As much as we say it's not about the clothes, it's still about the clothes.
- A new study from Princeton University shows that perception of competence is linked to dress.
- Researchers discovered the same results over nine separate studies: men that dress better are viewed as more competent.
- Even when told clothing is not a measure of competence, judges ruled in favor of the better-dressed men.
Clothing Matters | Jan Erickson | TEDxColoradoSprings<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="1e42d601cc003e37f514cf7cbabc22d3"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2Z3lrYV-eI4?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>Before beginning, the researchers asked a separate panel of judges to ensure that the clothing they chose was not overtly wealthy or representative of extreme poverty. Those partaking in the study were told to judge the competence of the faces they saw on a scale from one to nine based on "gut feeling." </p><p>In a few of the nine studies clothing was explicitly mentioned, though the judges were told to <em>not</em> consider what the people were wearing. In one, they claimed that there was no relationship between clothing and competence.</p><p>It didn't matter. In every single study, those rocking finer threads were deemed more competent, even when the same man was shown in different tops. If he was wearing nice clothes, he was deemed more competent than when wearing a t-shirt. </p><p>These perceptions influence who we vote for and where we spend our money. Oh <a href="http://wws.princeton.edu/news-and-events/news/item/split-second-clothes-make-man-more-competent-eyes-others" target="_blank">believes</a> this is especially important in the age of widespread income inequality. </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Wealth inequality has worsened since the late 1980s in the United States. Now the gap between the top 1 percent and the middle class is over 1,000,000 percent, a mind-numbing figure. Other labs' work has shown people are sensitive to how rich or poor other individuals appear. Our work found that people are susceptible to these cues when judging others on meaningful traits, like competence, and that these cues are hard, if not impossible, to ignore." </p><p>The researchers hope that by making people aware of their <a href="https://bigthink.com/21st-century-spirituality/implicit-bias-is-not-racism" target="_self">implicit bias</a> toward clothing, such awareness can later translate into better decision-making about the judgment of an individual's character. As we learn over and over again, fine clothing does not necessary represent an ethical or honest person. It just means they can afford to purchase it.</p>
Rapper Post Malone visits SiriusXM Studio on November 30, 2016 in New York City.
Photo credit: Matthew Eisman/Getty Images<p>Yet this lesson will be a hard lesson to instill. Clothing has long been representative of social status. Shoes were once a social marker separating those who could afford them compared to those that had to wear sandals or go barefoot. At root, humans are extremely shallow: we'd rather show off what we can afford than help others achieve the same status. </p><p>Shafir goes so far to claim that uniformity might be the way to go. </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"A potential, even if highly insufficient, interim solution may be to avoid exposure whenever possible. Just like teachers sometimes grade blindly so as to avoid favoring some students, interviewers and employers may want to take what measures they can, when they can, to evaluate people, say, on paper so as to circumvent indefensible yet hard to avoid competency judgments. Academic departments, for example, have long known that hiring without interviews can yield better scholars. It's also an excellent argument for school uniforms."</p><p>That will be a hard sell an individualistic culture such as America, where outward appearance too often trumps inner character. As long as that's the case, we have to recognize ourselves for what we are: judgmental creatures focused on exterior presentation. Inner work takes practice, but the benefits — namely, not being conned or focused on fleeting materialism — is worth it.</p><p>--</p><p><em>Stay in touch with Derek on <a href="http://www.twitter.com/derekberes" target="_blank">Twitter</a> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/DerekBeresdotcom" target="_blank">Facebook</a>. His next book is </em>Hero's Dose: The Case For Psychedelics in Ritual and Therapy.</p>
Fast fashion has a devastating impact on the environment. Here's what you need to know before heading to Zara this holiday season.
- The fashion industry is responsible for an alarming 10 percent of all of humanity's carbon emissions.
- Eighty-five percent of all textiles are trashed each year, ending up in a landfill or incinerated.
- By wearing one item of clothing for 9 months longer a person can actually reduce his or her carbon footprint by 30 percent.
The Fast Fashion Model<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjE0NjYyOC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MzYwMDkxM30.6nu97T9Yu1ZMPBHTrokBbDeL6lfF-ob86r1mIfkPZvU/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=148%2C143%2C104%2C190&height=700" id="3de8d" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="14b9c627e82e1ed074454e58f1784886" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Image source: live.staticflickr.com<p>Back in the 1980s, the average American only purchased about 12 new articles of clothing every year. But in 1993 the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) <a href="https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/sustainablefashion/" target="_blank">made it much easier</a> to import clothing by abolishing a quota system that had limited the number of items that could enter the U.S. and giving rise to fast fashion. The aim of this model is to make trendy clothes off the runway quick, cheap, and disposable. Think retailers such as H&M and Zara. They make their money by squeezing the time between trends, frequently filling their stores with new collections of cheap clothing that breaks down quickly enough for shoppers to come in for the next collection. In 2016, <em><a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/buying-less-by-buying-better/462639/" target="_blank">The Atlantic</a></em> reported that the average American buys 64 new articles of clothing per year. </p><p>Of course, fast fashion has democratized fashion by making clothing more affordable and giving rise to greater variety. But this comes at a grave environmental cost.</p>
Making Fashion is an Environmental Disaster<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjE0NjYzMi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyNzI0MjQ4NX0.zZPIYOPyeb8FOipn8d4Rui2KJKepSldfB1nxyd9vJz4/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C79%2C0%2C145&height=700" id="d5565" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="5b2655affc70f1f04d646f89403bf046" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Photo Credit: REUTERS / Mohamed Azakir<p>In 2015, textile production contributed to <a href="https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/story/putting-brakes-fast-fashion" target="_blank">more CO2 emissions</a> than all international flights and maritime shipping combined. For instance, <a href="http://www.levistrauss.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Full-LCA-Results-Deck-FINAL.pdf" target="_blank">making one pair</a> of jeans produces as much greenhouse gases as driving a car more than 80 miles.</p><p>This has to do with the materials used in the production process.Take the water-intensive crop cotton for example. It takes 2,700 liters of water to make a single cotton shirt, enough for the average person to live on for two-and-a-half years. Worse yet are synthetic fabrics like polyester, spandex, and nylon, which use nearly 342 million barrels of oil. <a href="https://www.wri.org/blog/2017/07/apparel-industrys-environmental-impact-6-graphics" target="_blank">According to World Resources Institute</a>, producing polyester — a kind of plastic found in around 60 percent of garments — emits two to three times more carbon than cotton. Furthermore, washing these clothing items sends as many as 500,000 tons of microplastics into the ocean each year. That's estimated to be about the equivalent of 50 billion plastic bottles. Overall, microplastics are estimated to compose up to 31 percent of plastic pollution in the ocean. </p><p>Another popular fabric used is viscose, a silky material that comes from fiber derived from wood pulp using extremely <a href="https://www.commonobjective.co/article/viscose-and-its-impact" target="_blank">unsustainable and chemically intensive production methods</a>. As much as <a href="https://canopyplanet.org/campaigns/canopystyle/" target="_blank">70 percent</a> of the wood harvested is wasted while the other 30 percent ends up in the garments that we wear.</p>Furthermore, making and dyeing textiles involves the use of toxic chemicals which often are discarded by being dumped into lakes, streams, rivers, and ditches <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jean-factory-toxic-waste-plagues-lesotho/" target="_blank">poisoning local communities</a>. Garment manufacturing is <a href="https://www.wri.org/blog/2017/07/apparel-industrys-environmental-impact-6-graphics" target="_blank">responsible for 20 percent</a> of all industrial water pollution around the globe and ranks in as the world's second-largest polluter of water.
Where Fashion Goes<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="74b9333142c40a0567b4445d766365e6"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/elU32XNj8PM?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>Finally, there's what happens to the clothes when we are done with them. <a href="https://qz.com/359040/the-internet-and-cheap-clothes-have-made-us-sport-shoppers/" target="_blank">Although we are buying</a> more clothes than ever before, we are keeping them for <a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/style-thats-sustainable-a-new-fast-fashion-formula" target="_blank">half as long</a>. Shockingly, <a href="https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications/a-new-textiles-economy-redesigning-fashions-future" target="_blank">85 percent</a> of all textiles are trashed each year, ultimately ending up in a landfill or incinerated. The average American throws away 80 pounds of clothes per year. That's about o<a href="https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/publications/A-New-Textiles-Economy_Full-Report_Updated_1-12-17.pdf" target="_blank">ne garbage truck of clothes</a> being burned or sent to landfills <em>every second</em>!</p> Even if you donate your clothes, they still often get dumped. What charities can't sell or give away are sold by the ton to buyers in the developing world and still end up in <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elU32XNj8PM" target="_blank">landfills in those countries</a>. Perhaps you've seen in-store recycling bins with retailers like H&M implying that the old clothes you bring in will be recycled to make new clothing. <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/clothes-recycling-marketplace-1.4493490" target="_blank">But less than one percent</a> of their clothing is actually recycled to make new clothing. That's because the blend of fibers that make their clothes don't break down easily.
What Can Be Done<p>Maybe the most important thing we can do is to simply buy less stuff by wearing the clothes that we already have for longer. Incredibly, by wearing one item of clothing for 9 months longer a person can actually reduce his or her carbon footprint by 30 percent. Some companies, such as Patagonia, actually ask that you send in a damaged item of clothing for free repair rather than tossing it and buying something new.</p>Another thing you can do is to thrift shop. If everyone bought one used item instead of new this year, the amount of <a href="https://www.thredup.com/resale" target="_blank">CO2 emissions saved</a> would be equivalent to removing half a million cars from the road for a year. Finally, as the holiday season is in full swing and many are still scrambling to buy gifts for loved ones, you might consider gifting experiences or something hand-made rather than store-bought garb.
Some lingerie lines have failed to keep up with a new era.
- According to L Brands, the Victoria's Secret fashion show, which began in 1995, has been cancelled to shift its focus on digital marketing.
- Since the advent of the fashion, the female body has been dissected and commodified to promote new feminine ideals for sales. This might be ending.
- Feminist demands have given rise to body inclusive brands such as Aerie, ThirdLove, Universal Studios, and Savage X Fenty that redefine "sexy."
The Fall of Victoria’s Secret<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjExNTQ5NS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0Mzg5MDU5MH0.uhov4fRBlow6j-6pdzaXkNMqocanlZ1w2K1G6j5J_Zg/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C45%2C67%2C53&height=700" id="0b9c9" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="910f322290bc5146b873a93f4d2cfea5" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Photo Credit: Getty Images<p>L Brands said that it wants to "evolve the marketing" of the Victoria's Secret brand, named after the Victorian-era in England. </p><p>The show began in 1995 as a marketing tour de force, with more than 12 million people tuning into the show in 1995. But the viewership has plummeted over the past five years, with only 3.3 million viewers in 2018 — half the viewers of 2016 — and its worst broadcast ratings ever. The decline in viewers has reflected the recent failure of company sales. Although Victoria's Secret is still America's leading lingerie brand, <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/victorias-secret-rise-and-fall-history-2019-5#more-body-positive-underwear-brands-such-as-aerie-thirdlove-and-lively-cropped-up-taking-making-share-17" target="_blank">between 2016 and 2018</a> its market share dropped from 33 percent to 24 percent in the U.S., and the retailer's sales dropped 7 percent during the latest quarter compared to the same period last year. </p><p>CEO Les Wexner said that the company no longer thought network television was the right fit, and that it would shift its focus on digital marketing. But the shift in the viewer's preferred content platforms likely isn't the biggest reason for the shortfalls of the brand. Rather it's been its failure to keep up with social shifts that have, arguably, changed the essence of what Victoria's Secret sells: sexy. </p><p>Over the last few years a feminist wave has disoriented old marketing tactics. The #MeToo movement shamed inappropriate voyeurism, and body positivity reforms have vocalized the idea that sexuality should be available to bodies outside of the restrictive parameters set by fashion institutions. Victoria's Secret has not aged well in this new era of activism. </p><p>There was a <a href="https://www.vogue.com/article/victorias-secret-ed-razek-monica-mitro-interview" target="_blank">damning <em>Vogue</em> interview</a> with the engineers of the lingerie brand, Ed Razek and Monica Mitro, during which Razek said that the brand would not include transgender models because, he implied, it would be in conflict with with the "fantasy" that Victoria's Secret sells, and that no one had any interest in plus-sized models. (<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/victorias-secret-parents-longtime-marketing-chief-to-resign-11565038660" target="_blank">Razek soon resigned</a>.) Then <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/business/jeffrey-epstein-wexner-victorias-secret.html" target="_blank">there was the unveiling</a> of Wexner's close ties with the deceased sex criminal Jeffery Epstein, who served as the CEO's personal financial advisor. </p><p>This was, to say the very least, a terrible look.</p>
Taking Sexy Back<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjExNTQ5OS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1NzAwNjYyM30.V1GPhgem3P9_1XxnpjJsvczEL8bXs4-_1GtxT992EU0/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C287%2C499%2C679&height=700" id="1e78e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0d233dda17b28122381a719056e7117e" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Photo image: Wikimedia Commons<p>Victoria's Secret has always been voyeuristic. Essentially, it's been a lingerie store created by men, selling products to women that cater to the appetites of straight males. It's pretty much packaged and sold the same look for the past 24 years: Ultra lean, long legged, tall, and conventionally beautiful. Any efforts to diversify the models have been limited.</p>Feminist demands have given birth to body-positive brands such as Aerie, ThirdLove, and Universal Studios with sizes ranging from 00 to 40. But nothing has directly stepped forward to challenge Victoria's Secret in the way that Rihanna's brand Savage X Fenty has.The Savage X Fenty Show <a href="https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/see-inside-rihannas-savage-x-fenty-runway-show.html" target="_blank">debuted in New York City the September of 2018</a> and enjoyed <a href="https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/see-inside-rihannas-savage-x-fenty-runway-show.html" target="_blank">rave reviews</a>. An Anti-Victoria's Secret, it presented an unruly, dark, and assertive feminine sexuality — with a clear point of view dedicated to inclusivity. During the show pregnant, trans, disabled, and fat models swaggered down the runway in skimpy lingerie alongside mainstream supermodels. Rihanna told<em>The New York Times</em> that the concept was about mixing the conventional with what she hopes is the future of fashion. That is, women being celebrated in all their forms.
Commodifying of Female Bodies Is Out<p>From its beginning, Victoria's Secret has bet on the age-old marketing tactic of selling women a "<a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/victorias-secret-perfect-body-campaign_n_6115728?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAGlo36CsDg3FMQ0vehdhFyxGKKDOwBs-x0TePlimpakdueqkh35lTTsaRyfAswTgulceQIarnwLcbKHg7uYMgxLvT5oZPxnAERfXBOb35ltCPRPCNPbdYQRX1rTuYr9e-KvxBHNEMms-U4ZjNUK1la9FDdeuOqqZje8BFAD4_l3n" target="_blank">perfect body</a>." Since <a href="http://www.fitnyc.edu/museum/exhibitions/the-body-fashion-physique.php" target="_blank">the advent of the fashion</a> industry, the female body has been dissected and commodified to promote new feminine ideals for sales. In the 1910s <a href="http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/gibson-girls-america/" target="_blank">that ideal</a> was a tiny waist and thick thighs, in the '20s it was being rail thin with a flat chest and butt. In the '30s and '40s it was an hour-glass figure with <a href="https://vintagedancer.com/1940s/what-did-women-wear-in-the-1940s/" target="_blank">military shoulders</a>. In the '30s through the '50s <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/vintage-weight-gain-ads_n_1119044" target="_blank">weight-gain supplements</a> were pushed because voluptuous curves with big breasts were desirable. Thin was back in during the '60s and '70s, and waists were to be narrow and boyish. </p><p>Long legs and a muscular physiques epitomized the '80s market trends paralleling the fitness frenzy, while the sickly boney appearance dubbed "heroin chic" trended in the '90s. It was the 2000s when the lean, toned Victoria's Secret look dominated runways. More recently, starting in the early 2010s, women have been told to strive for everything from <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/nov/03/thigh-gap-pressure-point-women-self-esteem" target="_blank">thigh gaps</a> to "<a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/05/31/toblerone-tunnels-new-thigh-gap-latest-social-media-body-trend/658856002/" target="_blank">Toblerone tunnels</a>" to <a href="https://www.papermag.com/break-the-internet-kim-kardashian-cover-1427450475.html" target="_blank">an internet-breaking booty</a>. </p><p>Perhaps we're finally seeing a dismissal of the absurdity of a group of (<a href="https://www.glamour.com/story/the-glass-runway-fashion-industry-survey" target="_blank">probably male</a>) somebodies, somewhere, deciding what body shapes are sexy decade to decade. Victoria's Secret and its plummeting financial standing is indicative of a changing tide in what "sexy," as it pertains to female bodies, is. Rather than showcase bodies that are tailored to designers' construction of the male gaze, Rihanna's brand, along with others, celebrates feminine sexiness as a somatic way of being. </p><p>They may just be lingerie brands and fashion shows, but the euphoric responses to Savage X Fenty and other body inclusive brands, as opposed to Victoria's Secret's cancelled show, tells us something is happening. What is sexy becoming, then? Rather than a commodified body-type that women are told to strive for, it's a reveling that feminine sexuality is without limits — it's available to anybody and every body.<br></p>
From LED-equipped visors to transparent masks, these inventions aim to thwart facial recognition cameras.
- To combat the rise of facial-recognition technology, designers have created clothing and accessories that helps to conceal people's identities from A.I.
- Although some of these inventions appear to be effective, their main point seems to be to raise awareness about facial-recognition technology.
- In the U.S., surveys suggests that most Americans would oppose strictly limiting the government's ability to use facial-recognition technology.
Image source: Jip van Leeuwenstein / HKU Design<p>"By wearing this mask formed like a lens it possible to become unrecognizable for facial recognition software and because of it's transparence you will not lose your identity and facial expressions," von Leeuwenstein <a href="http://www.jipvanleeuwenstein.nl/" target="_blank">writes</a>. "So it's still possible to interact with the people around you."</p><p>In Japan, Isao Echizen, a professor at the National Institute of Informatics in Tokyo, designed a "<a href="http://research.nii.ac.jp/~iechizen/official/research-e.html#research2c" target="_blank">privacy visor</a>" fitted with near-infrared LED lights. When worn, the facial-recognition software can't tell there's a human face behind the lights, according to Echizen's tests.</p>
National Institute of Informatics/Isao Echizen<p>In the U.K., artists in "The Dazzle Club" have walked the streets London with their faces painted in blue, red and black stripes in an effort obfuscate their faces from the city's 420,000 CCTV cameras, only some of which are using facial-recognition technology. </p><p>"There has always been something subversive about streetwear, and one of the new areas of subversion is definitely surveillance and, in particular, facial recognition," Henry Navarro Delgado, an art and fashion professor at Canada's Ryerson University, told <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-tech-fashion-feature/face-masks-to-decoy-t-shirts-the-rise-of-anti-surveillance-fashion-idUSKBN1WB0HT" target="_blank"><em>Reuters</em></a>.</p><p>In September, a British court <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/business/facial-recognition-uk-court.html" target="_blank">ruled</a> that government use of facial-recognition technology doesn't violate privacy and human rights.</p>
Image source: Coreana Museum of Art / Cha Hyun Seok<p>Other anti-surveillance apparel includes <a href="https://ahprojects.com/stealth-wear/" target="_blank">shiny fabrics</a> that reflect thermal radiation that drones search for, beanie hats that <a href="https://syncedreview.com/2019/08/29/adversarial-patch-on-hat-fools-sota-facial-recognition/" target="_blank">confuse </a>the facial-recognition system ArcFace, and <a href="https://ahprojects.com/hyperface/" target="_blank">Hyperface</a>, which makes clothing with patterns that confuse A.I. into focusing on the fabric rather than your face. </p><p>"The main significance is creating awareness," Delgado told <em><a href="https://slate.com/technology/2019/08/facial-recognition-surveillance-fashion-hong-kong.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Slate</a></em>. "That's why fashion is so effective: You have something to say, you wear it, people see you, it's immediate. Part of the purpose is to make people who normally don't think about this aware that these technologies are out there, and we're being watched."</p>
Facial recognition in the U.S.<p>Surveillance cameras are common on city streets in the U.S. city, but most cameras aren't equipped with facial-recognition technology, as millions are in China and, to a lesser extent, the U.K. In May, <a href="https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/facial-recognition" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">San Francisco became the first U.S. city to ban facial technology</a> on city property, not including airports. </p><p>"Good policing does not mean living in a police state," said city councillor Aaron Peskin. "Living in a safe and secure community does not mean living in a surveillance state."</p><p>But such comparisons are silly, according to Daniel Castro of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.</p><p>"In reality, San Francisco is more at risk of becoming Cuba than China — a ban on facial recognition will make it frozen in time with outdated technology," he said, adding that governments "can use facial recognition to efficiently and effectively identify suspects, find missing children or lost seniors, and secure access to government buildings."</p><p>The results from a recent <a href="https://www.datainnovation.org/" target="_blank">datainnovation.org</a> survey suggest that most Americans would agree with Castro.</p><p>The surveyors wrote:<br></p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"There were some differences in these opinions based on age, with older Americans more likely to oppose government limits on the technology. For example, 52 percent of 18 to 34-year-olds opposed limitations that come at the expense of public safety, compared to 61 percent of respondents ages 55 and older. In addition, women were less likely to support limits than men. For example, only 14 percent of women support strictly limiting facial recognition if it comes at the expense of public safety, versus 23 percent of men."</p>
Image soure: datainnovation
It can supposedly cool you down by 23 degrees Fahrenheit.
- The Reon Pocket is a Bluetooth device that fits inside your shirt.
- A Sony-affiliated startup recently launched a crowdfunding campaign to develop the device.
- Currently marketed toward businessmen who wear suits, the designers hope to offer the Reon Pocket to more types of customers in the future.