Linked: Expansion of Antarctic surface melt through the 21st century. Yaowen Zheng, Nicholas R. Golledge, Alexandra Gossart & Shoujuan Shu. Nature Communications (2026)

Aside: Although the journal article summery uses plane language, the climate (denial?) sub linked this oil & gas article that uses excessively opaque language. Although not great, it might provide a backup if Nature hides the article, although afaik Nature is unlikely to hide the abstract.

Could the beloved 401(k) match be next on the benefits chopping block?

That looks to be the case for at least one technology services and outsourcing firm. TTEC recently paused 401(k) matches for its US-based employees, Business Insider reported on May 8. The company, which is headquartered in Austin, has about 16,000 staff in the US.

TTEC’s chief people officer, Laura Butler, said in an April 30 memo that the pause would last nine months, and that the company hopes to resume its 3% match “if our business performance supports it.”

Employers often make changes to their retirement plan contributions during periods of economic strain or uncertainty, sources told HR Brew. And while many ultimately resume their match, they don’t always do so at the same level.

What prompts employers to hit pause on 401(k) matches? More than three-quarters (76%) of employers offered a Roth 401(k) or other similar defined contribution plan as of 2025, according to SHRM. Of those offering a defined contribution plan, 74% also offered a match.

Despite their popularity, 401(k) matches often take a hit when the economy goes south. TTEC is far from the first employer to hit pause on their retirement match. The paint manufacturer Sherwin-Williams did so last year, as did Drexel University, though both resumed them within the year.

Pauses to 401(k) matching ticked up during the 2001 and 2008 recessions, as well as the first months of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Read more [paywall removed for Redditors]: https://fortune.com/2026/05/18/401k-match-paused-ttec-employers-retirement-benefits/?utm_source=reddit/

I pay attention to this stuff more than most people I know Not a finance professional just someone who got deep into monetary policy after 2008 and couldn't really look away after that

Warsh gets confirmed May 6th Everyone covers the usual angles his Goldman background his history at the Fed during the crisis what it means for rates.

And then buried in the same day's announcements is language about programmable digital currency that I had to read twice just to make sure I wasn't misreading it.

The BIS has published peer reviewed papers laying out exactly what programmable money enables by design. Expiry conditions. Category restrictions. Negative nominal rates that reduce your savings without your balance visibly changing. These aren't proposals. They're published specifications.

The part that actually got me wasn't the technology. It was the timing. You don't hand someone that toolkit the same week you confirm them unless the plan is already written.

Most people think digital dollar means faster Venmo. The structural difference between money you legally own and money you're granted access to is not a subtle distinction. It changes what savings means. It changes what financial freedom means.

Bretton Woods didn't ask the world either. Just made it the new reality.

Curious if anyone here has been tracking the Warsh confirmation through this lens or if this is still mostly flying under the radar.

two teenagers walked into the islamic center of san diego sunday morning and opened fire. killed a security guard and two staff members at the islamic school. all of the kids are safe because the guard held the door. he was a father of eight.

one of the suspects has been identified as cain clark, 17. virtual student at madison high. was on track to graduate this month. his mother called police hours before the attack and told them her son was missing along with her car and three of her weapons. said he was suicidal and with another person, both dressed in camo.

police found both suspects dead in a car a few blocks away. hate speech carved on the weapons. suicide note with writings about racial pride. anti-islamic writing in the BMW. FBI investigating as hate crime. they also hit a second location where a landscaper was shot but survived because the bullet hit his helmet.

NYPD deployed extra officers to mosques across new york city. LAPD did the same in LA. the islamic center said it will stay closed until further notice. this happened on the first day of dhul hijjah, one of the holiest periods in islam. the mosque is the biggest in san diego county and houses a weekend school for arabic and islamic studies.

the guards friend said he deeply cared about his community and gave his life for the people inside. police called his actions heroic and said the attack could have been much worse.

Quick preamble: I want to highlight some arguments against overpopulation which I believe are demonstrably wrong. Many of these are common arguments which pop up in virtually every discussion about overpopulation. They are misunderstandings of the subject, or contain errors in reasoning, or both. It feels frustrating to encounter them over and over again.

Part one is here

Part two is here

Part three is here

Part four is here

The argument

The phrase “resource distribution problem”, and variations thereof, are one of the most common objections to overpopulation. Here are some examples from a quick search of the internet:

“Overpopulation arguments ignore the real problem: distribution and consumption of resources. We act like the earth can't support billions - maybe it can't support billionaires.”

“…there’s already more than enough resources. There’s not an overpopulation problem, there’s a resource distribution problem.”

“We have a resource distribution problem, not a population problem.”

“Overpopulation” is a lie—we have a resource distribution problem, not a population problem.”

It’s certainly true that we do have a resource distribution problem. I will not dispute that in this post. However, I will dispute the use of this as a dismissal of overpopulation.  

These statements address economic inequality, not environmental sustainability, carrying capacity or ecological overshoot – which are central to overpopulation.

Consider three requirements for the sustainable use of any given resource:

1.       There must be enough to satisfy human needs/demands in the short to medium term. In the case of a fish stock, this would be ensuring a person can go fishing and catch what they need to feed themselves.

2.       There must be enough to satisfy human needs/demands over the long term. For example, can that person go on fishing at the same rate and catching what they need for food in 10 years’ time? 50 years? 100 years? 500 years? Importantly, this should not deplete the resource over time. For example, if a fisherman has to expend extra effort just to catch the same amount, that indicates the resource is being depleted.

3.       There must be enough to satisfy the needs of the ecosystem. For example, are there enough fish leftover for them the fish to fulfil their niche/role in the ecosystem, as prey or predators to other organisms?

In my experience, most people’s understanding of overpopulation is centered around point one above, with little or no consideration given to points two and three. When focusing on point one the resource distribution argument makes perfect sense. But no so points two and three.

Take food waste as an example. The argument goes that humans produce enough food to feed everyone, yet we waste huge amounts. Therefore, if we redistributed this food to where it’s needed, instead of wasting it, then everyone would have enough to eat.

Thought experiment: Let’s pretend someone creates an amazing machine which reduces food waste to zero via redistribution. Now every time a tomato in your fruit bowl is about to go bad, this machine promptly detects it beams it away to be eaten by someone in need. Now everyone has enough to eat and we have addressed point one above.

However, if we assume the tomato was produced using unsustainable practices (a reasonable assumption I think), then points two and three are not addressed. A tomato rotting in the fruit bowl and a tomato beamed away to a person in need both have the same ecological costs. The fossil fuels, land, pesticides, plastic and other inputs still remain.

How a resource is distributed amongst humans does not address inherent problems of unsustainability. From a sustainability perspective, a hectare of rainforest destroyed for a billionaire’s golf course is the same as a hectare of rainforest destroyed for subsistence agriculture. 1000 liters of water extracted from a lake for a billionaire’s swimming pool is the same as 1000 liters of water extracted for everyday cooking and cleaning.

Therefore, redistributing resources alone cannot solve the problems associated with ecological overshoot, if that redistribution is simply taking the same unsustainable consumption and distributing the resulting outputs differently between humans.

In fairness, I will highlight some reasonable aspects of the “resource distribution problem” argument.

1.       Some forms of resource distribution do improve sustainability. For example, replacing a field of cows with a field of lentils can allow a smaller field to produce the same amount of food. In theory allowing some of the field to “rewild”.

2.       Changing overconsuming individuals/groups into more “normal” consumers helps. For example, changing the billionaire with a swimming pool to a normal consumer of water would mean less water is taken from the lake.

3.       Our unequal resource distribution is blatantly unfair and addressing this would absolutely be a good thing, even if it doesn’t address sustainability. This post is not seeking to defend or dismiss resource distribution problems, but to highlight that such problems should not be used to dismiss overpopulation.

There seems to be a common belief that removing excessive consumption from the wealthiest and worst over consumers (e.g billionaires) would mean there are plenty of resources for both humans and the environment. I think this view underestimates how far into overshoot humans have become, and how unsustainable practices underpin most of our everyday lives, from food, housing, transport, heating and so on.

the WHO declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on may 17 for the ebola outbreak in eastern DRC and uganda. this is the bundibugyo strain. different from zaire which existing vaccines target. there are currently no approved therapeutics or vaccines for this strain.

as of may 16 there were eight lab confirmed cases, 246 suspected, and 80 suspected deaths in ituri province eastern DRC. total now past 88 deaths and 300 suspected.

two confirmed cases appeared in kampala uganda within 24 hours on may 15 and 16. both travelers from DRC with no link to each other. that cross border spread triggered the emergency declaration.

an american national tested positive in the DRC on monday. the US invoked a public health law to limit entry from the affected region. CDC is coordinating to get affected americans out.

the only experimental vaccine candidate has been tested on monkeys with about 50 percent efficacy. no human trials.

context that matters: USAID was shuttered earlier this year and the US withdrew from WHO in january. the global health response system is running on less infrastructure than any ebola outbreak in the last decade.

sources: WHO may 17 PHEIC declaration, NPR, CNN, Time, STAT News

SS: As most of us know by now, the pollution we continue to emit every day contains materials that actually benefit us, such as reflective aerosols that reduce the amount of radiative forcing the Earth experiences.

Reducing the emissions of these beneficial pollutants will make the already dire global warming situation even worse, and this is yet another way through which we are shown that regardless of which direction we go, regarding emissions, no path remains that lets us get away with the last few centuries' damage and destruction without consequences.

The projected reduction in AMOC strength is significant and although the study says methane emission cuts could offset it, the natural methane emissions we will experience could potentially render this point moot.

This is complicated so let me defend my reasoning for this being collapse related.

The Kingdom of Bhutan is the only country on Earth that has environmental protections firmly written into the constitution.

As rural life provides less and less opportunity - or rather - the city life offers more - the rural parts of Bhutan have been losing numbers for at least a decade. The nation itself is witnessing huge emigration.

One might think that's great because on its face it is less humans damaging nature. The reality is there will be nobody left to defend these areas from extractive capitalism. There will be nobody left because they've all moved to the cities, cities that will demand resources from the very places people left for the city. You don't need to be a genius to see how this story ends.

In purely technical terms this is driven by automation of farming, and you could argue falling birthrates are also driven by this automation. More food for less should be a wonderful thing but if it seems too good to be true - it often is.

Unfortunately it is here too. Automated farms are not for the benefit of our species or even any particular nation. They could be, but they're not. Talk to any MAGA farmer long enough about Right to Repair on their own equipment - you might be surprised by how quickly they start echoing sensible socialist policy.

Bhutan is, soon to be was, a bastion of environmentalism on a political level. The goal isn't being abandoned, just the ability to uphold the promise, all while the vultures circle above a dying nation.

All comments in this thread MUST be greater than 150 characters.

You MUST include Location: Region when sharing observations.

Example - Location: New Zealand

This ONLY applies to top-level comments, not replies to comments. You're welcome to make regionless or general observations, but you still must include 'Location: Region' for your comment to be approved. This thread is also [in-depth], meaning all top-level comments must be at least 150-characters.

Users are asked to refrain from making more than one top-level comment a week. Additional top-level comments are subject to removal.

All previous observations threads and other stickies are viewable here.