In principle, yes. But it's probably not economically viable. Rare earth oxide prices are in the range of 10-100 USD per kilo. Platinum and gold go for ~1000 USD per ounce. Of course the tailings grades will be different but as far as I know these are the only metals which have gone through significant tailings reprocessing efforts. In SA that's also mainly because they had loads of material that had been mined 100 years ago when recovery was lower. I think copper might also reprocessed in a few places but I would guess only via heap leaching (stick in some plumbing and irrigate your dump with acid).

Interesting. I have a few thoughts.

Rare earth elements are currently sourced essentially from two distinct mineralogies: hard rock mining from igneous intrusions with the rare earths contained in e.g. bastnaesite and monazite (such as Bayan Obo in Inner Mongolia and Mountain Pass in California), and from ion absorption clays (for reasons above my pay grade these only occur in the subtropical belts hence their prevalence in southern China).

These two ores have some important distinguishing characteristics. Firstly, the hard rock ores tend to be enriched in the so-called "light" REEs (e.g. lanthanum, cerium) whereas the clays are somewhat enriched in the "heavy" REEs (e.g. lutetium, yttrium). They also have very different processing methods. Hard rock ores are processed in a more conventional way, via grinding/milling the ore, floating the valuables and then sequentially removing elements using solvent extraction. With maybe leaching in there somewhere... This is more or less similar to processing for the precious metals but as I understand it the large number and chemical similarity of the REEs makes this more resource intensive. On the other hand, in the clay ores the REEs are already in the free ionic form and are flushed out via ion exchange in heaps or vats.

Both of these processing methods are pretty nasty but one falls under the remit of large state-controlled enterprise and the other can be done by a dude with a spade and a vat full of salt water. So it's no surprise that there is a large unregulated industry around the processing of these clays, which is in turn responsible for some seriously hellish mining landscapes and environmental degradation. The Chinese government is apparently cracking down on that sort of thing which I can only imagine involves a lot of authoritarian police state tactics.

Coming back to the article, I wasn't entirely sure at what part of the above processes this advancement would fit in. The paper they are referecing seems to have used spent ceria polishing powder and lutetium crystal waste as the feedstock for their experiments (i.e. already very pure in terms of REE content). So it appears that this applies to the extraction phase - they first had to go through an alkaline roast and HCl dissolution before using the new solvent. This doesn't really enable making a big difference to the overall production process. In the conventional mining case, it will still need to produce masses of somewhat radioactive tailings, require massive amounts of energy to grind the ore and so on. Similar situation for the clay mining. It's an unfortunate reality that the amount of value added in a processing step tends to be inversely proportional to the environmental impact associated, and this technology seems to be acting on the end of the pipe.

I think it speaks volumes that even a group of people with a single goal in mind and the best of intentions in their hearts have to struggle in such a way. I think it speaks volumes as to why sometimes society seems really messed up.

Don't really think I have much insightful to say, but this thought up here is important. The question I am left asking is whether we are doomed to this? Will things get better in my lifetime? I heard someone say once that as a first pass estimate, it takes about as long for conflict to be resolved as the conflict had been going on in the first place. In SA that means we are only about 10% of the way there, according to the consensus for when the shit hit the fan.

I think the Arch is right in saying there's no future without forgiveness, but these days one has to wonder whether forgiveness has any value if it was given for free. 24 years is sadly enough time for us to collectively begin to forget the past, with the result being that no-one really knows what they gave away or gained anymore. It's a bad place to be because it means that now we can't even agree that we "have the same goal in mind". The irreversibility of that lost opportunity is honestly the saddest part for me.

Thanks for this.

I think the ideas she puts out here do not necessarily only apply to America - exceptionalist thinking is probably what defines the border between nationalism and patriotism. I abhor it for its tendency to need an us and a them - to know others only by analogy.

I see nationalism as a blind identity-driven thing that will only work in the most trivial of cases and definitely doesn't translate to the globalised world we have today: Neville Alexander wrote a whole book about the national question in South Africa. His thesis was essentially that every historical attempt to define the nation was doomed to failure because they ultimately rely on a flawed definition of what it must be. I don't think the question has actually been answered yet: "What is a South African?" has not been settled. Where exceptionalism comes in is that it makes you think that at least you know what a South African is not. Africa, but not that Africa, right?

In that way I'd like to imagine a different kind of feeling (patriotism?) that is more focused on doing the things that are good for all mankind, but just doing them in the place where you happen to be and which so intangibly forms your identity. Not really sure about this but it's a thought. It's probably more pragmatism than anything else.

In any case, I think the takeaway from the article should not be a narrow realisation of "America's other reputation abroad" but more about the introspective elements to it - trying to imagine a different way of locating yourself in the world. I actually think there's something profound hidden here but I haven't been able to crack it.

Definitely more philosophical. It was constituted following a national canvassing of demands from the townships and homelands. So it was like the consolidated voice of a large percentage of the oppressed.

At the time, non-whites had incredibly limited political representation and so it was a major act of defiance to demand the things set out there. In fact the huge meeting where it was proclaimed was broken up by the police on the second day. A few years later the organisations involved would be banned.

Ever since it served as the foundation of the struggle (for most) in the sense that it showed what was required, culminating on its influence on the Constitution.

Thanks, I think this is a great question.

Certainly in the general sense there is agreement (with some caveats that I'll get into now-now). Within the Constitution the main source of these ideals is in the bill of rights (SS 7-39). The rest deals with more procedural stuff relating to how government will function etc. I believe the US constitution has a similar setup.

There is broad agreement largely because of the relatively consultative process which produced it - during the transitional period (~90s) there was engagement between the various political groupings and the old regime culminating in an interim constitution that paved the way for a democratically constructed one after the elections.

As such, it reflects the politics of the day - in South Africa the Overton window lies very much to the left, at least in the talk-space.

The devil is in the details however. There are two main issues/debates as far as I have eyes to see:

The first is the idea that the Constitution did not go far enough in pushing for revolutionary change. There is a view that is gaining more traction than it used to have that the 1994 dispensation represents a suspension of the revolution. I think there is perhaps something to this, although I cannot throw my weight behind it entirely. S 25 for instance guarantees the right to property and prohibits expropriation without compensation. The question is then how this squares with the process (which is mandated in the same section) of righting our history of marginalisation and dispossession. In essence, who should own the land and how to shift? I won't get into the specifics here but I hope it illustrates this type of clash.

The second issue is the question of how to actually do the practical legwork in trying to guarantee the rights. This is where the debate more commonly lies. For instance when people protest and demand access to sanitation, they can rest assured that the Constitution guarantees the right to adequate housing, with sanitation almost assuredly being a necessary condition for such.

There is yet much to be said here but hopefully that goes some way to answering your question!

Okay whoop let's take a trip:

From Berlin (although to be fair I missed the bus with this one) Moderat's newest album is as good as the previous one. Very similar I guess but still nice.

Moving to Canada, some sultry R&B from Jessy Lanza.

Super catchy synthpop something from Silly Kissers. Guilty pleasure type stuff.

Also Chevalier Avant Garde. Dark-ish kind of synthpop.

Stylistically a little bit further south, Laurel Halo's new album is great if you like ambient techno (Deepchord?)

Finally, cool band from ATX, π, playing bluesy-psych rock. Nothing groundbreaking here, but I enjoy it.

P.S. like flagamuffin said, Tim Hecker. Floaty soundscapes.

Ha, I was planning on sending a PM, but I might as well post it here.

ixnar, I put my term address on the letter, seeing as I spend most of my time there, but it's the holidays now so it will be a while until I am able to get anything from you. But if you haven't sent it yet, I can give you my home address :)

Nearing end of term so I've been getting homesick (man up, right?). I've started blaring the stuff I used to listen to growing up (i.e. my father's music). So lots of Bob Dylan- Desire, Blonde on Blonde, John Wesley Harding (I'd link but Bob seems to be quite anal about his music on youtube).

Also Neil Young - Freedom, Harvest and After the Gold Rush.

Miles Davis and Coltrane also popped up.

Awww yeah

As someone without an in-depth knowledge of the US Justice system, I think that that was a very well structured and presented argument.

Tangentially, it made me realise why I like to read articles such as this. I might not actually have any emotional investment in the subject matter before or after reading, but somehow, reading an eloquent and concise argument with logical analysis and so forth, just seems to be fun to read.

This piece always brings up memories for me. In high school I was part of a vocal ensemble, and most of our performances were in churches. Our conductor was often asked to make "guest performances" on the organ, and this was probably his favourite repertoire piece. So I've heard this often, in various amazing acoustic spaces, and sometimes with trumpet accompaniment.

Thanks for posting :)

Exactly what I was getting at, and actually what I was basing the assumption on. As you may be aware, the Kinsey scale (which I don't agree with 100%, but it serves well as an example) describes this situation.

In looking it up again now, I was drawn to a particular line from Kinsey:

The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects.

Unfortunately for humanity, continuums are not really very practical or intuitive (it would seem), and so I think we try to make do with approximations of reality. It's like trying to categorise certain music into genres. Sure you could call that one song "Nu Post garage-hop chillstep", but then the entire idea of classification starts to lose its value, as you aren't creating much more order than there was before. (I don't think this metaphor applies perfectly to sexuality though, but the idea is there)

P.S. I like the idea of the different levels of abstract thinking because it infers that there is a continuous spectrum of understanding OF a continuous spectrum. Anyway, rambling again, I should go to sleep.

I tend to agree with the author, in the sense that, while I would wish for some sort utopic world where people can make whatever decision they wish regarding their sexuality, gender identity etc., it's not really feasible in today's society. You can't deny the fact that the average person finds at least slight discomfort with the idea of hermaphroditism (homesexuality even). Unfortunately, it will probably take a while before this changes.

I suppose it will be the same slow and steady change associated with suffrage, race issues and LGBT rights.

Anyway, I'm rambling now, but I'd like to posit that most issues similar to this one are a result of humanity's tendency to see things which are continuous spectra as discrete points (or even Boolean either/or situations). It's a natural tendency (I believe) to try and simplify things into "normal" and "outlier", and not inherently wrong; it's a type of organisation based on perception. Most people across history see the 4% hermaphrodites not as an example of the blurred glob that is human sexuality and gender identity, but rather as "abnormal" data points which should be forced to conform (for the purposes of simplicity) to a standard model.

I don't really know where to go with what I'm saying, so I'll just abruptly end here after a little conclusion: Stuff like this puts people out of their natural comfort zone and goes against a natural tendency (tendency to simplify, I don't mean to sound like intersex people are unnatural), and therefore change is going to take a long time.

I don't know where the line between "musician" and "hobbyist" is, but I guess I dabble in music.

If anyone actually wants to know, here.

By the way, OP, I think your art is great!

I think people just assume that if they can't understand it, it must be of some higher level which they can't comprehend, and is therefore automatically of higher quality. Nobody (or at least very few) instantly doubt that which they don't understand, especially in mathematics.