A scientific report done every four years has been thrust into the spotlight because its findings directly contradict statements from the president and various Cabinet officials.

If the Trump administration chooses to reject the pending national Climate Science Special Report, it would be more damaging than pulling the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement. Full stop. This is a bold claim, but as an economist and scientist who was a vice chair of the committee that shepherded the last national climate assessment report to its completion, I can explain why this is the case.

Informing Policy With Facts

To see why the Climate Science Special Report is so important, first consider some historical context.

In 1990, Congress mandated that government scientists prepare and transmit a report to the president and the Congress every four years that “integrates, evaluates, and interprets” findings of the United States Global Change Research Program. It must characterize the “effects of global change on the natural environment, agriculture, energy production and use, land and water resources, transportation, human health and welfare, human social systems, and biological diversity.” It also calls for scientists to project climate trends decades into the future.

The upcoming Climate Science Special Report, upon which the administration must bestow either its approval or its rejection sometime in the near future, is the first major component of the Fourth National Climate Assessment. Combined with a second section that will analyze climate change’s impacts on different regions and sectors of the economy, it must, by law, be submitted in some form to Congress and the public by the end of 2017. The previous assessment was released to the public by President Obama in a Rose Garden ceremony on May 6, 2014.

So, what does the latest Climate Science Special Report say? On the basis of new and stronger science, it extends, confirms, and elaborates conclusions on climate risks reported in the third National Climate Assessment nearly four years ago. The forthcoming National Climate Assessment is now more secure in its core findings and includes two new important developments: advances in what is called attribution science and the importance of using this new information to implement effective adaptation.

The draft report shows that scientists can more accurately describe the degree to which we can attribute growing climate change risks to human activity. The net effect is that scientists can more confidently attribute the role global warming has played in events such as floods or heat waves.

The report also reconfirms that it is not too late for Americans to respond to growing climate change risks. This was a major conclusion of the NCA3, but it is worthy of repeating. Put quite simply, it assures Americans that we can work individually and together to reduce our carbon footprint and to adapt to the dangers of climate change, both observed and projected.

State And City Action On Paris

So why would rejecting the forthcoming CSSR be more damaging to public health and welfare across the country than withdrawing from the Paris Agreement? The reason lies in the crucial difference between the two: The Paris accord focuses on reducing emissions, while the Climate Science Special Report is designed to help the U.S. better adapt to the effects of climate change, even as it underscores the importance of cutting emissions.

We, like many other nations, were “leading from behind” when we helped 196 nations achieve and accept the Paris climate agreement in 2015. China was already reducing its carbon emissions significantly as a co-benefit to reducing conventional air pollution. States like California and the entire New England region had already implemented cap and trade programs to do the same.

Meanwhile, cities like New York and Los Angeles were similarly committing their own scarce resources to reduce emissions and adopt adaptation plans. Corporations across the country are changing their business plans to reduce their emissions and to protect their bottom-line resilience.

The message of all this decentralized action is clear: The emissions reduction train had, by November 4, 2016, when the Paris Agreement came into force, already left the station. Leaving the Paris Agreement was a bad idea, but it was not going to call the train back.

By contrast, the NCA4 includes vital information that will help policymakers and society at large to adapt more securely to the effects of a dynamic climate. The previous national climate assessment report did exactly that, providing not only data on how climate change is affecting the U.S. now, broken down by region and industry, but also stronger foundations for designing effective adaptive strategies.

Powerful Signal

A New York Times article recently noted that some scientists involved in the climate report are concerned about what the administration will do.

A decision to reject the report would, of course, diminish the credibility of hundreds of government scientists who have worked the climate problem for decades. The CSSR is the product of exactly the “peer-reviewed and objectively reviewed methodology and evaluation” that the EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has called for.

Trump has already refused to accept high-confidence conclusions from 17 intelligence agencies across the federal government, which makes it makes it more difficult to make progress in protecting our next national election from cyberattacks. Similarly, rejecting the high-confidence findings from the 13 federal agencies whose scientists contributed to the Climate Science Special Report would make it much more difficult for Americans to protect themselves from existing and projected climate risks in a number of ways.

• It would make it easier for Congress to dismiss any proposed legislation that takes climate change risk into account.
• It would make it easier to continue to deny any consideration of climate risk in any of the departments and agencies where the very mention of climate change is now forbidden. It would, for instance, make it easier for states like North Carolina to “outlaw” any mention of sea level rise in any public discourse despite catastrophic flooding along the Outer Banks and inland lowlands.
• It would make it easier for shareholders of major corporations to demand that their CEOs save money in the short run by ignoring material climate risk to the longer-view bottom line.

Putting People In Harm’s Way

As such, President Trump’s rejection of the 2018 Climate Science Special Report would unnecessarily place American citizens in harm’s way in every corner of the country. Studies have shown that hundreds of people and billions of dollars would be lost over the coming years if emissions continue unabated.

I know that his supporters and climate skeptics would call that statement hyperbole, but I believe that it is not. People will die if the president rejects the upcoming Climate Science Special Report because they will not be protected. Nobody can identify exactly who and when, but it is possible to describe many of them with incredible precision.

The dead will be drawn randomly across all 50 states from populations of poor, elderly and/or very young Americans who live close to rivers, streams, oceans, or lakes in regions that are already prone to extreme weather events, intense summer heat, and newly observed vector-borne diseases. By dismissing the best available climate science, the administration will slow or reverse the country’s efforts to adapt to the dangerous effects of climate change, such as these.

Rejection of this report would thereby be an abdication of the president’s constitutional responsibility to “provide for the public’s defense” and “promote the general welfare” of every American.

Gary W. Yohe is Huffington Foundation professor of economics and environmental studies, Wesleyan University. Gary is affiliated with the Nature Conservancy and has received modest funding in the past from from the federal government (EPA, NOAA) and from the Rockefeller Foundation through the New York Panel on Climate Change. His professorship at Wesleyan includes a modest research budget from the Huffington Foundation.

This story originally appeared at the Conversation.

This story reflects the views of this author, but not necessarily the editorial position of Fast Company.

Divisions are roiling America. Walls–both real and imagined–are being erected as Nazis and bigots flagrantly march on our streets, leadership lacks at the top, and unease permeates the country. Is this the America that we want?

The racist violence and bigotry exhibited in Charlottesville, Virginia, this past weekend was an assault on all of us. Whether it travels under the name of the alt-right, white nationalism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, or homophobia, this racialized hatred saps America of its strength and robs society of its safety and freedom. It undermines the America that abolished slavery, ended segregation, and fights for the freedom of the oppressed.

With white nationalists planning more demonstrations and hundreds of Confederate monuments still saturating our country’s shared civic space, it is time for cities to take a stand. While we must reflect on how to best respect the right to free speech, it must be known–and known loudly–that hate and racist violence on our city streets is unacceptable.

This is a time where those in positions of power, from city hall to the White House, must bring people together and denounce hate, not mincing words or conflating the intentions of “all sides.” Leaders that should be revered for taking a stand–like the mayors of Charlottesville, New Orleans, Lexington, and more–are seeking to reflect the shared inclusive values of today’s America by tearing down these landmarks that memorialize slavery and segregation.

Charlottesville Mayor Michael Signer did just that when he listened to his constituents who didn’t want prejudice enshrined in bronze in their community. He pointed to Americans’ will to defeat bigotry in a recent NPR interview, saying, “We have overcome so many threats to our democracy and our country. We overcame McCarthyism and Jim Crow laws and segregation. And we did it through what we have–through the norms and the principles that make up the kind of beating heart of democracy. I know that we’re going to overcome . . . this new surge of bigotry that now has come up.”

After just such a process in New Orleans, Mayor Mitch Landrieu made this clear in a recent speech about the removal of Confederate monuments in his city saying, “These statues are not just stone and metal. They are not just innocent remembrances of a benign history. These monuments purposefully celebrate a fictional, sanitized Confederacy; ignoring the death, ignoring the enslavement, and the terror that it actually stood for.”

But city leaders know that it is not an easy path. True leadership often means doing the hard thing, and confronting hate. As Mayor Landrieu told his community, “I knew that taking down the monuments was going to be tough, but you elected me to do the right thing, not the easy thing, and this is what that looks like.”

But some cities face another roadblock in the removal of Confederate statues with recalcitrant state lawmakers that preempt local governments from controlling their own parks and public spaces. A number of states, including North Carolina, Tennessee, and Alabama, have passed regressive laws that directly prevent cities from removing Confederate monuments. These state legislatures cite a desire to preserve history and heritage through preemptive laws, despite calls from city leaders and citizens who want control of their public spaces.

It is increasingly clear that many Americans don’t want the rights of “men who were” to be seen as more important than those of the “men (and women) who are.” It will be up to city leaders to stand up for what’s best for their communities and to defend our inclusive, diverse, free society. As President George W. Bush said at the opening of the National Museum of African American History and Culture, “A great nation does not hide its history. It faces its flaws and corrects them.”

Brooks Rainwater is the senior executive and director of the National League of Cities‘ Center for City Solutions.

After banning “bizarre” buildings last year, China’s State Administration for Industry and Commerce launched a campaign this week against a not-uncommon phenomenon in the country: weird and long company names. Monikers that are paragraphs, long sentences, or entire literary narratives, or that include sensitive language or political terms, are now considered “inappropriate.” According to the Legal Daily and some sleuthing netizens, some (translated) candidates for prohibition include:

• Shenyang Prehistoric Powers Hotel Management Limited Company: named for swimmer Fu Yuanhui, who, after winning a bronze medal at the Rio Olympics, declared: “I have used all my prehistoric powers to swim!”
• There Is a Group of Young People With Dreams, Who Believe They Can Make the Wonders of Life Under the Leadership of Uncle Niu Internet Technology Co Ltd., or Uncle Niu, a condom maker.
• What Are You Looking At Shenzhen Technology Co. Ltd., a virtual reality company.
• “Skinny Blue Mushroom”: Some restaurants and cafés have included in their names a phrase made popular by a meme from last year that mocked a man from Guangxi province. “Unbearable, I want to cry,” he moaned, but his accent made it sound more like “skinny blue mushroom.”
• King of Nanning, Guangxi and His Friends Trading Company Ltd., which runs two Vietnamese restaurants.
• Beijing Under My Wife’s Thumb Technology Co. Ltd.
• Beijing Scared of Wife Technology Company
• Anping County Scared of Wife Netting Products Factory
• Hangzhou No Trouble Looking for Trouble Internet Technology

Also a no-go: Names that discriminate according to gender, race or ethnicity, or that reference terrorism, separatism, extremism, religion, the names of national leaders, or illegal organizations. Companies are also forbidden from using their names to imply they are nonprofit organizations.

Despite the new rules, Uncle Niu and some other owners of weirdly named companies the New York Times spoke to have said they plan to keep their monikers for now, or at least until they’re explicitly told to change them.

A picture is worth much more than a thousand words.

Neuroscientists from MIT recently discovered that the human brain can process entire images in just 13 milliseconds, much faster than the 100 milliseconds studies had estimated. They also found that the brain can extract meaning just as rapidly, even when it can’t predict what will be shown. In contrast, it takes up to 600 milliseconds for the brain to think of a word, apply grammar, and then say it out loud.

But there’s another layer to the power of visual stimuli. As Lindsay Morris, senior manager of creative planning at Getty Images, puts it, “Imagery has the power to influence, inspire, and challenge stereotypes.” For a stock photo company that’s produced some 200 million assets, Getty has learned to “recognize the responsibility that comes with that,” she says.

That’s partly because Getty Images carefully watches what users in close to 200 countries are searching for. For example, there’s been a spike in searches for images of women in tech, says Morris; over the past year, “women coding” searches have increased 211% and those for “female programmer” have gone up 144%. This comes on the heels of curated collections Getty has launched, like one designed to represent more inclusive global beauty standards and another, born out of a partnership with Sheryl Sandberg’s nonprofit, LeanIn.Org, that aims to break down gender stereotypes. “This is really juicy stuff,” says Morris, who’s encouraged by the progress but admits there’s still a long way to go.

Morris knows these stereotypes have been perpetuated over the decades, so she and her team work with clients to brainstorm new ways of presenting images to encourage people to look beyond those gender norms. “Often in the past, imagery of women in business and technology roles have been framed by men,” Morris says, pointing to a photo set of women in tech that juxtapose vintage photos from Getty’s archive with those from its Lean In collection.

In one image of women working on a computer from the ’60s, Morris notes that there’s a man who appears to be instructing her in the corner of the frame. Likewise, although women have always worked in construction, technology, and the military, the women depicted assembling aircrafts during World War II are usually styled in a very feminine way.

In response to a “huge trend” in which customer search terms like “women in technology” rose 111%, “women and STEM” spiked 526%, and “female CEO” increased by 47%, all in just the past year, the Getty Images creative team is working even harder to show professional women standing on their own, instructing themselves, and being experts with authority, Morris says.

Getty Images is also monitoring the shift in domestic roles through the rise in searches for terms like “stay at home dad,” which has gone up 40% in the past year. That’s why “Lean In Together” has become part of the Getty Images Lean In Collection, Morris says. “Men today have complex identities, too, and it’s important that they see themselves in imagery,” she explains. “The script isn’t based on traditional gender roles anymore. There’s so much more to see.”

Steve Bannon has never been subtle about his desire to destroy the U.S. government.

In 2016, Bannon described himself as a Leninist. When a Daily Beast reporter asked what that meant, Bannon replied: “Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.”

That was Bannon’s goal before he became a federal employee, funded by U.S. tax dollars. But Bannon’s views did not change when he became Trump’s chief strategist. In his February speech to CPAC, Bannon said his objective was to “deconstruct the administrative state” and that many of the injurious incompetents who fill Trump’s cabinet–the EPA head who opposes environmental protections, the HUD secretary who opposes public housing–”were selected for a reason, and that is deconstruction.”

Bannon sought to destroy the United States as we know it from both from within the White House as Trump’s advisor, and from outside it, back when he was the editor of white supremacist outlet Breitbart. Bannon sought to build a movement, not serve our government. In many ways, he succeeded: his white nationalist views became sanctioned at the executive level, and the US government is chaotic, understaffed, and weaker on the global stage than at any point this century.

What is essential to realize is that, despite reports of a feud, Trump shares much of Bannon’s dark outlook. Trump spent his business career eagerly anticipating both social and economic disasters. “I sort of hope that happens because then people like me would go in and buy,” Trump said of the housing crash in 2006. Before that, Trump spent decades exploiting the damaged economies of towns like Gary, Indiana and Atlantic City, leaving them as bad or worse off than when he arrived. In 2014, Trump openly longed for the U.S. to “go to total hell” and cited riots as necessary for true American greatness–words that should worry all of us as we head into this tense weekend. Over the past two years, Trump has rarely condemned his white supremacist supporters who attack ethnic and religious minorities; at one point, he offered to pay legal fees for violent fans.

Trump declared “I alone can fix it“, but in order for him to fix it – that is, to consolidate his power under the guise of improving our nation–America needed to be broken, over and over again.

By the time Trump launched his campaign in June 2015, the US–reeling from two wars, a long recession, and civil unrest–was vulnerable and looking for big change in any form: perfect prey for Trump’s vulture-like proclivities. By the time Bannon officially joined Trump’s team in August 2016, Trump’s run had radically shifted political norms and spurred a wave of hate crimes. Bannon was a natural fit: while Trump’s goals seem largely kleptocratic (abusing executive power to line the family coffers is an ongoing issue), Bannon’s destructive and racist ideology melded easily with Trump’s ownviews and that of his base, many of whom were readers of Breitbart.

Now it appears Bannon will return to Breitbart, but don’t think for one second that this is the result of some ideological rift between him and the president. There is no evidence that Trump–who on Tuesday equated neo-Nazis and Klansmen with those who protested them in Charlottesville–was suddenly so full of moral indignation that he fired Bannon, whose racist policies were blatantly promulgated in the White House for over six months and who Trump praised this week.

Instead, the two may very well be working, as they have for a year, in tandem.

First, the White House remains the White Supremacist House: neo-nazi sympathizers Stephen Miller and Seb Gorka are still employed alongside civil rights antagonist Jeff Sessions and, of course, Trump himself. The Trump administration’s policies–anti-black, anti-Muslim, and anti-voter rights–remain unchanged. Stop the presses when Trump throws them all out.

Second, Bannon seems to have choreographed his departure in a way that benefits the broader white supremacist movement he and Trump support. In an interview with the liberal American Prospect–an interview which Bannon, a media professional, unconvincingly claimed he was unaware was recorded–Bannon sold himself as an “economic nationalist” and an opponent of “identity politics“. This move seems aimed at recasting himself as a more moderate, anti-Democrat populist in order to expand his own base and Trump’s, at a time when both are being scrutinized for their Nazi ties and bigoted views.

Third, Bannon may be just as useful for Trump outside the White House as he was within it–perhaps more so. Trump has, in the past, benefitted from staff who depart and go on to work as TV propagandists and political backers on Trump’s behalf. Bannon may well serve a similar role while furthering his own ideological goals. Bannon presumably leaves with inside knowledge about the government and White House personnel, which he could use to target staffers he allegedly dislikes–like John Kelly and James Mattis–unencumbered from his perch at Breitbart. Watch, carefully, what Breitbart publishes in the coming months.

Both Trump and Bannon remain financed by the Mercer family, ultra-conservative mega-donors who funded Trump’s campaign and share their desire to bring down the political establishment. One Mercer family colleague noted how Trump’s regime meshes with their philosophy: “Bob [Mercer] thinks the less government the better. He’s happy if people don’t trust the government. And if the President’s a bozo? He’s fine with that. He wants it to all fall down.” Another colleague notes that Bob Mercer’s fetish for destruction encompasses the belief that nuclear radiation is beneficial to one’s health.

One can only view Trump and Bannon as locked in a feud if one believes that either have a sincere desire for the U.S. to be a free, stable, and prosperous place for all citizens. Instead both men are guided by a violent philosophy that combines white supremacy, capitalist greed, and an anti-American agenda guised as populism. They share billionaire backers who are happy to assist them in these goals. Over the course of Trump’s rise to power, they have never been public servants but instead eager agents of America’s destruction. Their know their movement will continue whether Bannon is in the White House or not.

Sarah Kendzior is a journalist and scholar of authoritarian states.

Shortly after last Saturday’s white nationalist march through Charlottesville, outraged internet users took to social media to call out some of the participants in the march.

Daily News writer Shaun King tweeted photos of suspects in some violent attacks, including names and addresses shared by sources.

“Dear Dan, Before you deleted your Facebook page, I took screenshots of your photos and friends,” he wrote in one post. “You will be arrested.”

And Logan Smith, who runs the Twitter account YesYoureRacist, was one of several to reveal the identities of rank-and-file marchers who carried tiki torches in the white nationalist event. Such revelations led to real-world consequences for some of the marchers: One man was reportedly fired from a Vermont branch of Uno Pizzeria and Grill, and another resigned from a Bay Area hot dog stand after it was deluged with complaints about his behavior.

Internet vigilantism is nothing new—experts point to a case in China from 2006, when internet users tracked down a woman captured on video crushing a kitten to death, as one of the first examples. Police around the world have warned this form of publicly administered retribution can in some cases actually hinder the legal pursuit of justice. They say they need the public’s assistance in catching criminals, but warn that amateur assistance can go too far, notifying suspects of evidence against them and possibly endangering lives if cybersleuths step out from behind the keyboard.

Observers have also raised questions about the ethics of exposing people’s identities they mean to keep secret—what both online activists and trolls often call “doxing”—though many feel this is less of an issue in situations like the Charlottesville march, where participants did little to hide their identities.

“There’s a question, of course, whether taking their picture, putting them on the internet and trying to identify them is a morally good-morally bad thing,” says Mathias Klang, an associate professor in digital technologies and emerging media at Fordham University. “Legally, it’s okay—I think morally, it’s mostly okay.”

The marchers were parading unmasked in a public place, so they have no expectation of privacy, and while the First Amendment might protect nonviolent marchers from legal prosecution, it doesn’t shield them from social ostracism or criticism from the public, he says.

“They can actually go, you’re an idiot,” he says. “Sometimes I think we struggle with that difference.”

Indeed, some participants were outed as students at public universities, which generally condemned their students’ behavior, while declining to take disciplinary actions citing free speech grounds.

“Based on discussion and investigation with law enforcement, our attorneys and our Office of Student Conduct, there is no constitutional or legal reason to expel him from our University or to terminate his employment,” University of Nevada President Marc Johnson said of one such student.

Not all those identified, though, were actually involved in the rally. A University of Arkansas engineering professor was incorrectly named as a participant—he was nowhere near Charlottesville at the time—and reportedly went into hiding after receiving threats and demands for his ouster from the university.

“The Wrong Guy” Problem

It’s not the first time internet sleuths, looking to locate people identified in illegal or immoral activities, have pointed to the wrong person. After New York’s Shakespeare in the Park produced a Trump-inspired version of “Julius Caesar,” other Shakespeare companies around the country received their share of misdirected vitriol and threats. A few months earlier, misguided amateur detectives looking into what they called “PizzaGate” accused various people connected to Hillary Clinton’s campaign of being tied to a worldwide child abuse conspiracy, culminating in an armed man bursting into a D.C. pizzeria searching for kidnapped children.

And infamously, after the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombing, Reddit users created a forum called r/findbostonbombers. They scoured internet photos of the event looking for suspicious people, and ended up publicly pointing to at least three people who had no connection to the bombing. They included college student Sunil Tripathi, who was then missing and later found dead.

Afterward, then-Reddit general manager Erik Martin issued a statement of regret and reiterated the discussion site’s policy against revealing people’s personal information.

“We hoped that the crowdsourced search for new information would not spark exactly this type of witch hunt,” Martin wrote. “We were wrong. The search for the bombers bore less resemblance to the types of vindictive internet witch hunts our no-personal-information rule was originally written for, but the outcome was no different.”

There’s little doubt that lasting harm can be done to people who are publicly accused of doing something illegal or immoral. And while they may have legal remedies like defamation suits, those are not always sufficient to undo the damage.

“That’s actually not helpful in this case, because what we’re talking about is the social harm that’s being caused by someone pointing you out in the wrong way,” Klang says.

Late last month, Dallas photographer Andrea Polito won a $1.08 million defamation judgment against a blogger she said launched a social media campaign against her, after a dispute over wedding photo pricing. The posts—which she alleges were full of false allegations—went viral, and the photographer was attacked on review sites like Yelp, with one reviewer allegedly even falsely accusing her of transmitting HIV. But despite the court win, which might still be appealed, the photographer told the Dallas Morning News she’s “emotionally exhausted” after the episode, which saw her wedding season bookings drop from between 75 and 100 to just two.

The Police Want Help From The Public—To A Point

But since the Boston bombing mistakes, internet sleuths hoping to aid fast-moving criminal investigations have generally been more cautious, says Johnny Nhan, an associate professor of criminal justice at Texas Christian University, who has studied the online Boston bombing investigation. That applies even in the wake of the Charlottesville march, he says.

“I didn’t see any crazy activity on Reddit or 4chan or any of those that were very active during the Boston investigation,” he says. “I think it’s really lessons learned from the Boston marathon bombing where they misidentified a few people and really kind of wreaked havoc.”

Still, he says, crowdsourcing can be an effective way of locating particular people, despite the risk of false matches. After all, there’s a reason police have long asked the public to be on the lookout for particular suspects, whether through Post Office wanted posters, nightly news broadcasts of surveillance footage, or text message Amber Alerts.

“The FBI routinely asks for the public’s assistance in identifying unknown subjects and providing tips to law enforcement,” the agency said in a statement to Fast Company. “We value the public’s help and could not accomplish the mission without their assistance.”

While the Reddit leads turned out to be mistaken, convicted Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was only arrested after a homeowner noticed suspicious movements near his boat, where Tsarnaev was hiding, and contacted authorities.

The FBI also emphasized that people “be vigilant and not put themselves in danger if they encounter someone they believe may be dangerous,” encouraging people to contact their local FBI office or submit a tip online if they see something suspicious. And police agencies generally want to keep the public at arm’s length to avoid compromising investigations or incurring liability for civilian missteps, Nhan says.

If members of the public work too closely with law enforcement, courts may find they’re effectively deputized as an arm of the police, meaning police could be on the hook for Constitutional violations or other potentially serious missteps they take.

“There’s a ton of reasons why they don’t want people involved,” Nhan says.

In the U.K., where amateur pedophile hunters sometimes seek to entrap online sex offenders, police have warned they could unwittingly tip off suspects, or trigger violence if they confront them directly. They’ve also warned of the serious risk of false accusations, which could lead to serious reputational harm and even suicide.

But when investigators are reluctant to share information, members of the public can be frustrated if it seems their tips aren’t being acted upon, which can make them more likely to take to social media or other channels to publicize their own findings, he says. In the Charlottesville case, for instance, many expressed frustration local police didn’t do more to protect the public or crack down on violent, white nationalist marchers.

“The police proceed in a very methodical way,” Nhan says. “I think the frustration stems from the speed at which things happen.”

Read more:We spend billions on the police but have little say in what they do

You already know how much better you feel after a good night’s sleep, but sleeping well helps your brain in less apparent ways than just not being groggy the next day. In fact, getting seven to nine hours of sleep each night can help secure your cognitive well-being.

In the short term, it gives your brain time to flush out refuse matter that builds up–like protein plaques and beta amyloid tangles–through a kind of waste chute called the glymphatic system. And over the long term, that can help stave off diseases like Alzheimer’s. So it pays to know a few tricks and habits to help yourself along to the land of nod. For starters, here’s what to avoid:

No More Nightcaps

It’s all too easy to slip into a routine of having a glass or two of wine each evening, and you wouldn’t be alone in thinking this helps you unwind and sleep better. But what you might not realize is how significantly impaired the quality of your sleep is when you drink.

Related:This Is What Happened When I Ate The Best Brain Foods For A Week

Alcohol is a depressant and neurotoxin, which means it slows down the central nervous system’s processes by reducing electrical conductivity in the brain. This means that neurons, which send and receive the electrical signals that cause the release of neurotransmitters, operate more slowly. In fact, if you spent the evening drinking and then went to sleep wearing a heart-rate variability monitor, it would show significantly increased levels of stress for your body while you slept.

That’s thanks to the body’s physiological response when it’s trying to break down a toxin, the liver works harder when it should be resting, leading to a stressed state from which you’ll wake up feeling exhausted. Throughout the night, as the liver uses a higher proportion of the body’s energy than usual, the brain is starved of its usual resources and struggles to recuperate effectively for the next day.

Don’t Netflix And Chill

Many people like watching TV to relax after a long workday, and while that might help distract you from your daily worries, it doesn’t prepare your brain for a good night’s rest. Melatonin, the hormone that helps regulate sleep, is released into the bloodstream by the pineal gland. But darkness triggers the gland to start working, and it gets confused by the blue light that most screens emit.

Many people have heard of this issue when it comes to their smartphones, but it may not be enough to set aside just that device and not others. Even reading an e-book on a tablet or certain kinds of e-reader, or just watching ordinary television, can be potentially problematic. Try reading paper books and make sure you stop looking at all your devices’ screens for at least an hour before you hit the hay.

(Not sure what to do instead? For what it’s worth, sexual intimacy leads to the release of the bonding hormone oxytocin, which makes you feel comfortable and lowers your guard–helping to ease you into a good night’s sleep.)

Skip The Late-Night Snack

Eating a large, heavy meal is also a bad idea, especially acidic, spicy, or fatty foods, which can actively stimulate the brain. Certain foods like bacon and preserved meats, soy sauce, some cheeses, nuts, tomatoes, and red wine contain a chemical called tyramine, which causes the release of norepinephrine, a brain stimulant that boosts brain activity. Even some milky drinks, which many believe to be sleep-inducing, contain high quantities of sugar that can also keep you up. So make sure you check the label and choose your dinner carefully.

Now that you’ve cut these habits from your evening routine, what should you add to it instead? Here are a few good options for improving both the quality of your sleep and reducing the time it takes your brain to power down for the night.

Smell Some Lavender

Lavender is a powerful neuromodulator, which means that it lowers your blood pressure, heart rate, and skin temperature, making you more relaxed and likelier to fall asleep. Smell has a powerful and immediate impact on emotion and mood because of the proximity of the olfactory nerve (which contains the sensory nerve fibers relating to smell) to the brain.

There’s also an associative quality to regularly smelling lavender before you sleep. If you make this a habit, it will signal to your brain that it’s time to wind down (once you’ve established this association, you can tap into it on the road, too; just throw some lavender in your travel bag). If you don’t like lavender, jasmine is a good alternative and can produce similar effects.

Related:You Might Not Feel Tired, But Your Brain Needs More Sleep

Drink Nut Milk With Turmeric

Rather than buying a powdered milky drink that’s high in sugar, you can make your own relaxing bedtime drink using a nut milk, like almond, which is full of magnesium. Magnesium helps reduce levels of the stress hormone cortisol and calms the nervous system.

As a secret ingredient, add turmeric, whose powerful anti-inflammatory properties can prevent nighttime stomach problems that might interrupt your sleep (and which have even been implicated in preventing dementia). If you want to sweeten your drink, use Manuka honey rather than sugar to help boost your immunity.

Have A Soak

Circadian rhythms are our bodies’ series of physical, mental, and behavioral changes. They follow a roughly 24-hour cycle and depend primarily on how bright our environment is. Because of these rhythms, our body temperature automatically dips a couple of degrees at night, causing us to feel sleepy.

So when you take a hot bath–ideally 60–90 minutes before bedtime–your body temperature rises, but the rapid, steeper cool-down period immediately afterward relaxes you. And since the best way to increase your magnesium levels is actually through your skin, you can try adding magnesium salts to your bath to decrease cortisol levels. You should also make sure your bedroom isn’t too hot and stuffy once you get out of the bath. A cooler room can help reduce your body heat by the couple of degrees needed to drift off.

While falling asleep might seem like a passive process, there’s a whole cocktail of neurotransmitters involved in it, including histamine, dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin, glutamate, and acetylcholine. But that means there are many physiological “levers” you can pull on your way to a better night’s sleep. Get your evening routine right, and you’ll be able to enjoy the spoils that come with it–better concentration, memory, and moods, enhanced creativity, and reduced inflammation and stress.

Dr. Tara Swart is a neuroscientist, leadership coach, author, and medical doctor. Follow her on Twitter at @TaraSwart.

What: Patagonia’s first-ever TV ad, aimed at Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke, featuring company founder Yvon Chouinard talking about the importance of protected public lands.

Who: Patagonia

Why we care: Back in March, Patagonia created a series of videos, including a 360 experience, to raise awareness for the need to protect public spaces like the Bears Ears national monument in Utah. When the Utah government planned to roll back protections for ­Bears Ears, a 1.4-million-acre swath of high desert considered sacred by local tribes–the brand led industry leaders to take their Outdoor Retailer trade show, representing an industry with almost $50 billion in revenue, to another state. The company even threatened to take the Trump administration to court in order to protect these public lands.

This first-ever TV spot is part of a nearly $700,000 media buy, of statewide television and radio time in Secretary Zinke’s home state of Montana reminding him that he once said “our greatest treasures are public lands.” The company also bought TV and radio ad time in Utah and Nevada where Bears Ears, Grand Staircase Escalante, Gold Butte, and Basin and Range National Monuments are under threat.

In case you haven’t noticed, eclipse fever has swept the nation, and with good reason. Monday’s astronomical event will be the first total solar eclipse in the contiguous United States since 1979. The eclipse will be visible from across the country beginning in Lincoln City, Oregon (home to the World’s Smallest River!), at 9:05 a.m. PDT as a partial solar eclipse, becoming a total eclipse at 10:16 a.m. The eclipse will then make its way across the country, ending at 2:44 p.m. EDT near Columbia, South Carolina, providing free entertainment for any and all, if they have real solar eclipse viewing glasses.

If you can’t find any solar eclipse glasses at the library or in stores (here’s where to check), don’t have a colander handy, or simply are unable to tear yourself away from your cubicle, here’s where you can live-stream the eclipse:

• NASA will have not one, but two live streams of the eclipse: NASA TV, the space agency’s television service, will broadcast live footage compiled from terrestrial video feeds, “eclipse jets,” spacecraft, high-altitude balloons, specially modified telescopes, and from aboard the International Space Station (ISS). Stream the eclipse on your favorite platform, including YouTube, Periscope, Twitch, and Facebook Live.

The space organization will also broadcast a live stream from NASA EDGE, its unscripted live feed, and if lizard people emerge during the eclipse, you’re probably gonna want to be watching NASA’s unscripted feed.

• Twitter and the Weather Channel will live-stream the event. Coverage will include live shots from 10 locations in the eclipse’s “path of totality,” including Nashville, Casper, Wyoming; McMinnville, Oregon; and Hopkinsville, Kentucky, the point where totality is expected to stretch out the longest.

• Virtual Telescope Project will host a free online observing session with views of the total solar eclipse beginning at 1 p.m. EDT. Watch here.

• Time and Life VR will be producing a 360-degree VR livestream of the solar eclipse on Time‘s Facebook and YouTube pages, in partnership with Mesmerise Global.

The Ballooning Project will use its high-altitude balloons to stream videos of the eclipse. Watch here.

• Slooh, a space broadcaster, will cover the eclipse as it travels from sea to shining sea, broadcasting its view of the eclipse from a perch in Idaho, capping off a three-day long-eclipse fest. Watch here.

• Exploratorium, the San Francisco science museum, will have five live streams of the eclipse filmed in Madras, Oregon, and Casper, Wyoming. They’ll have Spanish- and English-narrated eclipse feeds and a special “sonification” of the eclipse by the Kronos Quartet. You can also watch on their app. Watch here.

• Science Channel will broadcast views from Madras, Oregon, in partnership with the Lowell Observatory, while retired astronaut Mike Massimino will host the proceedings from Charleston, South Carolina. Watch here.

• CNN and Volvo will provide a 360-degree view of the eclipse from various locations along the path of totality. The stream will also be viewable in virtual reality, in case reality is too much of a bummer. The livestream begins at 12:03 p.m. EDT. Watch here.

If you sleep through the entire thing, lay off the Ambien and tune in to NOVA’s Eclipse Over America,  which will premiere Monday night and recap the great eclipse.

Whatever live stream you follow, be sure to use Twitter’s #Eclipse2017 hashtag

Celebrate Monday's #Eclipse2017 with a new @Twitter hashtag emoji of totality, when the Moon blocks the Sun: https://t.co/Gl0JYISHDypic.twitter.com/soo8IkehdY

— NASA (@NASA) August 17, 2017

The product leaks that Apple fans are obsessed with at the moment involve the upcoming new flagship iPhone. But long before the era of blogs and Twitter, Apple was not entirely successful at keeping its secrets secret.

I just found and digitized a local news item from San Francisco’s KGO, broadcast in February 1988. It features the late tech-media pioneer David Bunnell, whose latest publication, at the time, was an Apple-centric weekly called Macintosh Today. Remarkably, it had gotten ahold of a 160-page internal Apple document about the Macintosh Portable, the company’s first truly mobile computer, which didn’t get announced until the following September.

Here’s Bunnell talking to news anchors Pete Wilson and Suzanne Saunders Shaw, both which were identified for me by former KGO producer Martha Feingold. At one point, Wilson wonders if the whole leak was secretly plotted by Apple as a promotional stunt:

Apple couldn’t have been happy about Macintosh Today scooping its long-off unveiling, but the main thing people remember about the Mac Portable isn’t the leak. Instead, it’s the fact that the computer became one of Apple’s more notorious flops–an pricey 16-pound boat anchor of a machine that was eventually superseded by the vastly more appealing PowerBook.

After numerous mainstream companies banned and denounced many so-called alt-right media sites, questions arise about whether this reduces their influence or encourages a victim mentality.

A tiny amount of oxybenzone, a UV-blocking chemical that’s commonly found in sunscreen, can stunt and deform the growth of coral reefs, sometimes killing the coral. In Hawaii, lawmakers are attempting to ban the sunscreens that contain the chemical so snorkelers don’t unwittingly destroy the reefs they visit.

But until that happens–and until people stop washing other oxybenzone-containing products, like some shampoos and dish detergents, down drains that lead to the ocean–researchers suggest that something else could help: tiny beads designed to suck the offending chemical out of the water.

The beads are made primarily from a biodegradable mix of an algae product and chitosan, a material produced from shrimp and lobster shells after fishing. They also include iron nanoparticles, making them magnetic enough to easily be pulled out of the water with a magnet after they’ve absorbed the oxybenzone. The structure of the beads is designed to soak up the chemical.

Though the tiny beads–each approximately three millimeters wide, expanding to five millimeters in the water–couldn’t be practically used to clean a large volume of water, they could help in smaller critical areas.

While some of the other pressures facing coral reefs, like rising ocean temperatures, are difficult to address–some amount of warming is likely to continue even if greenhouse gas emissions stopped now–chemical pollution could be tackled more readily.

“We need to do something, and this may be a start,” says Roman. “It would take some time to do something to stop global warming. But if this contamination is also contributing significantly–we know that very small amounts are toxic to coral reefs–maybe we need to start doing things that we can do right now.”

The Tesla CEO along with 115 other experts in robotics and AI have signed a letter warning of “a third revolution in warfare,” reports the BBC. The experts want the UN to add artificially intelligent and autonomous mechanized weapons to the list of weapons banned under the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), which currently includes devices ranging from landmines to laser weapons. The short letter is extremely urgent in its tone, ending with:

Lethal autonomous weapons threaten to become the third revolution in warfare. Once developed, they will permit armed conflict to be fought at a scale greater than ever, and at timescales faster than humans can comprehend. These can be weapons of terror, weapons that despots and terrorists use against innocent populations, and weapons hacked to behave in undesirable ways. We do not have long to act. Once this Pandora’s box is opened, it will be hard to close. We therefore implore the High Contracting Parties to find a way to protect us all from these dangers.

The real world motor racing championship is set to embrace the virtual world this September to November, reports Reuters. Its new eSports Series will allow gamers to compete in races on the PlayStation 4, Xbox One, and Windows PC to determine who the 40 fastest virtual racers are. The semifinals will be held in London in late October, with 20 winners going on to compete in the finals at Abu Dhabi’s Yas Marina circuit in late November. Formula One managing director Sean Bratches said the new eSports series was “an amazing opportunity for our business–strategically and in the way we engage fans.”

Inside a new building in an industrial neighborhood near the airport in Austin, a robot is feeding millions of crickets, 24 hours a day. The facility–a 25,000-square-foot R&D center that opened this month for the startup Aspire–uses technology that the company plans to soon duplicate in a farm 10 times as large. It’s a scale that the startup thinks is necessary to begin to make cricket food mainstream in the United States.

Eating bugs–or at least products made from bugs–has been growing in popularity. For a few years, it’s been possible to buy cricket snacks such as protein bars made with cricket flour or cricket chips (like Chirps) at some grocery stores or online. But for insect food to fulfill its sustainable promise of supplying protein without the massive carbon and land footprint of beef, it will have to be much more widely available, and more affordable. Aspire believes its farms can make that possible.

Aspire’s team spent time studying how crickets respond biologically to intensive production, and then began focusing on cost-effectiveness. The company’s original facility required staff to walk around a vertical farm multiple times a day, feeding bins full of crickets on multiple racks. The new system uses a robotic module that travels around the farm, depositing the ideal amount of food; sensors use machine learning and AI to monitor how the insects eat and when they need more.

The crickets mate and lay eggs in a dedicated breeding space, and then the hatched eggs are moved to a bin where they grow until harvest. Each bin is monitored with the company’s own sensor technology, and each aspect of the cricket’s life, from hatching to harvest, is automated as much as possible. The company has seen a tenfold increase in production with the system. Because manual labor at the farm previously accounted for 75% of the cost of goods, the system can make cricket-based food cheaper to buy.

Aspire sells cricket flour to other manufacturers in the burgeoning insect food space, and also sells its own line of products, called Aketta, to consumers. Both consumer and retail demand have grown more quickly than the company initially expected. In March 2017, it started selling bags of whole, dry-roasted crickets, partly to test demand.

When the company offered the whole crickets at events, alongside a cricket granola and other products where the insect ingredient wasn’t visible, consumers were most interested in eating the bugs. High-end restaurants have started partnering with the company to offer cricket dishes on the menu. The Seattle Mariners served toasted crickets at its concession stand at a recent game.

Other companies are also using technology to farm insects. Tiny Farms, a Bay Area-based startup, also uses data analysis and automation to rear crickets, and opened a pilot farm in San Leandro, California, in 2016. But while Tiny Farms creates modules that can be used on a small scale–arguing that it makes sense to raise insects in a distributed way–Aspire believes that larger farms are needed.

By mid-2018, Aspire plans to build out a 50,000-square-foot facility, incrementally adding more space until it reaches 250,000 square feet by the end of 2019. The current 25,000-square-foot farm can raise more than 22 million crickets in a month; that total output is spoken for over the next two years with current customers, and the company has additional demand that it can’t yet keep up with. Large food manufacturers are interested, and Aspire plans to launch a product with one manufacturer soon. Ashour says that all of the major companies have run R&D on insect protein and are considering investing (or have already invested) in insect protein startups. PepsiCo, for example, recently posted a request on an innovation website asking for unique insect protein. “Bug-related stuff is big,” PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi said at a conference in 2016.

Ashour, like others in the insect food industry, argues that insects like crickets may follow a similar path to foods like lobster–which was originally seen as a food for the poor–or sushi, which was initially received in the U.S. with some reluctance. Starting with cricket-based snack foods, he believes, can eventually lead consumers to become comfortable with crickets on the center of their plates.

In Ghana, labor is cheap enough that the company doesn’t plan to implement its full technology platform; the crickets are already competitive with other protein sources at current prices. As the company expands throughout the developing world, however, it plans to use sensor technology to monitor the insects, and a base system to make the farms easier to implement. “The advantage of modularizing the technology is that you can more or less plug and play a farm anywhere in the world and not have any concerns about quality control,” Ashour says. The company plans to expand in Africa, Asia, and Latin America over the next five years.

The company was forced to raise prices in the region after Hong Kong authorities evaluated Uber’s business practices, Reuters reports. Beginning today, fees for UberX and UberASSIST rides will start at $45 HKD ($5.75 USD)–a rise up to 80%. Uber says the price rise will mainly benefit the drivers themselves and in a statement said that the company is committed to their investment in Hong Kong.

That’s how much American businesses are estimated to lose in productivity terms, reports CNBC. The sum was calculated by outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas by estimating that 87 million workers will take about 20 minutes out of their workday today to prepare for and view the two-and-a-half-minute eclipse. However, the lost productivity due to the once-in-a-lifetime cosmic event is nothing compared to sporting events. The firm estimates that every hour of basketball during March Madness costs American companies $615 million.

Just wrapped up a job interview that couldn’t have gone worse? Don’t freak out yet. Plenty of candidates thought an interview went terribly and lo and behold, found out they scored the job in the days or weeks afterward. It might sound like a rare occurrence, but it happens more often than you’d think. To come out on the other end with a job in hand, it’s all about rebounding as quickly and efficiently as possible, and in many cases, having a little luck and a compassionate interviewer on your side. Here are three stories of bombed interviews that had happily employed endings.

The Completely Unprepared Bomb

When Lyn Alden, an engineer and investment strategy writer, applied for a junior aviation research job and hadn’t heard anything from the company two months later, she assumed she didn’t get the job. Then, out of the blue, she got word they wanted to set up a phone interview. “At that point, I had focused on so many other opportunities that I no longer had much interest in this one,” she says. “But, to be polite and keep my options open, I scheduled the phone interview.” But the call wasn’t exactly smooth sailing. “My heart wasn’t in it, and my performance was lousy. I was lying on my bed chatting on the phone with no notes or anything in front of me, like I was talking to a friend instead of an interviewer. I had very little knowledge of the organization I was interviewing for, and was way too casual.”

Related: 3 Pieces Of Job Interview Advice You Should Ignore 

Then, the interviewer told her that the job involved computer programming. She was honest and said she had only taken one programming class in college and didn’t know much about it. In fact, she said she would need a mentor who would be willing to get hands-on in order to do the job duties that were on the table. “The interviewer asked me if I had other questions, so I just asked him about a few things he was working on out of curiosity, just chitchatting,” Alden remembers. “I didn’t try to market myself, and didn’t make sure to put myself in the best possible light. Instead, I was casual and brutally honest. When I was finished, it seemed pretty clear to me I wouldn’t be picked. The interviewer was polite but didn’t sound interested at all. I felt like I wasted his time.”

Alden was shocked when within a week, she received a job offer. Looking back, she thinks that due to her lack of preparation, she actually ended up being more confident than usual, quite honest about what she could and couldn’t do, and upfront about what kind of support she would need in order to get the job done. Clearly, her interviewer liked her pragmatic approach.

Once she started the job, Alden worked hard to impress her interviewer, who ended up becoming her boss. “I wanted to show that I was a lot more diligent and hardworking than I came off as in the interview. Before starting the job, I researched the organization thoroughly. Once I was there, I spent some of my evenings learning to code at a higher level so that I could perform better during the workday.” It’s safe to say her efforts paid off; Alden has been working at the same company for the past eight years in increasingly senior positions.

The Vomit Bomb

Yes. This really happened, and she still got the job. “I was interviewing for residency positions as a doctor just out of medical school,” says Wei-Shin Lai, MD, CEO of sleep technology company AcousticSheep. “I had a bad head cold and was coughing a lot. For lunch, the interviewers took the potential residents out to a really nice restaurant, and I ate lot of shrimp in vodka sauce. When we went back for our afternoon interviews, I got into a coughing fit and literally threw up on my nicest suit, sitting across from the interviewer. I was embarrassed but just used a tissue, cleaned up, and carried on with the interview.”

Related:These Are The Worst Answers To The Most Common Interview Questions 

Sounds pretty disastrous, right? Well, Lai was accepted as a resident at that hospital, and she’s pretty sure she knows why. “I think they let me in because one, they were medical professionals, so vomit is not a big deal, and two, they saw that I was mortified but maintained enough composure to push through the rest of the day.” In other words, they saw firsthand that she was able to perform even when she was clearly not feeling her best.

The Everything-Went-Wrong Bomb

There’s nothing worse than circumstances you can’t control ruining your dream interview, and that’s exactly what happened when Jena Viviano, who is now a career coach, interviewed for a business analyst position at the New York Stock Exchange. “The interview was at 8 a.m., and the night prior I had been working in my investment banking job until 2 a.m. on a project. That wasn’t the first night that week I had been at work past midnight, either. I went into the NYSE absolutely exhausted with my Blackberry blowing up from all the people emailing me at my current job.” Needless to say, she went into the room unprepared and off her game. “When one of the managing directors asked me a question, I started tearing up because I couldn’t think straight. Then when she asked me a technical question that I usually would’ve been able to answer, I just turned to her and said, ‘I just really have no idea.’ Not my proudest moment.”

Related:Five Common Habits That Can Kill Your Career

“Between the crying, the exhaustion, the inability to answer simple questions, and my heel breaking right before I stepped foot into the building, it’s amazing to me that I got the job,” she says. Still, the interviewers saw something in Viviano that convinced them she was a good fit. “Though they didn’t specifically tell me, I think it was a combination of my authenticity, coachability, potential, and strong-enough background that they wanted to bring me in one more time to see if I would be a good fit. Plus, many of the people I interviewed with understood what I was going through, because they too had been investment bankers. I always joked with my boss that he ‘rescued’ me from investment banking and that I was eternally grateful.”

The Takeaway

When it comes down to it, all you can do after something goes horribly awry in an interview is try to regroup and give the interviewer an honest picture of who you really are, plus what makes you qualified for the job. If you’re lucky, they may just look past whatever snafu happened during the interview–big or small–and give you the job anyway. Of course, this is mainly likely to happen despite a less-than-ideal interview, if you have relevant experience and the desired qualifications for the job. And if this particular job doesn’t work out? Don’t sweat it. Whatever went wrong in your bombed interview, you can chalk it up to a hard-learned lesson you’ll never forget.

This article originally appeared on Glassdoor and is reprinted with permission. 

Taylor Swift can’t be kept down for long.

Fresh off of a countersuit win against former radio host David Mueller, who the jury found guilty of assaulting Swift back in 2013, Swift deleted all of the posts from her social media accounts and let her profile pictures default to gray–that was last week. Today, Swift put up a single 10-second video on Instagram and Twitter. And it features what appears to be a snake, slapping its tail forcefully on the ground amidst retro, VHS-tape quality editing.

A post shared by Taylor Swift (@taylorswift) on Aug 21, 2017 at 8:00am PDT

Now, Swift has a complex history with the snake as a symbol. If you recall, Kanye West wrote a song for his 2016 album Life of Pablo called “Famous.” It featured the now iconic line, “I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex. I made that bitch famous.”

Swift’s representatives released this statement in response: “Kanye did not call for approval, but to ask Taylor to release his single ‘Famous’ on her Twitter account. She declined and cautioned him about releasing a song with such a strong misogynistic message. Taylor was never made aware of the actual lyric, ‘I made that bitch famous.'”

Last summer, Kim Kardashian West released evidence via Snapchat that told a different story. The phone recording of Kanye and Swift’s conversation contained Kanye asking for Swift’s approval, and Swift being in on the joke. Later, Swift would write another iconic line in her defense: “I would very much like to be excluded from this narrative.”

But Swift haters immediately stormed her social media with snake emojis, implying that she was a sneaky snake with a hidden agenda. Instagram itself stepped in, censoring the emojis from her feed. With today’s video drop, she appears to be reclaiming the emoji for her own devices.

It’s pretty auspicious timing. In case you’ve been living under a rock, we’re having an eclipse this afternoon. BuzzFeed has a very thorough investigation into what this means in relation to Swift. But it doesn’t take an investigation to see that Swift could very well be taking advantage of a rare event to drop a new single for her sixth album.

ALSO, today happens to be the day that other feud-ee Katy Perry dropped a preview for the music video for “Swish Swish,” a song that is almost definitely about Swift. The video will feature two celebrity-heavy basketball teams playing against each other. That sounds a lot like Swift’s 1989 video for “Bad Blood,” but with, you know, basketball.

????????????‍♀❗COUNTDOWN TO CATASTROPHE ❗????????‍♀????#swishswish #thisweek ????@nickiminaj ????

A post shared by KATY PERRY (@katyperry) on Aug 21, 2017 at 12:11am PDT

Swift has already proved she likes to steal Perry’s thunder, like when she released her entire catalog to Spotify on the same day Perry’s album came out.

In conclusion, by this afternoon we very well could have a new Taylor Swift song to stream. As you’re protecting your eyes by not looking directly at the sun around 2:45 p.m. EST, keep refreshing Spotify/Apple Music/Tidal.

Note by note, machines are learning to express themselves. But if you think the fusion of artificial intelligence and music is bound to produce soulless, robotic-sounding tunes, Taryn Southern urges you to give our weird future another listen. The singer and internet personality is prepping what she calls the world’s first AI-composed album, I AM AI. Of course, others have dabbled in AI-generated music, and the finished product is not entirely computer-composed (the lyrics and vocal melodies were written by Southern), but the human intervention is minimal. The output isn’t exactly Grammy material, but it’s not far off from something you might hear on a pop playlist on Spotify.

Using AI music creation software by Amper, Southern plugged in various parameters like mood, style, and tempo to auto-compose the underlying chords and instrumentation. The album will even be distributed online through Stem, a platform that allows royalties to be divvied up between various creators. So not only will machines write music in the future, they might even get paid.

Related: How Google’s Music-Making AI Learns From Human Minds At Music Festivals