Today’s Big Story

Nuclear Dangers

The threat of a serious nuclear conflict is ‘greater than during Cold War’ experts warn

Sometimes I worry about the future: Do I have enough savings, should I be eating less fried foods or how scared of climate change should I be, really? But, of course, we could all just get wiped out in a worldwide nuclear war … so maybe we should just bring back that YOLO mindset of our youth and live in the moment.

You see, these are tense times in the world of nuclear deterrence. The Biden administration recently warned that Russia is considering putting a nuclear weapon into orbit, purportedly for the purpose of targeting American satellites. Two weeks later, the Department of Justice announced charges against an alleged yakuza member from Japan accused of trying to sell nuclear material originating from Iran. Against this already dramatic backdrop, China is continuing to amass nuclear material and Kim Jong Un is making noises about destroying his neighbor.

Then there was the recent clip of Russian President Vladimir Putin, with a fresh threat against NATO countries if they were to allow Ukraine to join the alliance, that things would immediately get ugly. “Do you understand that if Ukraine joins NATO and attempts to bring Crimea back by military means, the European countries will be automatically pulled into a war conflict with Russia?” he retorically asks. “We also understand that Russia is one of the leading nuclear states, and by some modern components it even outperforms many—there will be no winners.”

The risk of nuclear war is now greater than it was at the height of the Cold War, one former chief of Britian’s Royal Navy has warned. And the Intelligencer spoke with a Harvard professor and former White House adviser (who negotiated with the Kremlin on nuclear security as part of the Clinton administration) to better understand what’s really going on. And, honestly, it wasn’t all that reassuring. “This is by far the most intense set of nuclear dangers that have existed in my adult life, and I’m in my 60s,” he said. “It’s not just U.S.-Russia, but U.S.-China, U.S.-North Korea, India-Pakistan, Iran, et cetera … it’s bad, and our efforts to try to moderate the danger are just not working very well.”

Does the Supreme Court ‘Get’ Tech?

The justices appeared lost in a massive case about the future of free speech online

The Supreme Court appears inclined to reinstate Texas and Florida laws seizing control of much of the internet—both of which are currently blocked by court orders—because those laws are incompetently drafted. If that outcome sounds confusing, don’t worry, it is.

The justices heard arguments on the states' content moderation laws while grappling with the question of how tech can be regulated at all. During nearly four hours of oral arguments, they appeared divided along non-ideological lines as they wrestled with whether social media companies like Meta and X have created a “public square” that sets them apart from other private entities. Are social media platforms more akin to newspapers that have the freedom to exercise editorial judgement? Or like shopping malls that serve as gathering places for the public and can be made to host demonstrations? The outcome could impact not just big tech companies but nonprofit efforts like Wikipedia and more traditional publishing companies.

Those watching Monday's arguments before SCOTUS would find it hard to argue that the attorneys representing Texas and Florida offered bulletproof defenses of their 2021 laws. Despite skepticism of the constitutionality and scope of the laws, the justices weren't ready to cede the government’s ability to regulate tech altogether, either. According to Vox, if the Court does send the case back down to the lower court, “that’s great news for lawyers charging NetChoice an hourly rate … it’s pretty terrible news for everyone else, however.”

Biden Hopes to See Cease-Fire by Next Week

The White House has been negotiating amid growing pressure from progressives and Palestinian allies

President Biden said Monday that Israel has agreed to halt its Gaza offensive during the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan if a deal is reached to free the remaining hostages being held by Hamas. “My hope is by next Monday we will have a cease-fire,” he told reporters while in New York City. “My national security adviser tells me that we’re close, close but not done yet,” he said.

This could be important, as the administration has made serious efforts to try and get a hostage deal that could lead to a six-week pause in the fighting in Gaza before the start of Ramadan in two weeks. But getting a deal by Monday will likely be an uphill battle due to major gaps between Israel and Hamas in the negotiations. There was no immediate response from Israeli officials on Biden's comments about Ramadan, which is due to begin around March 10.

Israel’s military is planning a ground offensive in Rafah, where about 1.5 million people are taking refuge. According to NBC News, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced Monday that the military has proposed a plan for evacuating civilians. Israeli officials say they are closing in on Yehiya Sinwar, the accused architect of the Oct. 7 attacks. Whether his death would help end the war is up for debate. Earlier Monday, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said that if there were a temporary cease-fire, Israel would "then continue fighting until the very last hostages return."

Airplane Mode Is a Waste

It hasn't been necessary for years, but the myth persists

It’s the final moments before takeoff, when the plane is revving the engines at the end of the runway, when you notice someone feverishly replying to text messages on their cell phone. (That’s usually me, by the way.) Do you get a spike of fear that they’re not switched over to airplane mode? Are my fellow rulebreakers and I going to mess with the plane signals? The answer, thankfully, is no.

We’ve been led to believe that airplane mode is vital to protect the plane’s navigation or something, but Gizmodo reports that the necessity of airplane mode is “largely a myth, but there’s another reason airlines are asking you to turn your phone off.” Europe decided to allow phone calls and data usage on flights in 2022. They’re requiring all planes to install “pico-cells,” which is essentially a traffic controller that ensures phone signals don’t cross with a plane’s communication systems. Pico-cells are not new, however; they’ve been around for over two decades.

Even without a pico-cell, there’s limited evidence that a phone has ever interfered with a plane’s electrical systems. The Federal Aviation Administration conducted a study in 2012 that found nearly zero conclusive instances of aircraft disturbances from cell phone usage. Most of the evidence on this seems to be anecdotal or severely outdated. The real reason is this: Airlines think people won’t stop yapping on their cell phones during flights, leading to more instances of “air rage”. That’s why regulators continue to ban phone calls and data usage on planes: it’s just plain annoying. And honestly, I can get behind that. Especially if it doesn’t affect my texting.

The Long Read

The wealthy have different houses, different cars … now they want to breathe different air

Make your luck.