Train derails in Russian bridge collapse - as 'illegal interference' blamed
At least seven people have died in a train derailment in Russia which happened after a bridge collapsed.
Local authorities have blamed "illegal interference" for the incident in Bryansk region.
The train was travelling from Moscow to Klimov when it came off its tracks, killing the driver and six others. An infant was among 28 people taken to hospital.
Emergency workers are at the scene attempting to pull survivors from the wreckage.
Russian media reported that the passenger train crashed into the collapsed bridge.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vogue
33 minutes ago
- Vogue
How We All Lost Our Focus—And How to Get It Back
It happened because I wasn't paying attention. Or rather, I was paying attention to too many things, which is the equivalent of heeding nothing at all: the baby on the counter; my seven-year-old 'washing' dirty dishes at the kitchen sink; the oven, which was slow to heat; the narrowing after-dinner homework window for my fifth grader's history project; the Slack notification that flashed above the recipe I was reading on my phone; and which institution was NPR reporting that Trump had just dismantled? Shouldn't I drop everything and tune into that? These were, ostensibly, my nonworking hours, but I was white-knuckling through them: Those collard greens that had been languishing in the fridge, they were going to get chopped and cooked tonight. Or maybe not, because a moment later, I was holding a dish towel tight to my hand after my knife slipped. I'd sliced the tip of my finger right off. An emergency has a way of cutting out the noise, but to a lesser extent we are all teetering on this edge, the mind pulled in so many directions it can feel as though control has vanished from our grasp. And the research tells us we are heading one way: progressively, irrefutably, whittling away how long we can focus. In 2003, before smartphones were really on the scene, the average time a person spent on any one computer-related task before switching screens was two and a half minutes. Between 2016 and 2020, that interval fell to 47 seconds. How low can it go? Five seconds? One? What even is a task in the era of the scroll, that smooth and aimless motion? Art follows culture, or vice versa: The average shot in a movie in 1930 was 12 seconds; by 2010, it was less than four. As an editor and writer I like to think I'm a focused person, professionally trained to pay close attention. And yet, I feel the pull of my phone when I'm sitting down with a novel, when I'm on a walk in the woods, when I'm trying to fly a kite with my kids. The other day, in an Uber, I watched, horrified, as the driver flicked through TikTok at a stoplight, but then, behind the wheel later that afternoon, I found myself checking my own emails in the sliver of time before the light turned from red to green. This isn't just a problem because of the potential for accidents—though mistakes can be consequential even if you're not wielding a kitchen knife or driving a car. Doctors, pilots—they're just as distracted as the rest of us. Studies have shown that multitasking physicians make more errors when writing prescriptions, as do pilots when they're interrupted. There is also what researchers call '[switch cost]( 'switch cost' is the,navigating in an unfamiliar city.)': the fact that we're less efficient at any task when we alternate between them. And then there's the fact that the constant toggle doesn't feel very good. To take just one physiological marker: Our blood pressure rises when we're pulled in multiple directions. There's a philosophical way to think about this, elegantly outlined in The Sirens' Call, a book from MSNBC anchor Chris Hayes published earlier this year: 'The defining experience of the attention age is a…feeling that our very interior life, the direction of our thoughts, is being taken against our will,' Hayes writes. Basically, we are what we notice, and as we notice less—or are coerced or cajoled into noticing less by what amounts to a thousand marketing pings—we are fundamentally reduced. As William James put it in 1890: 'My experience is what I agree to attend to. Only those items which I notice shape my mind—without selective interest, experience is an utter chaos.' Utter chaos—that resonates as a headline floating above my domestic tableau. And it's worse for those who shoulder the bulk of household work, who are disproportionately subject to 'the psychic equivalent of smartphone notifications,' says Allison Daminger, author of the forthcoming book What's on Her Mind: The Mental Workload of Family Life. She means those mental pings—We're low on milk. Isn't summer camp sign-up coming soon? Has our car registration expired?—one can't switch off. But hope is not lost! For if we live in an era in which attention is fractured and commodified, we also live in an era in which people are beginning to bristle against unwelcome impositions. And as Hayes puts it: 'It's one of the axioms of American capitalism that where there is consumer demand, there will soon be businesses to serve it.' Spas like the renowned Lanserhof in Tegernsee, Germany, now offer 'brain health' programs that function not only 'in the context of disease prevention,' says Lanserhof's Stefan Lorenzl, a neurologist and palliative care physician, 'but also in helping individuals achieve better resilience and attention in everyday life.' At the SHA wellness clinics in Mexico and Spain, cognitive and emotional health programs are in part geared toward helping guests manage daily distractions. Kamalaya Koh Samui, the Thai wellness retreat, recently opened a 'cognitive house' that offers everything from a high-tech electroencephalogram (or EEG) to sound therapy designed to encourage restful sleep. I pay a visit to the Aman spa in New York City, where a treatment utilizes marma-point therapy (an Ayurvedic technique similar to acupressure). A skilled therapist named Lauren explains that the treatment is as much about energy work as traditional massage, an approach that manifests in a surprising choreography of touch: light strokes around the base of the big toe, a pointed pressure along the inseam of my bicep, hot stones in the cradle of the belly. 'You have a lot of warmth emanating from the top of your head,' Lauren says, 'a lot of positive energy.' I left feeling good, the deep groove between my brows a bit less brutal. I also stop by Lift, a minimalist, brick-walled flotation-therapy spot in Brooklyn, where an extremely zen attendant shows me to a giant egg-like pod containing 1,000 pounds of Epsom salts dissolved in 250 gallons of body-temp water in which I will be semi-submerged for an hour. 'What happens if I…don't like it?' I tentatively ask. 'You're required to stay,' he deadpans, then sensing my alarm, quickly switches tack: 'Nothing is mandatory!' He tells me, though, that he rarely has people emerge before their allotted time is up. First time for anything, I think to myself as I step into the saline waters. And then something happens: As I'm bobbing gently side to side, my mind clicks into a slower gear, the thoughts coming and going without their usual urgency; the minutes melt away, and when the automated message informs me that my session has finished, I am genuinely surprised. I emerge with the sensation that I've just done a satisfying round of yoga despite the fact I've barely moved.
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
In Russia Airfield Attacks, Ukraine Aims for Strategic and Symbolic Blow
Ukraine's drone attack on airfields deep inside Russia on Sunday was a strategic and symbolic blow that military analysts said was designed to slow Moscow's relentless bombing campaign and to demonstrate that Kyiv can still raise the cost of war for the Kremlin. There were calls for a swift response across Russian media, and Ukrainians braced for retaliation even as they celebrated an operation that gave the beleaguered nation a much needed morale boost. Attacks Across Russia Ukraine carried out attacks in five regions across Russia, according to a statement from Russia's Defense Ministry on Sunday. Several aircraft caught fire at air bases in Murmansk and Irkutsk. Source: Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation By K.K. Rebecca Lai The extent of the damage of the simultaneous attacks was not fully known, with both sides putting out assessments that were not immediately verifiable. President Volodymyr Zelensky said that 117 drones were used in the attacks, known as Operation Spiderweb — with a corresponding number of operators involved in remotely piloting the aircraft. Ukraine's security services, known as the S.B.U., said that 41 Russian aircraft were destroyed or damaged, which Mr. Zelensky said accounted for 34 percent of the strategic cruise-missile carriers at air bases across three time zones. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
How progressive critics paved the way for Trump's attack on judicial supremacy
One of the key axioms of politics in our, and any other, era is that nothing lasts forever. Today's seemingly new political arguments, almost certainly, will find their way into an opponent's arsenal. Evidence of that axiom is abundant. Where once Republicans were rapidly anti-Russia and anti-Putin, today they favor accommodation. Where once Democrats were suspicious of free trade, today they embrace it as part of their criticism of the president's protectionism. The most consequential of those inversions involves attitudes toward courts and judges. Where once progressive critics called the rule of law a myth and worked to expose the politics of law, today the president mobilizes that argument to accuse judges of being driven by partisan motivations. In the first Trump administration, as the president stacked the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary with MAGA-allied judges, progressives eagerly denounced those judges and what they labelled 'judicial supremacy.' They argued that the authority to interpret the Constitution was not lodged solely in the judicial branch. It was, they contended, also the work of the other branches, and the American people themselves, to say what the law is. Now, they are appalled when members of the Trump Administration take up those arguments and offer constitutional arguments of their own. Before saying more about the source of attacks on the courts and positions now being appropriated by the Trump administration, let me cite a few examples of its escalating critiques of judicial supremacy. On May 20, Secretary of State Marco Rubio delivered his own rendition of the powers and jurisdiction of the federal courts. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the handling of the Kilmar Abrego Garcia deportation case, and the administration's reluctance to 'facilitate' his return, Rubio insisted that he does not have to obey court orders when they touch on the foreign policy of the United States. 'There is,' Rubio said, 'a division in our government between the federal branch and the judicial branch. No judge, and the judicial branch, cannot tell me or the president how to conduct foreign policy.' The Secretary of State insisted that 'No judge can tell how I have to outreach to a foreign partner or what I need to say to them. And if I do reach to that foreign partner and talk to them, I am under no obligation to share that with the judiciary branch.' Rubio is not the only one in the administration to act as if they get to define what the Constitution means or what authority courts have. Two months ago, Attorney General Pam Bondi claimed Federal District Judge James Boasberg, who, as NBC News noted 'is presiding over the case involving the administration's use of the rarely invoked Alien Enemies Act to deport what officials claim are gang members to El Salvador' was 'trying to control our entire foreign policy,' and that under the Constitution, he 'cannot do it.' And then there is the recent insistence of White House staffer Stephen Miller and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem that the president has the right to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Some might call these comments unconstitutional or anti-constitutional, but I suspect they would say that they have as much right to interpret the Constitution as the judicial branch. That is the position of conservative allies of the administration. Adrian Vermeule, for example, Professor of Law at Harvard, argues that the law 'is to a large degree what the President and the agencies say it is.' And 'The President, as a key figure in the republic, has a responsibility to interpret the Constitution in a way that promotes the common good and effective governance.' This brings us back to the fact that arguments made with the goal of advancing one political program may be flipped and turned to another purpose. It was not so long ago that progressives chaffing under the rulings of the Roberts Court called for the same kind of diffusion of the authority to interpret the Constitution that we are now seeing from the Trump Administration. In September 2020, New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie quoted with approval the following: ''The judiciary is not the sole guardian of our constitutional inheritance and interpretive authority under the Constitution has varied over time.'' In his own voice, he said: '(I)f protecting the right of the people to govern for themselves means curbing judicial power and the Supreme Court's claim to judicial supremacy, then Democrats should act without hesitation.' Twenty years earlier, two progressive constitutional law scholars reacted to an increasingly conservative Supreme Court's erosion of the Warren Court's pro-criminal defendant Miranda v. Arizona decision by calling for what they called 'shared constitutional experimentation.' As they put it, 'Because constitutional meaning is so wrapped up in broader questions of governance, constitutional interpretation should be a shared endeavor among (at the least) all the branches of the national, state, and local governments. Each branch brings to the process both a constitutional role and a set of institutional advantages….' A few years earlier, another law professor argued that 'competition and debate among the branches concerning important constitutional issues may well promote the kind of public dialogue that would lead to adoption of constructive constitutional approaches while enhancing respect for the fundamental values inherent in constitutionalism.' One final example is drawn from the work of two prominent, progressive constitutional law scholars, Yale's Robert Post and Reva Siegel. They observe that it would 'be a fundamental mistake to define constitutional law in ways that force nonjudicial actors regularly to choose between obeying constitutional law and fulfilling what they regard as their constitutional obligations.' Trump administration officials would likely agree. They might claim to be engaged in the very form of constitutional interpretation and dialogue that Bouie and others on the left have held out as a healthy and welcome. Or, perhaps more accurately, they may be owning the libs by cynically using their arguments to secure the administration's own political purposes. Whatever their motive, using the tools of progressive constitutional scholars, Trump and his colleagues are creating what Princeton's Kim Lane Scheppele labels a 'counter-constitution, an alternative constitutional reality proposed in place of a current constitution.' That is why, if the Constitution survives this moment, we should be cautious about calling for the dismantling of the courts' ultimate authority to advance the political cause of the moment. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall got it right when, more than two centuries ago, he wrote, 'It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.' All of this is a reminder that in a constitutional republic, officials, citizens, and commentators need to take a long view and think not just of what will advance their immediate interest. Prudence requires considering what things would look like if, and when, their opponents come to power. Patience and foresight are underappreciated, but indispensable virtues of constitutional government.
