggshells and tiptoeing around his boss’ enormous ego, Mike Pence had finally reached his breaking point. None of the meek agreements nor subtle flattery had worked — there he was, being cussed out by the president.

“You can either go down in history as a patriot, or you can go down in history as a p*ssy,” former President Trump told the Vice President the night before the latter would go to the Capitol to oversee the final electoral count (according to an unnamed source inside the room). Trump was furious that Pence had refused to try to overturn the election, even though he formally had no power to. Pence, as the president of the Senate, could only preside over Congress' certification of the results, but could not intervene.

The loyal right-hand man faced a choice he could not avoid: either agree to Trump’s demands, which would only delay the final decision, or confirm Biden’s victory on national television. He chose to uphold the Constitution, despite the wrath of his boss and the mob. Even through the chants of “Hang Mike Pence!” at the Capitol riot on January 6th. Even though he would lose the support of the Republicans whose votes he once hoped to secure for the next presidential election.

Many people breathed a sigh of relief, thanking Pence for adhering to the Constitution and putting his moral values over his political future. However, he shouldn’t be praised for not doing something he was never legally able to do. (And if telling the truth ruins his political future, he’s in the wrong party!)

Every day, all across America, ordinary men and women do their duties faithfully. They receive no cheers, no pats on the back. Pence should not be praised either for simply following his duty under the Constitution and refusing to break the law. After all, when he was sworn in as VP in 2016, he pledged an oath to the American people, not to the President.

People may argue that he deserves praise because he had to endure torrents of abuse from the President, threats to the life of himself and his family, and an end to his political aspirations in order to follow the law. However, it’s worth noting that he agreed to be VP with Trump for personal gain. He supported the demagogue in every other cruel and nonsensical act carried out, and choosing to do the right thing after being a sycophant for four years does not say much about his ethics. A choice between honouring his legal and ethical obligation and caving in to the illegal whims of the President is not a difficult one at all. Furthermore, if he were authorized to invalidate the election results, he likely would have done so. Realistically, after four years of acting as the dummy to Trump’s ventriloquist, Pence would have continued to follow Trump’s leadership and stay out of his bad graces if disputing the outcome would not have resulted in consequences — certainly he would not have behaved morally.

Imagine a train that could travel faster than a plane at about 1220 km/h. If that sounds impossible, you might be surprised. In 2013, Elon Musk introduced a revolutionary form of transportation called the Hyperloop. Inside a vacuum tunnel, pods are accelerated at incredibly high speeds due to Hyperloop’s low air resistance. Additionally, Hyperloop uses magnetic levitation to avoid friction from rails. There are numerous benefits to this technology such as reducing deadly car crashes, connecting people living far away, and creating more jobs -- not to mention saving passengers valuable time. However, before anyone boards, there is one problem that needs to be solved -- vacuum compression.

To start off, visualize a deflated party balloon. What could this have to do with Hyperloop? Well, the same principles apply. When it fills with air, it expands outwards. This is because the particles inside jostle each other and apply a force on each other. It turns out they are pushing against the atmosphere, which is 10,000 kg every square meter. Normally, this works fine. But parties never last and here’s where it goes downhill.

Pull all the air out of the balloon and it becomes a vacuum. There’s no pressure because there are no more particles. Suddenly, all that atmospheric pressure is crushing the balloon. Bam! That’s vacuum compression.

Could the walls of the balloon be strengthened so it won’t break? That is a smart idea, but it causes further problems. If the Hyperloop punctures, all the outside air would rush in, shooting the pods back at fatal speeds. One source puts the acceleration of the pods at 7.5 m/s². In less than 4 seconds, they would accelerate to 100 km/h backwards. To put that in perspective, that’s around the speed of a car on a highway.

That’s not to say that the Hyperloop is doomed. But the risks need to be considered and solved. By introducing innovative materials and smart sensors, the tunnel can be stronger. Current Hyperloop designs feature steel tubes with reinforced concrete struts. However, there are many factors to consider such as turbulent weather, wind, and temperature changes. The first Hyperloop path will be between Los Angeles to San Francisco, which is notoriously close to a fault zone and prone to seismic activity. Scientists estimate that there is a 75% chance of a magnitude 7.0 earthquake in the next 30 years, so the Hyperloop tunnel will need to be made of tough materials.

New super alloys could be used such as Aluminum Matrix Composites (AMC). Because these materials are expensive right now, they will be suitable for important parts of the tunnel such as airlocks or the emergency exits. It’s also worth noting that self-healing concrete could be used to repair cracks. These materials have bacteria embedded into the concrete which feed on calcium-lactate to produce limestone. Limestone acts as a super glue which seals the cracks and prevents further damage.

The second part of the solution is smart monitoring. Hyperloop projects range from 334 to 1,102 km long. Monitoring this large tube for leaks or structural damage will be nearly-impossible.

A possible solution is using pressure sensors located around the Hyperloop to detect changes to the tube’s pressure or optical fibers that can detect the exact position of cracks. These fibers send electrical signals when they are strained so damage can be stopped before it worsens.

But in the worst case scenario, if there is a large fracture, a “wave” of air would rush into the depressurized tunnel. Airlocks would be sealed to block the force of the air. And a powerful braking system could slow pods down while passengers would escape through one of the several exits located on the tunnel. If these emergencies can happen, is Hyperloop too risky to be used?

To answer that question, look at past examples of technology. Around 100 years ago, people were terrified of flying on airplanes. Now more than 4.4 billion people fly through the skies every year. Aviation created many jobs, connected countries, and increased trade. Hyperloop could do the same thing by connecting cities and accelerating economic trade. More importantly, this leads to more resilient economies because of investments into education and a wide range of job opportunities. The thought of speeding through a vacuum tube close to the speed of sound may be unbelievable right now. But, through innovative research and rigorous testing, the Hyperloop could become a not so distant reality.

On December 2, 2020, nearly a year after the first COVID-19 cases were identified, a vaccine from the companies Pfizer and BioNTech was accepted for limited approval in the UK; this became the first Ribonucleic Acid (RNA) vaccine in history to gain authorization for medical use. On December 9^th, the same RNA vaccine was approved in Canada, the first vaccine accepted in Canada since the start of the pandemic. While the arrival of vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna/National Institute of Health (NIH) in Canada is a cause for hope, many citizens don’t fully understand how they function and whether they will be safe and effective. This article seeks to address these concerns in simple terms.

SARS-CoV-2 is the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 is a novel coronavirus, meaning humans have had no previous exposure to viruses of this exact type. As a result, the majority of the world’s population does not have immunity to the disease. Under these conditions, a vaccine can provide immunity to prevent further deaths.

RNA vaccines stand out as one of the newest and most promising additions to the immunogenic arsenal to counter SARS-COV-2. Unlike traditional vaccines, RNA vaccines inject cells with bits of genetic material that are used to produce parts of the virus instead of injecting parts of the virus directly. Although RNA vaccines—first proposed in 1994—are still a relatively new and untested innovation, the urgency of the COVID pandemic and the potential benefits in safe, fast, and low-cost production have spurred rapid development in the technology.

How do RNA vaccines work? In short, RNA vaccines use body cells’ protein production systems (ribosomes) to produce a harmless portion of the virus in human cells which then activates the immune system. Firstly (1), a syringe injection to the upper arm introduces the vaccine into the body. Secondly (2), the vaccine binds with the cell membrane and releases viral RNA (a string of genetic information read by ribosomes to make proteins) into the cell. Thirdly (3), the cells’ ribosomes produce a portion of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (usually the membrane spike protein ). Fourthly (4), the cell identifies the portion of the virus as an outside intruder and activates the immune system. Once this process is complete, specific immune cells will ‘remember’ the virus and will quickly reactivate an immune response if a real SARS-COV-2 virus arrives.

How were the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna/NIH vaccines approved? To be accepted, vaccines must pass through a stringent four-phase series of trials. First, Preclinical Trials on animals determine a vaccine’s ability to trigger an immune response and eliminate any vaccines that demonstrate extreme side effects. Next, vaccines enter Phase 1 tests on small groups of humans to narrow down the necessary dosage. Then, vaccines start Phase 2, with larger groups including more vulnerable patients such as the children and elderly. These trials determine the exact dosage and any side effects specific to certain demographic groups. Finally, vaccines go through Phase 3 tests on large populations to determine any side effects that may have gone unnoticed in the smaller sample trials. Due to the increased need for a workable vaccine, many vaccine candidates (including the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine) have undergone faster combined phases (e.g. combining Phase 2 and 3 tests in a single Phase 2/3). At each phase, regulatory agencies – like Health Canada or the US Food and Drug Administration – assess the vaccine and decide whether to give a rejection, limited or full approval.

RNA vaccines have advantages and disadvantages that regulators must weigh when deciding on authorization. The first advantage is high efficacy (the percent of those vaccinated who recover) for currently accepted RNA vaccines, which have 94.5%-95% recovery rates. The USA’s Food and Drug Administration generally requires a minimum efficacy of 50%, so approved RNA vaccines far exceed this important threshold. Secondly, RNA vaccines are relatively easy to manufacture. Since RNA and its nanoparticle capsule are only combinations of chemicals, they can be manufactured simply in a lab; in comparison, typical vaccines require time-consuming growth of the virus itself. Thirdly, RNA vaccines are safer for the body than potential alternatives. Since only RNA, not a full weakened virus, is being injected into the body, the risks of an overreacting immune response are lower.

However, RNA vaccines do have disadvantages. Firstly, there is the risk of degradation. Since RNA tends to be more volatile compared to DNA and proteins, RNA vaccines may risk degradation in transport. Because of this, many RNA vaccines have to be shipped at low temperatures. Secondly, RNA vaccines often require two injections because they generate a milder immune response compared to alternatives. This means it may take longer to achieve herd immunity. For example, Canada’s order of 6 million RNA vaccines for the first quarter of 2021, will vaccinate only 3 million people as two doses are needed per person.

The two RNA vaccines being distributed now are from the companies Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna/NIH, both of which Canada has signed delivery contracts with. While these two vaccines have a similar structure and efficacy, there are small differences between them that greatly affect functionality and delivery. Moderna’s vaccine is encased in a more resistant nanoparticle layer, meaning it can be stored at -20°C. On the other hand, Pfizer/BioNTech’s vaccine must be stored at -94°C. Although Canada’s distribution system is not perfect and there have been spoilages, it has established a reliable delivery chain through purchases of ultra-cold refrigerators and collaboration with the military for logistical support.

The present-day distribution of RNA vaccines to fight COVID is a watershed moment for this technology, which prior to the pandemic was little-known and relatively untested. If RNA vaccines prove to be successful in providing COVID immunity on a large scale, we may see a much wider use of RNA-based treatments to counter the seasonal flu, cancer, and future viral pandemics. RNA vaccines so far have proven themselves to be reliable, safe and effective in numerous lab trials. What remains to be seen is whether Canada and other governments around the world can distribute vaccines efficiently and equitably and convince citizens to take them. The following months will be critically important to the future of vaccinology. If RNA vaccines successfully overcome production and distribution challenges, they may save millions of lives worldwide and help us return sooner to meeting the people we miss and doing the things we enjoy.

To anybody who has delved into the world of figure skating, the name of Yuzuru Hanyu will probably be a familiar one. Hailed by some as the greatest figure skater to ever take the ice, the Japanese figure skater has broken 19 world records and won two Olympic gold medals in the men’s singles event. He is the first (and only) skater to have achieved a Super Slam (having won all major competitions in his senior and junior career). His skating combines technical brilliance and near-perfect artistry, making him one of the most well-rounded athletes in the sport. One commentator remarked his jumps were as though they were “dropped from heaven.” The flow and the ease with which he performs his jumps are truly breathtaking.

However, Hanyu is not just a role model in technical ability and artistic interpretation. His determination, his spirit and his perseverance are qualities to be admired and respected, too. The words perseverance, grit, and “never giving up” are thrown around so often, especially in sports, that they sometimes lose their meaning. The story of the 2014 Cup of China, on the other hand, is a perfect reminder of just what never giving up truly means.

The Cup of China was the third event of the 2014-2015 ISU Grand Prix Series, culminating in the Grand Prix Final. After the men’s short program, Maxim Kovtun of Russia had the lead over Hanyu, though only by three points. Hanyu’s freeskate layout included three quadruple jumps for the very first time. Expectations on the event were high. However, that narrative took a sudden turn when Hanyu and Han Yan of China were involved in a high-speed collision during the 6-minute warmup prior to the freeskate. Both men tumbled to the ground and then did not get up. Screams could be heard from the audience; they knew this was an extremely dangerous collision for both involved. Yan was able to sit up shortly after the accident, but Hanyu remained collapsed on the ice, breathing heavily. He lay on his back for nearly a minute, blood spilling across his face and chin, while the arena’s lack of on-duty medical personnel was called into question. Hanyu, however, was able to skate off the ice without assistance. One commentator remarked that it seemed evident that Hanyu was unconscious on the ice, with nobody to help him. On the line was a trip to that year’s Grand Prix Final. If Hanyu withdrew, there would be no second chance for him.

After a break to give the skaters medical treatment, the skaters were back on the ice, Yan and Hanyu among them. While both men sported similar bandages on their chins, Hanyu also had gauze wrapped around his head, a stark reminder of what he had just gone through and the four and a half minutes of the free skate he still needed to get through. Hanyu’s coach, the Canadian Brian Orser, later said that Hanyu did not show signs of a concussion, but he did tell him that “this is not the time to be a hero. You have to take care of yourself.” Everyone in the arena was rattled, from the spectators to the commentators to the other skaters. Kovtun commented that the crash had shaken him and that his coach had had to help him calm down. During the warmup, the commentators grimaced as Hanyu’s body began to feel the strain he was forcing upon it.

Then, it was time. A man, who according to the commentators, had been unconscious on the ice just fifteen minutes earlier, was about to go through four and a half minutes of the most rigorous jumps that he could do. His first jump, a quadruple salchow, sent him tumbling onto the ice, just managing to get it fully rotated. The second jump, a quadruple toe loop, gave the same result, but no matter how bad the fall was, he just got up and continued skating. Down he went but up he pushed himself once more.

Hanyu then landed his next jump, a triple flip. After everything, the fact that he’d managed to fully rotate two quadruple jumps and land a triple flip was incredible. Just skating, being on the ice, was a feat in and of itself and here he was, producing a miracle. After the initial three jumping passes, Hanyu was approaching the halfway point of his program. Knowing he wasn’t fit to attempt the planned third quadruple jump, Hanyu instead attempted a triple lutz - double toe loop combination, landing it without issue.

He fell on his next jumping pass, a triple axel, but no matter how many times he fell, he got right back up. His sheer determination carried him onwards. Down, but right back up. Right back up, in fact, to land the amazing triple axel - euler - triple salchow combination, that only he had landed at the time. In addition, he would receive a 10% bonus for the point value of that jump, due to it being in the second half of the program. Being able to pull off such a complex combination under such difficult circumstances is just incredible.

He fell on the triple loop, his fourth fall, with one minute left in the program. Then, another fall on the triple lutz. But after each jump, he picked himself up and just kept going. No matter what happened, he would see this program to completion. When the program ended, the crowd leapt to their feet for the young man who had managed to push onwards after such a horrible accident. As one commentator remarked, “just being able to get through four and a half minutes after what he’s been through today, that in itself is impressive.”

Getting off the ice, with the adrenaline that had kept him moving gone, he collapsed into his coach’s arms, looking as if he was hardly able to breathe. It was over. He had done it. He skated the full program. When the scores came out, his combined score totalled 237.55, putting him in first place at the time. Hanyu then broke down crying upon seeing what he had just accomplished. Kovtun, the final skater to perform, later knocked him down to the second place, but it was enough. Hanyu was still in the running for the Grand Prix Final despite it all.

After the competition, Hanyu received stitches on his head and chin. Many athletes and former athletes later criticized the Japanese Skating Federation for their handling of the incident, notably the fact that they had let him skate at all. However, that does not take anything away from the sheer willpower that it must have taken the 19-year-old Yuzuru Hanyu to make it through that program under what was probably some of the hardest conditions of his career.

Hanyu said that as he was on his back, looking up at the ceiling, he was thinking, “this is how it ends? My skating career?” He also apologized for worrying the fans, stating that he was fine and that it was good that he had never given up.

Hanyu finished fourth in the NHK Trophy, his next Grand Prix assignment following the accident, but it was enough to qualify him for the Grand Prix Final that year. Yan finished sixth at the Cup of China, but managed to recover enough to compete at the Trophée Éric Bompard, where he finished eighth. Hanyu and Yan revealed that they had no hard feelings towards each other after the accident, apologizing to each other. Hanyu went on to win the Grand Prix Final over training mate Javier Fernández of Spain.

Regardless, it’s easy to forget how dangerous sports are and how much damage to a person’s body and their career can happen in such a short amount of time. It’s easy to forget just how hard these athletes work to achieve what they do. Hanyu’s accident was a reminder of what the phrase “never giving up” truly meant. Perhaps it was reckless, perhaps it wasn’t worth it, but nobody can deny the incredible strength that fuelled Yuzuru Hanyu as he pushed, despite everything, to never, ever give up.