Latest news with #Wasson
San Francisco Chronicle
30-05-2025
- Science
- San Francisco Chronicle
California's native oysters are unusually well adapted for climate change
Sorry, your browser doesn't support embedded videos. The tiny native oysters of San Francisco Bay managed to outlive the Gold Rush, bay-shore development and decades of punishing pollution. New research shows they have a fighting chance to survive global warming as well. A different species than the farmed Pacific oysters slurped up in restaurants, Olympia oysters are the West Coast's only native oyster species, once forming huge reefs along thousands of miles of coastline from Baja California to British Columbia. Though delicious, they're not as commercially viable and can't be safely harvested from San Francisco Bay because of pollution. But efforts are underway to restore the native oyster in the bay and along the West Coast for its important role in the ecosystem, including providing habitat for baby salmon and crab. 'If we had been here 300 years ago, it would have been this striking, essential part of San Francisco Bay,' said Kerstin Wasson, research coordinator at Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve on Monterey Bay. 'Now it's so rare that most Californians have never seen a native oyster, have never touched one, have never eaten one.' Now, Wasson is the lead author on a study of the native oysters from Mexico to Canada that shows them to be surprisingly well adapted to warmer air temperatures caused by climate change. In recent years, extreme heat waves killed thousands of shellfish that inhabit the same type of intertidal zone, including mussels that were baked in their shells in both the Pacific Northwest and Northern California during low tide. Scientists involved with oyster restoration were really concerned when that happened, said Chela Zabin, ecologist at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center and one of two dozen co-authors on the study. 'Into the future, are these big heat wave events going through going to affect our ability to restore oysters?' she said. The study, which was published last month and involved significant team effort in 26 locations up and down the West Coast, with funding from the nonprofit organization the Nature Conservancy, showed that native oysters thrive in a wide range of habitats. The researchers assumed that oyster populations, which occupy only a narrow band of the intertidal zone, would cluster closer to the low tide waterline to seek relief from hot air in warmer climates such as Baja California and Southern California. Instead they found that the oysters actually inhabited a larger range, demonstrating that they're more adaptable than expected. That bodes well for oysters farther north, including in the Bay Area, when climate change continues to increase air temperatures there, the authors said. 'What is happening in Baja today is what will happen in San Francisco Bay tomorrow,' Wasson said. On a tour of oyster restoration sites at Point San Pablo in Richmond on Wednesday morning, State Coastal Conservancy Project Manager Marilyn Latta demonstrated how finding native oysters during an extremely low tide was as easy as overturning rocks near the shore — like looking for pill bugs in the garden. The Coastal Conservancy, a state agency, provided funding for native oyster restoration projects at several locations along the Point San Pablo bay shore. That includes at a site called Terminal Four where contractors recently removed a derelict wharf and added new native plants as well as concrete structures, including ones that resemble sand castles, specifically designed to provide habitat for oysters. Zabin held a rock with a dime-size native oyster attached, most likely a baby; adults in San Francisco Bay are only slightly larger than an inch in diameter, making them much smaller than Pacific oysters. In addition to restoration efforts underway in the bay, aquaculture may also be necessary in the future as a backup plan to protect the species, she said. Oysters are known as filter feeders for their ability to clean the water and provide habitat that supports salmon migration back and forth to the sea, Wasson noted. When there are enough of them, they create reefs that provide shoreline protection from waves, she said. However, in California, not enough oysters have been brought back to serve this role. Up and down the West Coast, the native oysters were enjoyed by Indigenous people as well as European settlers, including during the Gold Rush, when they were overharvested and later subjected to pollution and habitat loss, especially as the bay was filled for development. Some oyster farmers, including Hog Island Oyster Co. in Tomales Bay, are experimenting with growing native Olympia oysters — though they're more difficult to produce commercially because they're small and slow-growing, Wasson said. However, growing native oysters may have other advantages, because they are known to be less vulnerable than Pacific oysters to ocean acidification that comes with climate change and inhibits the formation of shells. 'Our poor oysters have suffered a whole bunch of things in the past century,' Wasson said. 'But at least this particular way humans are messing with them is probably going to be OK, at least for the near future.'
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Yahoo
A Federal Judge Says New Mexico Cops Reasonably Killed an Innocent Man at the Wrong House
Around 11:30 on a Wednesday night in April 2023, three police officers repeatedly knocked on the door of Robert Dotson's house at 5305 Valley View Avenue in Farmington, New Mexico. They were responding to a report of "a possible domestic violence situation," but they were in the wrong place: They were supposed to be at 5308 Valley View Avenue, which was on the opposite side of the street. When Dotson, a 52-year-old father of two, came to the door with a gun in his hand, the cops shot and killed him. That response, a federal judge in New Mexico ruled last week, was reasonable in the circumstances and therefore did not violate Dotson's Fourth Amendment rights. The officers "reasonably believed that Dotson posed a severe risk of imminent harm" to them, U.S. District Judge Matthew Garcia writes in response to a federal civil rights lawsuit that Dotson's family filed in September 2023. Garcia rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the officers—Daniel Estrada, Dylan Goodluck, and Waylon Wasson—"recklessly created the need to apply deadly force by going to the wrong address." Garcia concedes that the defendants' conduct prior to the shooting was "not a paragon of careful policework," which is quite an understatement. When the cops were dispatched to 5308 Valley View Avenue, he notes, Wasson "utilized his service vehicle's mobile data terminal" to "locate the address, incorrectly placing the [house] on the right (south) side of the street." Meanwhile, Goodluck, who was in a separate vehicle, "searched Google Maps to locate the property," and that search correctly located the house as "being situated on the left (north) side of Valley View Avenue." When the officers arrived at the scene, Goodluck "continued to question whether [they] were headed to the correct residence," Garcia says, but "he deferred to Officer Wasson's seniority and said nothing." After Wasson knocked on the front door of Dotson's house three times without getting a response, Goodluck "finally voiced his concern that the Defendant officers went to the wrong address." Pointing across the street, he said, "It might have been 5308. Right there." Wasson was puzzled: "Is this not 5308? That's what it said right there, right?" No, Goodluck replied: "This is 5305, isn't it?" Wasson then asked the dispatcher to confirm the correct address. After the dispatcher said "5308 Valley View Avenue," Wasson jokingly said, "Don't tell me I'm wrong, Dylan." By this point, the plaintiffs say, the cops "were realizing they were at the wrong residence and were laughing about it." According to the lawsuit, Dotson and his wife, Kimberly, were upstairs in their bedroom when Wasson knocked on the front door. "The knock was not loud, and his announcement 'Farmington Police' could not be heard" on the second story, the complaint says. "The police vehicles were parked down the street and did not have their lights on." But the couple "believed that they heard a knock," so Dotson "put on his robe and went downstairs." For "personal protection," he "picked up the handgun which was kept on top of the refrigerator in the Dotson residence, not knowing what he might encounter at that late hour." When Dotson "opened his front door," the lawsuit says, he "was blinded by police flashlights." At that point, "the police did not announce themselves," and Dotson "had no idea who was in his yard shining bright lights at him." According to the lawsuit, Wasson, upon seeing Dotson's gun, "opened fire instantly," and "the other officers, Estrada and Goodluck, immediately followed by firing their guns." Dotson was struck by 12 rounds. Hearing the shots, Kimberly Dotson rushed downstairs and "saw her husband lying in his blood in the doorway," the lawsuit says. She "still did not know what had happened [or] that police officers were in her front yard." She "fired outside at whoever had shot her husband," and the officers "each fired at Mrs. Dotson—another 19 rounds. Fortunately, she was not hit." At that point, according to the complaint, the officers "finally announced themselves, and Kimberly Dotson told them that someone had shot her husband and requested their help." She "did not realize even at that moment that the three police officers had killed her husband," which she did not learn "until she was finally told eight hours later at the police station where she was detained." After the shooting, the lawsuit says, "the officers involved did not disclose to investigators that they were at the wrong address, which was the error leading to the tragic result and without which it would not have occurred." The mistake "was discovered by other officers who arrived at the scene." Garcia offers a somewhat different account in his order dismissing the Fourth Amendment claims. Dotson "held a firearm in his right hand," the judge writes. "Without warning, Dotson placed both hands on his firearm and raised it in the direction of Officers Wasson and Estrada. The Defendant officers perceived Dotson to present an imminent threat to their safety." Wasson "shouted to Dotson, 'Hey, hands up!'" Garcia says. "At the same time, Dotson raised his firearm parallel to the ground and pointed it in Officers Wasson and Estrada's direction. Officer Wasson fired his service weapon. Officers Estrada and Goodluck fired as well." Garcia notes that "just two seconds elapsed from the moment Dotson opened his front door to the time the Defendant officers shot him." The officers therefore "had insufficient time to deescalate the encounter without risking their safety," he says. By the same token, of course, Dotson had insufficient time to understand what was happening. The plaintiffs, Garcia notes, argued that Dotson "was likely blinded by a flashlight and had little reason to know that police were at his home and not some would-be assailant." Garcia dismisses that argument as "largely speculative," saying "there is nothing in the record to substantiate Plaintiffs' suggestion that Dotson was blinded and was unaware of who was knocking at his door." But it is hardly plausible to suppose that Dotson, who was at home with his wife and their two children, knew the men at his door were police officers but nevertheless threatened them with a gun. In any case, Garcia says, what really matters is that Wasson et al. reasonably perceived Dotson as posing a potentially deadly threat. According to Garcia, the fact that Dotson would still be alive but for the officers' carelessness in going to the wrong house—a mistake that not only could have been recognized before Wasson knocked on the door but was in fact recognized by Goodluck—does not affect the Fourth Amendment analysis. The officers "did not violate the Fourth Amendment by merely showing up at Dotson's home," Garcia writes. "And though the Defendant officers' error was the reason they ended up at the Dotsons' residence, that mistake was not the factor precipitating their use of force." Garcia thus endorsed the position that the officers' lawyer, Luis Robles, took. "This case is undeniably tragic—not only for the Dotson family but also for the officers," Robles told CNN in 2023. "The officers didn't go to the Dotson house with any intention to use deadly force. But because Mr. Dotson pointed a gun at the officers, that gave them no other choice but to shoot him." Garcia issued his decision on the same day that the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that assessing the use of deadly force requires consideration of more than "the moment of the threat." The justices said that narrow approach, which had been adopted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, was inconsistent with the principle that the constitutionality of deadly force depends on "the totality of the circumstances." But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, which includes New Mexico, had already said that analysis requires considering whether "reckless or deliberate conduct during the seizure unreasonably created the need to use such force." In Garcia's view, the late-night visit at the wrong house that resulted in Dotson's death did not amount to such recklessness. He is not alone in concluding that police cannot reasonably be expected to make sure they are in the right place when they approach or even break into someone's home. But despite Garcia's ruling, Dotson's family can still pursue claims under the state constitution and the New Mexico Tort Claims Act. The post A Federal Judge Says New Mexico Cops Reasonably Killed an Innocent Man at the Wrong House appeared first on
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Historic gay bar Roosters reopens in West Palm Beach 5 years after fire
H.G. Roosters, West Palm Beach's iconic gay bar, has reopened five years after being destroyed by a fire during the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Longtime patrons and politicos crowded into the 80-year-old stone façade building on Belvedere Road on May 19 to hail the restoration of an integral piece of Palm Beach County's history. In honor of its reopening, the Historical Society of Palm Beach County will be hosting a presentation next month on the bar's role in the county's LGBTQ community. In the meantime, here are five things to know about Roosters: When H.G. Roosters opened in 1984, Palm Beach County was populated with several other gay bars, which served a key role as community centers at a time when homosexuality was less widely accepted. Now, as Roosters owner A.J. Wasson told The Palm Beach Post in 2020, those original bars are gone. (Several newer gay bars operate throughout the area). "We're the longest-running gay bar in the state of Florida, for 36 years,' he said. 'There were (once) 19 other gay bars in Palm Beach County, These bars were community centers, for like-minded people who weren't going to judge them.' Palm Beach County's first gay pride parade was held in 1992 in Howard Park — and the owners of Roosters were integral in organizing it. As The Post reported in 2021: 'The bar has served as a hub for civil rights and anti-violence initiatives, AIDS service organizations and others. Its staff in 1992 helped organize the county's first Gay Pride festival, held at Howard Park.' Roosters' historic importance was formalized in 2021, when West Palm Beach city commissioners voted to add it to the city's register of historic places. It was a rare distinction. As The Post reported, Roosters was 'thought then to be only the third LGBTQ bar in the country honored with that designation, with the others being the Atlanta Eagle in Georgia and the Stonewall Inn in New York, site of the riots in 1969 that were a major flashpoint in the push for LGBTQ rights and acceptance.' When bars and restaurants across the country were forced to close in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Roosters' owner let the bar's insurance lapse so he could continue to pay his employees. 'I didn't in my wildest dreams think about a fire," Wasson told The Post later. Some two months later, a fire erupted in the building at 823 Belvedere Road, ignited by oily rags that had been used to sand benches, destroying the entire interior except the bar. The Post characterized it as 'an exclamation point of pain in a city whose businesses were reeling.' Roosters' owner had let the business's insurance lapse before the fire that ravaged the building in May 2020. So rebuilding it was a costly endeavor, with costs estimated at $1.7 million. The city commission decided to contribute to the cause, approving $166,000 in grant money last year. "I heartily support this," Mayor Keith James said at the time. "H.G. Roosters has been a landmark, if you will, in this city on behalf of the LGBTQ community, and I think that this is something we should certainly do as a city to keep that building up and running and for what it stands for." Andrew Marra is a reporter at The Palm Beach Post. Reach him at amarra@ This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: H.G. Roosters, historic West Palm gay bar, reopens 5 years after fire
Yahoo
04-03-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
MIPS shifts strategy toward robots and designing chips
By Stephen Nellis (Reuters) - MIPS, a decades-old Silicon Valley company that once competed directly with Arm Holdings in providing a computing architecture, said on Tuesday it was shifting strategies to design a suite of chips for artificial intelligence-enabled robots. MIPS traces its roots back to the mid-1980s, when Stanford University Professor John Hennessey co-founded the firm to commercialize a nimbler way to carry out computing tasks, called a computing architecture. See for yourself — The Yodel is the go-to source for daily news, entertainment and feel-good stories. By signing up, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy. MIPS chips were known for processing data very quickly in specialized applications like networking gear and self-driving cars. The company traded through a succession of owners before licensing some of its technology for use in China and entering bankruptcy. But MIPS emerged from bankruptcy in 2021 and announced that it would focus using the RISC-V computing architecture, an open alternative to Arm, and won customers such as autonomous driving firm Mobileye. Along the way, MIPS has always sold intellectual property to other firms who designed complete chips. MIPS said Tuesday that it is shifting strategies and will design its own chips, though it will still license technology as well. The company will focus on three key areas of robotics - chips that do sensing, chips that calculate which action for a robot to take next and chips that can control a robot's motors and actuators. Sameer Wasson, chief executive of MIPS, said those markets are expected to grow as recent advances in AI are applied to new areas such as humanoid robots. To win that business, it is better to show up with a working chip than a PowerPoint presentation, Wasson said, even if the end goal is a licensing deal. "It doesn't mean MIPS is going to overnight turn into a silicon company. I don't see that," Wasson told Reuters. "But I think we've got to give the ecosystem confidence that this can be done." Wasson said MIPS will initially focus on the automotive industry. "I expect this technology to be in a car towards the end of '27 and start to hit volume in the '28 timeframe," Wasson said, without naming specific customers.
Reuters
04-03-2025
- Automotive
- Reuters
MIPS shifts strategy toward robots and designing chips
March 4 (Reuters) - MIPS, a decades-old Silicon Valley company that once competed directly with Arm Holdings (O9Ty.F), opens new tab in providing a computing architecture, said on Tuesday it was shifting strategies to design a suite of chips for artificial intelligence-enabled robots. MIPS traces its roots back to the mid-1980s, when Stanford University Professor John Hennessey co-founded the firm to commercialize a nimbler way to carry out computing tasks, called a computing architecture. MIPS chips were known for processing data very quickly in specialized applications like networking gear and self-driving cars. The company traded through a succession of owners before licensing some of its technology for use in China and entering bankruptcy. But MIPS emerged from bankruptcy in 2021 and announced that it would focus using the RISC-V computing architecture, an open alternative to Arm, and won customers such as autonomous driving firm Mobileye (MBLY.O), opens new tab. Along the way, MIPS has always sold intellectual property to other firms who designed complete chips. MIPS said Tuesday that it is shifting strategies and will design its own chips, though it will still license technology as well. The company will focus on three key areas of robotics - chips that do sensing, chips that calculate which action for a robot to take next and chips that can control a robot's motors and actuators. Sameer Wasson, chief executive of MIPS, said those markets are expected to grow as recent advances in AI are applied to new areas such as humanoid robots. To win that business, it is better to show up with a working chip than a PowerPoint presentation, Wasson said, even if the end goal is a licensing deal. "It doesn't mean MIPS is going to overnight turn into a silicon company. I don't see that," Wasson told Reuters. "But I think we've got to give the ecosystem confidence that this can be done." Wasson said MIPS will initially focus on the automotive industry. "I expect this technology to be in a car towards the end of '27 and start to hit volume in the '28 timeframe," Wasson said, without naming specific customers.
