BY THE OPTIMIST DAILY EDITORIAL TEAM In 2014, over 140 million animals like minks, foxes, and raccoon dogs were farmed and killed for their fur. By 2023, that number dropped to around 20 million, according to a Humane World for Animals analysis using global and industry data. Though it excludes rabbit fur and animals caught in traps, the figure reflects a steep decline in the commercial fur industry worldwide. Once a luxury good associated with wealth and elegance, fur has undergone a reputational collapse, thanks to coordinated efforts by fashion leaders, animal rights activists, and policymakers. The shift marks what some call the most significant animal welfare victory of the 21st century. An industry built on unnecessary cruelty  Unlike meat or dairy, fur is a luxury item with no nutritional or medicinal value, which made it a strategic focus for animal advocates. And its production is steeped in brutality. Animals on fur farms are often confined in tiny wire cages, deprived of space, water, or companionship. Mink are typically gassed with carbon dioxide, while foxes and raccoon dogs are killed by anal electrocution. Conditions on fur farms regularly lead to psychological distress in animals, who exhibit repetitive behaviors like pacing, head bobbing, or frantic scratching. PJ Smith, director of fashion policy at Humane World for Animals, described the animals as having “literally gone insane” from sensory deprivation and lack of natural behaviors. How activists, policy, and pandemics reshaped the fur debate  Anti-fur campaigns have been around since the 1980s, with PETA leading controversial efforts like fake blood protests and celebrity endorsements. The long-term impact of early activism is hard to measure, but it laid the groundwork for deeper change. In the 2000s, more European nations began banning fur production, and mid-tier brands like J.Crew and Ralph Lauren opted out of fur. The tipping point came in 2017 when Gucci went fur-free, followed by Burberry, Prada, Chanel, and Versace. By then, advocacy efforts had matured, and faux fur had improved in quality and aesthetics. Smith noted that newer, high-end faux fur created a “gap in the marketplace” for innovation. Policymakers responded as well: California banned fur sales in 2019, and the EU introduced new fur farming restrictions after Covid-19 outbreaks on mink farms heightened public health concerns. The road ahead: victories, setbacks, and what remains  Recent developments point to continued momentum. Switzerland recently enacted a near-total ban on fur imports. The European Commission is reviewing a proposal backed by 1.5 million citizens to ban fur production and sales. The EU has also designated the American mink as an invasive species, which could restrict breeding further. But challenges remain. Proposed bans in places like New York and Poland have stalled. Some major fashion houses, including Hermes and LVMH, still include fur in their collections. And despite massive gains, over 20 million animals are still killed for fur annually. “The hardest part is going to be closing out an industry for good,” said Smith. He believes the next crucial steps involve convincing remaining fashion brands and enforcing policy changes to prevent future backsliding. “We need to ensure the future is fur-free once and for all.”The post The slow demise of fur: how fashion, policy, and activism helped millions of animals first appeared on The Optimist Daily: Making Solutions the News.

BY THE OPTIMIST DAILY EDITORIAL TEAM If your pulse spikes at the infamous words “We need to talk,” you’re not alone. For many people, conflict feels synonymous with shouting, crying, or someone storming off. But as therapist Aparna Sagaram, LMFT, explains, that mindset doesn’t serve us well: “All conflict is just some sort of disagreement,” she says, and disagreements are inevitable, even with the people we love most. Avoiding conflict may feel safer in the moment, especially if you grew up around explosive arguments or were taught that speaking up makes you difficult. But letting issues simmer can turn everyday annoyances into long-term resentment. Instead, learning how to approach hard conversations with intention can lead to more connection, not less. 1. Start with a no-send version of what you want to say  Knowing what you want to communicate is half the battle. That’s why Cherlette McCullough, LMFT, suggests writing a “no-send” version of your message first. “Get everything out,” she says. “Write about how they hurt you, how they made you feel, how their behaviors affected you.” This journal-style draft isn’t meant to be shared. Instead, it helps you release pent-up feelings and clarify your thoughts. After reviewing what you’ve written, you’ll likely see which points are worth bringing up (like repeated dismissiveness) and which are less constructive (like insults or name-calling). The result is a clearer, kinder conversation. 2. Practice with the people who feel safest  If speaking up fills you with dread, don’t start with your boss or new partner. “These are what we refer to as your ‘low risk’ or ‘safe’ people,” Sagaram says. Think: a sibling who always steals your hoodie, or a best friend whose teasing sometimes crosses the line. Addressing smaller issues with people you trust builds confidence. As you see that honesty doesn’t always lead to disaster, you’ll be more prepared to raise trickier topics with others later. 3. Set the stage—don’t ambush them  Surprising someone with serious feedback mid-coffee catchup? Not ideal. Instead, give them a heads-up. Try: “Hey, can we talk about something that’s been on my mind?” or “Is now a good time to check in about something?” Choosing your moment matters too. McCullough suggests timing the conversation for when you’re calm and collected. Maybe that means after a good night’s sleep or once the workday stress has passed. The goal is to turn potential conflict into connection. 4. Don’t make it all about what they did wrong  Yes, you’re upset. But listing every mistake the other person made will likely make them shut down. “You don’t want the other person to become very defensive,” McCullough explains. Instead, balance your concern with care. If a friend’s frequent venting is wearing you out, try: “I’m always here for you, but I’ve been overwhelmed and need some space.” Or if a partner is glued to their phone at dinner: “I love our time together, and I’d appreciate if we could be more present.” Framing your needs this way fosters collaboration, not conflict. 5. Focus on the behavior, not their character  Calling someone “irresponsible” or “selfish” puts them on the defensive. Instead, Sagaram recommends focusing on specific actions. Your friend might not be “stingy,” but if they keep dodging your Venmo requests, it’s fair to say you’d like to be paid back more promptly. Clear, actionable feedback is easier to digest and easier to change. Rather than labeling someone as a problem, you’re naming a problem that can be solved. Growth starts with hard conversations  Tough talks will always feel, well, tough. But they don’t have to be chaotic or combative. When you approach them with kindness, clarity, and a bit of courage, you’re not just addressing issues. You’re building stronger, more honest relationships. And that’s worth the momentary discomfort.The post How to prepare for a hard conversation when you hate conflict first appeared on The Optimist Daily: Making Solutions the News.

When four teenagers converged at London’s Nag’s Head pub on April 19, 1968, for their first rehearsal and gig in the same evening, they unknowingly launched one of Britain’s most influential yet tragically short-lived rock bands. Free formed in London that spring with Paul Rodgers on vocals, Paul Kossoff on guitar, Andy Fraser on bass, and Simon Kirke on drums, becoming pioneers of the British hard rock movement alongside Led Zeppelin and Cream. The band released six studio albums between 1969 and 1973, selling over 20 million records worldwide and performing in more than 700 arenas and festival concerts. Their The post Complete List Of Free Band Members appeared first on ClassicRockHistory.com.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. US regulators have issued a sharp reminder to major technology companies: their responsibility to protect American privacy doesn’t disappear when operating overseas. On August 21, 2025, Federal Trade Commission Chair Andrew N. Ferguson sent formal letters to more than a dozen of the biggest names in tech, including Apple, Alphabet, Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta. We obtained an example of the letter for you here. The notices made clear that US privacy obligations remain in force even when foreign governments push for compliance with their own surveillance or censorship laws. Any weakening of privacy protections for Americans, no matter the reason, could trigger action from the FTC. This comes at a time when regulatory efforts in Europe and the United Kingdom are placing heavy pressure on digital platforms to fall in line with dangerous new demands. Those laws could force firms into situations where foreign access to user data and speech restrictions run directly counter to protections expected in the US. Under the European Union’s Digital Services Act, online platforms face steep penalties if they fail to remove what the EU classifies as illegal content or misinformation. The EU is also plotting new Chat Control rules that would effectively ban end-to-end encryption. In the UK, the Online Safety Act takes a similar approach, giving the government broad authority to suppress content. The UK’s Investigatory Powers Act raises even greater concerns by allowing authorities to demand that firms dismantle encryption or build tools to bypass it. That puts private communications at risk, including services such as iMessage and WhatsApp that are widely used by Americans. This conflict came into public view when UK officials pressured Apple to create a backdoor into its iCloud service. Apple refused, removing its Advanced Data Protection feature from the UK market and challenging the requirement in court. In August 2025, the UK government backed off, following months of resistance from Apple and warnings from American officials, including Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. Though the immediate threat faded, the British legal framework enabling surveillance remains intact. Ferguson’s letters stressed that companies cannot use foreign legal demands as a justification to lower their standards for US users. The FTC made it clear that if a firm claims to offer end-to-end encryption but secretly dilutes those protections in other countries, and those changes affect American users, the agency will consider it a deceptive act. Ferguson emphasized that compliance abroad does not excuse violations of American law. Weakening encryption under foreign pressure exposes Americans to a greater risk of surveillance, data theft, and fraud. Ferguson also warned that following censorship orders from foreign governments undermines the rights of US users and the freedoms they rely on. The letters targeted a broad range of tech firms, including cloud infrastructure providers like Amazon as well as social media platforms like Meta and X. These companies are increasingly stuck between demands for more access and control from regulators overseas and firm expectations around privacy and free speech from users in the US. The FTC has a history of pursuing companies that mislead users about privacy protections. Over the years, the agency has secured multimillion-dollar settlements from firms that failed to properly secure user data or falsely marketed their encryption standards. Ferguson’s recent action signals that weakening protections to satisfy foreign rules will not shield companies from US consequences if Americans are affected. A software update introduced globally to meet UK or EU demands can still land a company in legal trouble at home if it compromises American privacy. The FTC’s stance is simple. Companies cannot adopt one standard in Washington and another in London. US consumers are entitled to the security and privacy they were promised. If tech firms intend to preserve trust, they must resist efforts to erode those commitments, regardless of pressure or penalties from abroad. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post FTC to Big Tech: Don’t Let Foreign Laws Gut Privacy appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Most of an atom is empty space, so why does some matter feel solid? Two physics principles explain why.

[View Article at Source]By Liberty Nation Authors Speculation over contenders for the 2028 presidential election is already underway, and it’s never too soon to have “the talk.” For more episodes,…

[View Article at Source]By John Klar Increased consumer awareness of dietary health and the benefits of so-called whole foods has led to a higher demand for less processed food choices. Skyrocketing diabetes…

Foundations led by heirs and philanthropists are reshaping K-12 math instruction around social justice principles, drawing sharp criticism from educators and parents. By yourNEWS Media Newsroom Major…

[View Article at Source]By James Fite President Donald Trump said he may tackle crime in other cities after DC, and left-wing local leaders can’t stand it. The elite Democrats in power in cities like…

Notable quotables from Peter Baker, LaMonica McIver, Adam Kinzinger, David Friedman, Marco Rubio, Steak 'n Shake, Clay Travis, and more.