Dr. Karmele Llano Sanchez was working as a vet on the Indonesian island of Borneo when she was called to treat an orangutan called Jojo. It was an experience Sanchez says changed her life forever.

Jojo was being kept illegally as a pet, and when Sanchez found him he was chained up by his ankle and surrounded by litter and dirty sewage water. She broke open the chain and gave him some medication. But once she was done, she had to put the chain back on and leave Jojo because there was nowhere to take him. 

This encounter, back in 2008, drove her to set up a center to rehabilitate orangutans. A year later, she went back to get Jojo. After years of mistreatment and poor nutrition, he was disabled and had been left unable to survive in the wild, but he would never be chained up again.

Today, Sanchez’s team of more than 250 people at the Indonesian branch of International Animal Rescue is on the frontline of rescuing and rehabilitating vulnerable orangutans on Borneo before releasing them — when possible — back into the wild.

About 87 percent of the world’s orangutans live on Borneo, although their numbers have fallen dramatically over the past two decades. Conservationists estimate 150,000 have been lost from the island’s forests in the past 16 years alone, leaving as few as 70,000.

Some of the animals that Sanchez’s team has rescued had been taken from their mothers to be illegally sold as pets, or had spent their entire lives imprisoned or chained up in captivity, like Jojo. But a significant number had ended up stranded, starved or orphaned as a result of the systematic destruction of the rainforest for a cheap, mass-produced commodity few consumers have even heard of: palm oil.

From snack foods to cosmetics, about half of the packaged items in our grocery stores contain palm oil. To produce the oil, huge swaths of rainforest in Indonesia and neighboring Malaysia are cleared every year. As well as being a significant driver of climate pollution, human rights abuses and labor exploitation, this deforestation destroys fragile, biodiverse habitats on which animals such as orangutans — but also rhinos, tigers and elephants — depend.

While some brands proudly advertise their use of sustainable palm oil — meaning production has to meet certain environmental and labor standards — in reality, there’s no such thing, Sanchez says.

“Sustainable? I mean, monoculture cannot be sustainable, period,” says the 39-year-old, shaking her head. “If you maybe ask me about a more environmentally friendly palm oil, yes, it would be possible. Although at the moment it does not exist.”

The work Sanchez and her team does is messy, complicated stuff that involves bringing together companies, government authorities and communities in an effort to get primates back to their natural habitats — even if this isn’t everyone’s priority — and ideally prevents the need for any rescue efforts to start with. Sanchez is adamant that while this kind of cross-sector work is hard, it is vital since rehabilitation and reintroduction efforts alone are not a solution.

“It’s like when you are sick and you get a [painkiller] — you treat the symptoms but you don’t really solve the root of the problem. You can be treating the symptoms forever, right?” she says.

The answer, says Sanchez, lies in the private sector’s willingness to take the environment into account long before any forest destruction has occurred, to ensure orangutans’ habitat is not destroyed. While some companies have realized that it’s good for them to explore more sustainable ways of development, there are still so many that just don’t care, she says.

Then there’s the problem of companies relying on International Animal Rescue to remove orangutans once they have cut down forest. “It’s good that they call us [when they need help],” Sanchez says. “But, on the other hand, they should have never cleared forest where there were orangutans in the first place. We want to protect the animals, we want to save the animals, but we don’t want to be like a garbage cleaning service for these companies, you know: ‘I clear everything and then I find a couple of orangutans and then you come and pick them up. Problem solved!’ Right?”

Individuals have a role too — “you know, us, normal people,” Sanchez says. As palm oil consumers, we all need to put pressure on the private sector to do the right thing because we have power. If we stop consuming items, the whole system collapses.

“We can’t continue consuming as much as we do and pretend that we are going to protect the environment, it’s just not possible,” she says. “Chocolates, ice cream, snacks, Doritos — you know, you can live without them.”

Sanchez is hopeful there’s still time to do something if we act fast. “We are this generation of people seeing this massive extinction of wildlife species happen, you know,” she says. “It’s kind of at our fingertips and we are able to do something about it. Maybe it will be too late for the next generation. That’s a big responsibility. But it’s also a good feeling. That’s what keeps us going.”

U.K. viewers can follow Sanchez and her team in Borneo as they fight to save indigenous orangutans in “Red Ape: Saving the Orangutan” at 9 p.m. BST on May 10 on BBC Two.

For more content and to be part of the “This New World” community, follow our Facebook page. HuffPost’s “This New World” series is funded by Partners for a New Economy and The Kendeda Fund. All content is editorially independent, with no influence or input from the foundations. If you have an idea or tip for the editorial series, send an email to thisnewworld@huffpost.com

The allegations that former New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman physically and emotionally abused four women are violent and disturbing. But the fact that Schneiderman publicly advocated for women while allegedly abusing them in private adds another layer of horror to this story, which was reported this week in The New Yorker.

In his role as New York’s top law enforcement officer, from which he resigned on Monday, Schneiderman fought for women’s rights. The man who allegedly choked women in private introduced a domestic violence bill to make strangulation a violent felony. The man accused of slapping women so hard they had to seek medical attention recently filed a lawsuit against Harvey Weinstein and tweeted his support for the Me Too movement. And the same man who allegedly threatened to kill his girlfriends and called them “whores” promoted policies to better protect sexual assault survivors.

The Me Too movement has shown that offenders don’t all fit the same mold. Louis C.K., Charlie Rose, Al Franken ― all have been accused of predatory behavior despite their overtly feminist and progressive politics. Schneiderman’s case seems particularly difficult to reconcile given that he’s being accused of the very kind of abuse he tried to prevent throughout this career.

HuffPost spoke with Lori Haskell, a Toronto-based psychologist who specializes in sexual violence, about why equal rights crusaders can also be can predators.

I think that offenders like this actually live with a cognitive split. They think of abusers as sexist men who would never do the type of work that they are doing. They don’t have an understanding that these acts of violence can be part of someone who considers himself to be quite equal and reciprocal in his relationships. And when they act aggressively or violently, they try to say, “This is part of a consensual sexual act. This isn’t part of how I treat women. This is something disconnected over here that’s private. This is not about who I am as a person.” And then they justify their violent behavior with some explanation that they were wrongfully accused or that these women provoked the abuse or wanted it.

Our prefrontal cortex helps us inhibit impulses so we can think through and organize our thoughts and responses. When the moral reasoning part of our brain gets deactivated by alcohol or high levels of adrenaline and stress, other impulses from our limbic system come to the forefront.

We have a lot of these really negative emotional memories called implicit memories ― they are not part of the narrative we have of ourselves. They could include violent fantasies or deep-seated fears about loss of control. Schneiderman may not be aware that on an intimate level, he has a desire to be in charge of or dominate women, but when he’s in those moments and is fueled by alcohol, he has reactions and behaviors that he’s not able to inhibit with his prefrontal cortex.

Men who think“I’m not sexist” and “I think violence against women is wrong”really do integrate these beliefs into their identities. When men like Trump are blatantly sexist and say demeaning things, it’s so easy for other men to think, “I’m not him like him so I’m not an abuser.” Some men are only aggressive like this in intimate relationships with women. They aren’t the guys that are going to make sexist jokes and they aren’t intentionally thinking, “How can I harm a woman?” But they have these private moments where they feel insecure or threatened or triggered. They might be inappropriately sexually aroused by problematic beliefs and images to do with controlling women, and commit an act of violence or aggression.

They do. It’s not one type of man who commits these acts. It’s easy to demonize men who use their status to construct a world where they can have access and power and domination. It’s been easy for other men to say that’s unacceptable. But to varying degrees there’s a lot of men with similar attitudes and behaviors. It’s the same as racism. When white people see blatant racist behaviors, they can be outraged and say, “That’s not me.” But they don’t often look at the many ways they may hold some similar views and have racist attitudes.

I don’t know how much of that would be a conscious choice. I think more likely is people in incredibly powerful positions letting themselves exploit it. You have to be almost like a psychopath to actually think, “I’m going to become a doctor and have access to kids’ bodies so I can sexually violate them.” That is so disturbed. I think lots of men get in these positions of power, the opportunity is there, and they don’t stop themselves.

You can only change implicit experiences by recognizing certain patterns of behavior and working to change yourself. Schneiderman would have had to think, “There’s a number of times now where I found myself with women and behaved in appalling ways. I don’t know what triggered me and why. But I need to understand this and I need to deal with this differently.” I’ve worked with men who will hold onto the belief that what they did was consensual. When they get to a place of admitting they did it, they are upset. But they can’t stay with that realization. Men who have sexually assaulted women will often backpedal and say, “Her body was saying ‘yes’ even if she was saying ‘no.’” To think “I’ve harmed someone” is something many people feel extremely upset about.

Need help? In the U.S., call 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) for the National Domestic Violence Hotline.

Russian-linked hackers had the ability to alter or delete voter registration information in a handful of states during the 2016 election, but there’s no evidence they did so, according to a Senate report released Tuesday.

The Department of Homeland Security has previously publicly acknowledged that Russians scanned systems in 21 states and were able to “penetrate” a handful. But cybersecurity experts say the report Tuesday from the Senate intelligence committee offers new details on what exactly Russian-backed hackers could have done once they got inside election systems.

“In at least six states, the Russian-affiliated cyber actors went beyond scanning and conducted malicious access attempts on voting-related websites. In a small number of states, Russian-affiliated cyber actors were able to gain access to restricted elements of election infrastructure,” the report says. “In a small number of states, these cyber actors were in a position to, at a minimum, alter or delete voter registration data; however, they did not appear to be in a position to manipulate individual votes or aggregate vote totals.”

The report, part of the Senate intelligence committee’s inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 election, says the committee saw “no evidence” any votes or voter registration information was altered or changed.

“The report paints a clearer picture of the overall Russian cyber campaign than I’ve previously seen, leaving no doubt that the voter registration system attacks are just the beginning of what we can expect,” J. Alex Halderman, a computer science professor at the University of Michigan, wrote in an email. He added that the report notes the attacks may have been a practice run for more sophisticated attacks in the future.

“We knew that there was an actual breach of the Illinois voter registration system (but apparently no success in altering registration data),” Lawrence Norden, deputy director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, noted in an email. “I am not aware of any other state that has acknowledged cyber actors gained access to restricted elements of the election infrastructure.”

Altering voter registration could mean a number of things, including potentially removing people from the voter rolls.

“If jurisdictions are not prepared for this kind of thing, it could lead to long lines and lost votes,” he said. States can take steps to mitigate confusion, he added, by regularly auditing their rolls, backing up information and having a contingency plan in place on Election Day.

The Senate report says that the Russians undertook “a wide variety of intelligence-related activities targeting the U.S. voting process” beginning at least as early as 2014 and continuing to Election Day. Those activities included “operations likely aimed at preparing to discredit the integrity of the U.S. voting process and election results.”

The report is based on information self-reported by the states as well as assessments from DHS and the FBI. The committee conceded there were “collection gaps” in its assessment of Russian activity and that there may have been more undetected activity. Halderman said he believes the gaps “very likely” included attacks on vendors who supply vital election infrastructure to the states.

A National Security Agency document leaked last year said Russians likely hacked one election vendor. The company denies it was breached. The Senate report expresses concern that the companies that provide actual election equipment to different jurisdictions could be a ripe target for hacking.

“State local, territorial, tribal, and federal government authorities have very little insight into the cyber security practices of many of these vendors, and while the Election Assistance Commission issues guidelines for Security, abiding by those guidelines is currently voluntary,” the report says.

In the lead-up to Election Day, DHS inadequately responded to the cyberthreat, the report said, and the agency was “not well-positioned” to assist states in responding to a cyberthreat from Russia. While it attempted to contact state information technology officials about the general election security threat, the agency was unable to convey its specificity and severity. The report notes that the agency was caught in a kind of Catch-22 ― it wanted to inform states about a very real threat without creating the impression that U.S. election infrastructure is vulnerable to a breach.

The report notes that DHS and the states have made improvements and are working together more effectively now to address election security. Congress also recently approved $380 million for election security in states.

The committee also offered a series of recommendations to enhance security, including improving information sharing between states and DHS, conducting risk-limiting audits, installing monitoring sensors on state election systems and requiring that any voting machine purchased in the future have no Wi-Fi capabilities and leave a paper trail.

Candice Hoke, a co-founder of the Center for Cybersecurity and Privacy Protection at Ohio’s Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, said Americans should now presume that hostile adversaries know where vulnerabilities are in U.S. election infrastructure.

“They may use this info strategically in 2018,” she wrote in an email, “or could test disruptive activities in 2019 in preparation for 2020.”

A woman filed a lawsuit on Wednesday against rapper Young Lo, singer Chris Brown and dozens of others, alleging that Young Lo raped her multiple times while he and other defendants held her against her will at Brown’s home last February.

Prominent women’s rights attorney Gloria Allred is representing the woman, identified only as “Jane Doe” in the lawsuit, and is seeking damages for sexual battery, gender violence, battery, assault and negligence, among other charges, according to a copy of the suit that HuffPost obtained. 

The lawsuit alleges that Doe was at Los Angeles nightclub One Oak on Feb. 23, 2017, when Young Lo, whose real name is Lowell Grissom Jr., invited her and her then-roommate to meet Brown. The roommates went to join him and Brown for an “afterparty” at a recording studio where people were using drugs and alcohol, which made Doe uncomfortable.

Grissom allegedly took Doe’s cellphone from her at the studio and refused to give it back until she and her roommate went with him to Brown’s house. Brown’s home was surrounded by a fence and gate that required a code, the suit alleges, and both men refused to give her phone back or a code so she could leave.

The woman says that during her time at the house, guests continued to consume alcohol and illicit drugs, which may have included marijuana, cocaine, and the MDMA-based drug molly.

“Brown handed each female guest, including Plaintiff, a clear pill filled with white
powder and instructed them to take it to have a “good time,‘” the lawsuit states. “Plaintiff reasonably interpreted Brown’s instruction to have a ‘good time’ at his house to mean that he expected his female guests to later perform sexual acts with him and others while under the influence of these substances.”

“Plaintiff, who wanted to remain alert and who did not want to perform sexual acts with anyone, did not follow these instructions and declined to consume the pill(s),” the suit added.

During the party, Doe claims she isolated herself from the others and became scared as she noticed the men were in “possession of multiple guns in the house.” Grissom allegedly lured the woman’s roommate upstairs under the pretense of returning her cellphone to her, and then told Doe that her roommate was upstairs waiting for her.

Doe says she told her roommate that she did not want to engage in sex with Grissom and Brown. 

“Before Plaintiff could leave the bedroom, Grissom and Brown entered and closed the door behind them,” the lawsuit states. “They sat across from Plaintiff. Plaintiff spoke to Brown and Grissom, both of whom appeared to be under the influence of drugs. Plaintiff feared that they were out of control and that they would force themselves upon her in some manner against her will.” 

The lawsuit also claims that a woman, identified as “Doe X,” entered the room with several other women, and Grissom then blocked the door with a couch at Brown’s request. While some of the women began to undress, Doe tried to distance herself from the group. 

According to the lawsuit, Doe X pursued and violently grabbed Doe, forcing her to engage in oral sex with Grissom. (The lawsuit’s graphic description of the allegations follows.)

The lawsuit claims that Doe X pushed Doe down onto one of the beds in the room and sat on top of her face, using her legs to pin the woman down while forcing her to perform oral sex on her, the lawsuit claims.

“To compound Plaintiffs horror, Doe X was menstruating at the time,” the suit states. “While Doe X was forcing Plaintiff to perform oral sex on her, Grissom molested the lower half of Plaintiffs body using his mouth and hands.” 

Doe X moved Doe to another room, where Doe decided to take a shower to clean the other woman’s bodily fluids off of her, the suit alleges. It was there that Grissom allegedly snuck into the shower and continued his molestation. When Doe tried to flee, Grissom allegedly pushed her onto a bed in the connected bedroom and raped her. 

After that, Grissom allegedly took Doe to a laundry room and finally returned her phone to her. While she called a rideshare to leave, the lawsuit claims, Grissom raped her again. 

The woman immediately sought treatment for rape and reported the alleged event to the police, the suit says.

At some point during the night, the lawsuit claims Doe’s mother grew worried because she couldn’t reach her daughter. The mother used tracking software to find her daughter’s cellphone location and asked police to perform a wellness check. Brown allegedly refused to allow police through the gate to his property.

Representatives for Grissom and Brown did not immediately respond to HuffPost’s request for comment. 

Brown pleaded guilty in 2009 to assaulting his then-girlfriend Rihanna. He was also arrested in 2016 on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon after an hourslong standoff with police.

A judge granted Brown’s ex-girlfriend Karrueche Tran a five-year restraining order against him in June of last year. 

Need help? Visit RAINN’s National Sexual Assault Online Hotline or the National Sexual Violence Resource Center’s website.

Pakistan’s parliament passed landmark legislation on Tuesday that gives its transgender population fundamental civil rights. 

The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act defines gender identity as “a person’s innermost and individual sense of self as male, female or a blend of both or neither.” The measure allows citizens to choose their gender identity, and to have it reflected on all official documents, including driver’s licenses and passports. The legislation also outlaws all discrimination against transgender people in workplaces, schools and health care settings such as doctor’s offices. 

Members of the Pakistani parliament passed the bill in Islamabad on Tuesday and it now goes to President Mamnoon Hussain to be signed into law. It’s unclear when the legislation would take effect, NPR noted. 

The bill separates transgender people into three categories: intersex (known in Pakistan as “Khunsa”); eunuchs, who are assigned male at birth but undergo genital castration; and transgender men or women. In Pakistan, transgender people are often referred to as “KhawajaSira,” defined in the legislation as “any person whose gender identity and/or gender expression differs from the social norms and cultural expectations based on the sex they were assigned at the time of their birth.”

“Transgender people constitute one of the most marginalized communities in the country and they face problems ranging from social exclusion to discrimination, lack of education facilities, unemployment, lack of medical facilities and so on,” the bill reads.

The legislation does not include protections for gay, lesbian or bisexual citizens. 

“I heard about this yesterday morning and I was in a state of shock because I never thought something like this could happen within my own life in Pakistan,” Mehlab Jameel, an activist from Lahore, who helped write the bill, told NPR. “This kind of development is not only unprecedented in Pakistani history, but it’s one of the most progressive laws in the whole world.”

Pakistan’s population of 207 million includes a little over 10,000 transgender people, according to a 2017 census. Trans Action Pakistan reports that the trans community is often subjected to extreme violence, including sexual assault, rape, torture and execution. Trans people are often forced to resort to sex work or begging in order to survive.

The Backstreet Boys are apparently wannabe members of the Spice Girls.

On their recurring cruise (yes, there is a literal Backstreet Boys Cruise), the iconic boy band came on stage during Tuesday night’s performance donning some spicy outfits.

Nick Carter was dressed as Emma Bunton’s Baby Spice, AJ McLean was Melanie Brown’s Scary Spice, Kevin Richardson was Victoria Beckham’s Posh Spice, Howie Dorough was Geri Halliwell’s Ginger Spice and Brian Littrell was Melanie Chisholm’s Sporty Spice.

Confused? Same here. Enthralled? Also same.

The Boys reportedly sang the Girls’ hits “Wannabe” and “Say You’ll Be There,” followed by other girl power anthems like No Doubt’s “Just A Girl,” Pink’s “Raise Your Glass” and Britney Spears’ “Oops!... I Did It Again.” Throwback Tuesday, much?! 

According to Instagram, the inspiration behind the nostalgia-inducing outfits was to celebrate “all of the girl power that’s kept us going for 25 years.”

Cheers to that!

JAKARTA, Indonesia ― The bell rings in a garment factory on the outskirts of the sprawling city, signaling the end of a nine-hour shift. “No overtime for me today,” says Istiyaroh as she rushes to collect her belongings from the lockers.

Workers gradually flow outside into the steamy late afternoon heat. As the crowd of mostly women grows in size and noise, Istiyaroh (who goes by Istiyfor short) jumps into one of the vans taking employees to the distant exit.

Squashed among a dozen others giggling in their colored headscarves, she sums up her day: “I double-stitched the shoulders of 80 shirts per hour,” she says, relieved but tired. “But sometimes it’s hard to meet the target.”

Istiy, 35, is one of the over 2 million garment industry workers in Indonesia, the world’s fourth most-populous country and one of the top 10 garment exporters. Indonesia is less reliant on this industry than other developing southeast Asian countries, like Cambodia and Bangladesh. Yet, some 60 percent of Indonesia’s garment workers are women.

And it is women who will be mostly affected by what the United Nations’ International Labour Organization identifies as alooming risk for millions of workers in Asia: automation, robots and artificial intelligence.

Female workers in Indonesia represent one of the most vulnerable links in a vast global supply chain that provides cheap, quickly produced clothing for the likes of H&M, Zara, Adidas and Nike. The irony is that the world’s hunger for fast fashion may one day put women like Istiy out of a job. As demand increases — the global apparel industry is expected to reach sales of $1.65 trillion by 2020, a 60 percent leap from 2011 — the industry is steaming ahead with new and higher levels of automation to accelerate and optimize production.

“Throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, the cost of labor was so cheap it stymied innovation in the sector generally,” the ILO’s Gary Rynhart said. But working conditions and wages have slowly improved over the years. And now the industry is approaching a crossroads, where automation offers an opportunity to cut costs again and churn out products faster than ever.

“The technology now exists to automate a lot or maybe all of those jobs.” Rynhart said. “It’s a question of when the cost of labor is no longer a decisive factor ... it’s a ‘when,’ not an ‘if,’ scenario. And as we have seen, technological change can happen fast.”

Governments in Asia and weak labor unions are failing to address these warnings, with millions of jobs possibly at risk, according to the ILO. And garment workers can sense that change is coming.

“I am worried,” says Istiy. “I don’t want to become unemployed.”  

The van stops and she walks the 15 minutes through a noisy alleyway to her home. As is the case for thousands of other garment workers, home is a six-square-foot hot cubicle flimsily partitioned from its neighbors for which she pays $25 a month.

Crammed under the metal roof are a makeshift kitchen, two plastic wardrobes with neatly piled clothes, a sewing machine, a TV and the mattress she unfolds every night. Precious personal touches hang on the wall: a string of Christmas lights and photos of her two daughters ― the 11-year-old in dancing outfits, and the 17-year-old wearing sunglasses.

Istiy’s girls live hundreds of miles away with her elderly parents, and she provides for all of them with a $250 monthly salary. It is higher than in most of Southeast Asia, but so are living costs in the city.

Her world was very different seven years ago, when she was a stay-at-home mom and her husband supported the family selling nasi goreng chicken on the street. But his death, following complications from pneumonia, changed everything and forced Istiy to seek work that took her away from her daughters.

She insists life is OK as long as she can make her daughters happy. But even as she says it, her voice breaks: “When I open this door I feel so lonely, so lonely.”

“But what else can I do?”

This is an industry notorious for its lack of safety and in which many women face verbal, physical and sexual harassment. Automation might create a higher number of skilled jobs and make factory work less dangerous for some. But for women like Istiy, there are few certainties and plenty of fears.   

Much of the automation so far in Indonesia has aimed to optimize production by replacing old machinery, and to keep pace with tough regional competition. According to an ILO survey, 35 percent of companies in Indonesia reported upgrading technology in 2016, higher than the southeast Asia average of 27 percent. But while this kind of change is generally welcomed by workers, experts say automation is already picking up in a way that suggests job losses will start to rise.

The cost of labor is just one of the many reasons automation is starting to take hold in the country, but it looms large in the mind of Robert Siagian, a former garment factory worker and a leader of the national union Serikat Pekerja Nasional in North Jakarta.

“Whenever there was a minimum-wage increase, the company I worked at ... called a consultant to optimize costs,” Siagian said. “So they bought machinery to automate the process — like a cutting machine — and lay off people.”

He mentions a department where, six years ago, nine of 45 workers were made redundant while production increased over 30 percent. HuffPost met with one of these laid-off workers, a woman named Istikomah, who now lives in a village in West Java.

“I loved working with those modern machines,” she said, as her 3-year-old asked to play. “They improved working conditions and made our work more precise.”

“But with machines comes the pressure,” Istikomah added. “They expected us to work more because we had this splendid machinery — and targets got higher and higher. ... And if you didn’t meet that target, you would get scolded. Some colleagues got ill because they’d skipped lunch.”

“They wanted us to become machines,” she said.

Istikomah, who earns occasional money selling snacks, says she’s lucky because her husband has a good job. “But if all these women lose their jobs, most of them wouldn’t know what to do,” she said. “The government has to prepare, they should provide free training, education.”

Unions agree that automation isn’t all bad. It can increase productivity and protect workers from exposure to harmful chemicals in the textile dyeing process. But pre-planning is needed.

“Companies need to warn us at least two years before they buy new machines, to prepare,” said Elly Rosita Silaban of the Garteks Federation of Textile and Garment Workers Union.

New factory tech varies widely throughout the region. Some machines use lasers to cut far more layers of fabric than a human could, and with greater speed; others iron and sew items while people merely load and unload the finished products.

In a Pan Brothers sportswear factory in Tangerang, west Jakarta, activity is frenetic. Lines of sewing machines are humming as a dashboard sets workers their daily target. Yet, behind a glass wall with a sign reading “No photographs allowed” sits a two-week-old acquisition: a $20,000 machine from China which weighs the precise amount of feathers to fill each section of a down jacket and spreads them evenly.

“Until very recently, this was all done manually, with hands and sticks,” explained Marissi Jordan, assistant manager at Pan Brothers. Now the job requires half the people and is twice as productive, he adds.

But newer technology calls for ever lower levels of human intervention. The U.S.-based company SoftWear Automation has triggered much buzz with its Sewbot machine, which cuts and stitches together simple garments like T-shirts completely on its own ― no human required. The goal is to drastically shorten the supply chains of clothing companies, allowing consumers to eventually order personalized clothes with their exact measurements.

The Sewbot is available mostly to companies in the U.S. and Europe, for now.

Palaniswamy Rajan, chief executive of SoftWear Automation, claims these machines are not a threat to garment workers. Automation will “free energy for better and more skilled jobs, and humans will still be needed for more complex activities,” he said from his Atlanta headquarters.

In the long run, whether robots take over garment factories in Asia will be crucial for the future of women like Istiy. Yet, with such availability of cheap labor in Southeast Asia, it could be years before technology costs make the financial case for automation. And in Jakarta, workers laid off for a variety of reasons often become outsourced tailors, working at home with half the pay and fewer rights.

Fast-fashion giant H&M, which commissions the production of some of its garments from manufacturers in Indonesia, says it’s “hard to speculate” about the future of the industry.

“The Asian market is an important sourcing market to us,” a company spokesperson said by email. “But it is also an important retail market for our operations,” H&M added, referring to the gleaming shopping malls in Jakarta selling its products, though at prices Istiy can only dream of.

The ILO says that, overall, big brands like H&M have improved standards for working conditions. But David Welsh, country director in Southeast Asia for the Solidarity Center, a U.S.-based workers’ rights organization, says major clothing companies fail to prioritize their employees. “The brands control and seek out specific market dynamics and it’s a deliberately exploitative system,” he noted.

Consumers, meanwhile, are generally unaware of the precarious position garment workers occupy in Indonesia. Criticism of the industry tends to home in on countries like Bangladesh and Cambodia, where clothes manufacturing makes up an outsized part of the economy and stories about dangerous labor conditions and low paygrab international headlines.

“While the impact of automation in Indonesia could be very bad for those immediately affected, this doesn’t register in the global consciousness of media and consumers because the garment industry is a blip on the overall economy of Indonesia,” Welsh explained. 

Back in the cubicle, Istiy is eager to have her daily call with her daughters. Sunday she will go for a run with some neighbors, after cleaning the common toilets.

But now, too tired to cook anything other than instant noodles, she ends her day watching ”Karma,” an Indonesian reality show where the characters predict what future their actions have earned.

“I hope my family is proud of me,” she says.

For more content and to be part of the “This New World” community, follow our Facebook page. 

HuffPost’s “This New World” series is funded by Partners for a New Economy and The Kendeda Fund. All content is editorially independent, with no influence or input from the foundations. If you have an idea or tip for the editorial series, send an email to thisnewworld@huffpost.com

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s big day is fast approaching, which got us thinking about all of the British royal wedding traditions we may (or may not) see on May 19. 

Sure, you may be aware that female wedding guests don fancy hats and fascinators for the ceremony (a British custom not just reserved for royals). Who could forget the bold headwear Princess Beatrice of York wore at the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge? But there’s probably quite a few traditions you’ve never heard of before. Below, we delve into some of the lesser-known ones. 

 1. The bride carries a sprig of myrtle in her bouquet.

This tradition dates back to the 19th century when Prince Albert’s grandmother gave Queen Victoria some myrtle ― a symbol of good fortune in love and marriage ― which Victoria then planted in her garden at Osborne House on the Isle of Wight. She cut a sprig from that plant when her oldest daughter, Princess Victoria, got married in 1858. Since then, Queen Elizabeth II, Princess Diana and Kate have all carried a bouquet with myrtle from Victoria’s garden. The same bush is still thriving. 

“We take very good care of it,” a spokesperson for Osborne House told People.

2. The wedding band is made of Welsh gold.

In 1923, the Queen Mother (then Elizabeth Bowes Lyon) chose Welsh gold for her wedding ring when she married King George VI. According to The Telegraph, the nugget of gold used for the ring, which came from the now-closed Clogau St. David’s mine in North Wales, was a gift to the royal family and was later used to craft bands for other brides, including the queen, Princess Margaret and Diana. That piece of gold has since been nearly depleted. So in 2011, Kate received a band made from a different nugget in the royal family’s Welsh gold collection.

3. The newlyweds serve fruitcake at the reception. 

Fruitcake has been the wedding confection of choice for the British royal family for some time now. Everyone from Victoria and Albert to Charles and Diana to Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson to Will and Kate have served it at their nuptials. 

“A fruitcake was originally a symbol of wealth and prosperity because of its precious ingredients such as dried fruits, alcohol and spices,” London pastry chef Chris Dodd told Vogue. “Furthermore, the cake, in a way, represented the vastness of the British empire, using ingredients from far-flung corners of the globe. A wedding was, and is to this day, a time of celebration, and as such it calls for a cake to match the occasion.”

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, however, will be going in a different direction. In March, Kensington Palace announced that the couple decided on a lemon elderflower cake with buttercream frosting by chef Claire Ptak of London’s Violet bakery. It’s possible they will also have a smaller groom’s cake, as William did at his wedding. 

4. And after the wedding, guests receive a slice of the wedding cake in the mail. 

Because of its ingredients (e.g. alcohol and already dried and preserved fruits and nuts), fruitcake takes much, much longer to spoil than other desserts. Thus, it became customary for royal newlyweds to send their guests a slice of the cake in the mail with a thank-you note. Because Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are not serving fruitcake, they are unlikely to send their cake in the mail — but time will tell.

5. The bride leaves her bouquet at the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior inside Westminster Abbey.

This tradition began in 1923 with the Queen Mother as a way to honor her late brother Capt. Fergus Bowes-Lyon, who was killed during World War I.

Since then, other royal brides ― even those who did not marry at Westminster Abbey ― send the bridal bouquet to be laid on the grave on their behalf. 

6. The royal family member must receive the queen’s formal permission to tie the knot.  

According to the Succession to the Crown Act passed in 2013, the first six royals in line to the throne must have the queen’s consent to marry if they (and their descendants) are to be eligible to succeed to the British crown. The birth of Will and Kate’s third child, Louis, in April pushed Prince Harry to sixth in line. Prince Andrew, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie ― now seventh, eighth and ninth in line for the throne, respectively ― would not require the queen’s blessing to marry.

On March 14, two months ahead of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s wedding, the queen gave her formal blessing for the nuptials in an official letter that read: “I declare my consent to a contract of matrimony between my most dearly beloved grandson Prince Henry Charles Albert David of Wales and Rachel Meghan Markle.”

7. The groom wears military clothing for the ceremony.

Albert was the first British royal groom to sport a military uniform on his wedding day back in 1840. The queen, her husband, Philip, her sons Charles, Edward and Andrew, and her grandsons William and Harry have all served in the military. Both Charles and William wore military dress on their wedding days. Some speculate that Harry will do the same, though it’s possible he may wear morning dress attire ― a morning coat, a waistcoat and striped trousers ― instead. 

“The way this is different is that [Harry] is not in the direct line of succession,” royal expert and officer of arms Alastair Bruce told Town & Country. “He is a member of the royal family. This is a family wedding which is taking place not in public, not out of the public eye, but within the castle, which is much less visual.”

If he does wear military garb for the ceremony, Harry will likely change out of it afterward, as his brother, William, did at his 2011 wedding.

8. The royal family poses for formal wedding portraits.

Tradition dictates that the bride and groom should pose for an official portrait on the big day along with their immediate family and members of the bridal party.

Photographer Alexi Lubomirski, who shot Harry and Meghan’s engagement photos, has been named the official photographer for their wedding.

9. After the ceremony, there are typically not one but two receptions.

The ceremony typically begins around noon and is followed by a wedding “breakfast,” or luncheon, earlier in the day and a more intimate evening reception at night. 

A red tide is providing the California coastline with some brilliant bioluminescence at night.

Photographers on Tuesday and Wednesday shared gorgeous photos on Twitter of glowing waves that were captured on San Diego beaches.

People were blown away by how surreal the photos looked.

According to Scripps Institution of Oceanography, a department at the University of California, San Diego, the red tide is due to a vast number of dinoflagellates — a type of marine plankton that floats on or near the ocean’s surface. At night dinoflagellates can cause a neon blue color to beam from the water with waves or movement.

Dimitri Deheyn, a research scientist with Scripps, told NBCLA that the vibrant color is also a survival tactic.

“The algae makes a light when a fish or little shrimp tries to eat it,” he told the news outlet. “That light attracts a bigger fish that can eat whatever is trying to eat the algae.”

Scripps scientists say that red tides are unpredictable and not all of them create an electric hue. They do not know how long the current one will last, but previous red tides have lasted anywhere from a week to a month or even more.

Jack Fusco, a San Diego-based photographer who captured some of the red tides’s this week, told HuffPost that he’s been “lucky enough” to photograph the bioluminescence four times now, and offered some advice on how one can capture its beauty in a photo.

“For anyone planning on taking photos, I would definitely suggest bringing a tripod,” he said. “A long exposure will help bring out even more of the incredible blue glow in the waves!”

To check out more of Fusco’s work, check out his Instagram and Twitter accounts.

Gabriela Landazuri contributed to this piece.

Warning! Not even the Avengers can save you from the possible spoilers below for “Infinity War” and “Avengers 4.” 

If you’re still reeling from the end of “Avengers: Infinity War,” take solace in the fact that you’re not alone in your misery. You, like everyone else, still have to wait a year for the second half of the story, which will take place in the Russo brothers’ upcoming, still-untitled “Avengers” movie.

Or do you?

An interesting idea popped up in the Marvel spoilers subreddit this month, after user ilurkthingsreborn claimed to have access to an inside source with intelligence on the upcoming movie.

Specifically, intel on the fate of Captain America and the weapon he’s hinted at wielding for some time.

Now, stay with us here, because in the world of leaks things can get complicated quickly. A bit of background information:

An account with the name ilurkthings existed prior to the ilurkthingsreborn version, and it leaked accurate plot points about “Infinity War” weeks before the movie’s release, apparently revealing details about the post-credit scene and Spider-Man’s death in Iron Man’s arms. That account has since been deleted, but you can still see remnants of it when Redditors refer to ilurkthings leaks.

This new account, ilurkthingsreborn, is allegedly the same person(s) using the same Marvel source(s). Subreddit moderators have allowed this May 1 post to remain in the forum for more than a week; they’ve given no indication that ilurkthingsreborn isn’t the same leaker as before.

Now to the post. It contains a lot of disparate details.

The plot of “Avengers 4” will revolve around the Avengers who survived Thanos’ deadly finger snap in “Infinity War” going back in time, possibly to retrieve the Infinity Stones (using a Tony Stark-made Infinity Gauntlet) to prevent Thanos from ever procuring them. Hulk will also apparently use the Stark Gauntlet and lose his arm in the process.

It sounds like a bunch of really riveting fan fiction until you get to one particular piece of information that could validate the whole thing. It pertains to a fight scene involving Captain America, Thor and Thanos:

I was told that at one point bearded Steve and Thor have a fight scene against Thanos where Thor gets blown away and Cap actually ends up weilding Mjolnir because he has finally been found worthy. However I was told that Thanos does end up killing Cap. 

OK, setting Cap’s possible death aside (fans were predicting he’d kick the bucket in “Infinity War,” and that didn’t happen), this “leak,” if true, could provide an answer to a long-standing question in the Marvel Cinematic Universe: Yes, Cap is worthy of Thor’s hammer, Mjolnir.

At first, the Reddit detail about the hammer seemed questionable for a few reasons. Primarily because Thor’s sister Hela shattered his hammer in “Thor Ragnarok” (2017), causing the god of thunder to wield a new weapon in “Infinity War,” dubbed Stormbreaker. Getting the new weapon is a significant part of Thor’s storyline. So why would Mjolnir come back into play in the proceeding movie? This requires an explanation, right?

Then I remembered an interview I had with the directors of “Infinity War” and the upcoming “Avengers 4” film, Joe and Anthony Russo, following the release of “Captain America: Civil War” (2016) two years ago. During that interview, I asked them about Cap and Mjolnir.

It’s important to know that in the MCU, only characters who are “worthy” can pick up Thor’s hammer. No one knows exactly what “worthy” means. But if you’re not worthy, then stop. There’s no hammer time. But in “Avengers: Age of Ultron” (2015), Captain America attempts to lift Mjolnir, and it moves ever so slightly in the process. He doesn’t succeed in picking it up, but Thor is effectively spooked by Cap’s abilities.

It seemed relevant enough a budge to ask the Russos, since I had the opportunity, whether Cap was actually worthy and just let go too soon. Their cagey responses had my spidey reporter senses tingling, even back then.

“I don’t know that might be a ...” Anthony Russo said, considering his words, “that might be a question for future storytellers.”

“Might be a little too specific for us to answer,” Joe Russo said.

A question for “future storytellers”? Might be “too specific for us to answer”?

The Russo brothers directed “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” (2014) and “Captain America: Civil War” (2016) for Marvel. If anyone knew about Cap’s worthiness at the time, it was them. I didn’t end up including the Mjolnir/Cap quotes in my story two years ago, but why were they being so coy?

Could it be that Cap holding Thor’s hammer was a spoiler for one of the Russos’ two then-yet-to-be-released “Avengers” movies? (Mjolnir didn’t appear in “Infinity War,” so that leaves “Avengers 4” on the table.)

Maybe, but in order for that to be so, “Avengers 4” would need to involve some sort of time travel, which, coincidentally, is the exact rumor that’s been going around.

Leaked set photos support the theory that we’re going to see the surviving Avengers revisit iconic scenes from the previous movies. The pics show Ant-Man and Captain America at the battle of New York, which occurred in 2012′s “The Avengers” and did not originally feature Ant-Man.

Thor’s hammer was definitely present at the battle. So if the characters do indeed fly back in time, a Thanos-vs.-Thor-and-Cap battle scene, in which Cap finally gets his hand on Mjolnir, is possible. (The thing is, ilurkthingsreborn also claimed Thanos eventually kills Cap with the hammer, adding a whole other, devastating layer to things. Is Thanos’ cause ― destroying half the life in the universe ― worthy, too? Uh, I hope not.)

Of course, time travel has its problems. The Infinity Stones play a role in several different Marvel films, so a change in the stones’ timeline could potentially alter the plots of the other MCU movies that already exist, like “Guardians of the Galaxy.” 

As an alternative to straight-up time traveling, some fans have suggested the Avengers could journey into the past using alternate realities connected to the Quantum Realm, a concept we first learned about in “Ant-Man.” This is another dimension where space and time are irrelevant, which you access through magical energy ― or by turning subatomic, like Ant-Man does.

The Quantum Realm would explain why “Ant-Man and the Wasp” and “Captain Marvel,” both movies that supposedly use the realm in some capacity, are set to come out before “Avengers 4.” They might establish more ground rules for the final “Avengers” installment. 

Heavier use of this other realm could also explain why Sebastian Stan (who plays Bucky Barnes) has talked about acting in a scene with Michelle Pfeiffer in the MCU. (The actress is set to play Janet Van Dyne in “Ant-Man and the Wasp,” a character thought to be lost forever in the Quantum Realm. And Bucky, aka the Winter Soldier, turned to ash in “Infinity War.”)

Some reality altering has to happen here.

On a recent episode of the “Happy Sad Confused” podcast, the Russo brothers told host Josh Horowitz that the upcoming “Avengers” movie is mostly filmed but could change a lot in editing. So, who knows what we’ll actually see in the end! But these leaks could be somewhat of a road map for those hoping not to turn to ash before the next movie comes out.

Here are a few other theories on the fate of “Avengers 4”: 

Ant-Man secretly becomes part of all the Marvel movies

Was Ant-Man secretly in the previous “Avengers” movies, just miniaturized and pulling strings in the background?

Well, according to the supposedly leaked photos, he was/will be? 

An Avenger will sacrifice another

If part of the new movie revolves around retrieving the Infinity Stones before Thanos does, an Avenger will have to obtain the Soul Stone. And in order to do that, they’ll have to kill someone they love. So far, the internet is betting Iron Man will sacrifice Captain America.

Do they actually love each other right now, though? 

It seems more likely, to me at least, that Black Widow will have to sacrifice Hulk (or vice versa) and that’s the reason the movies have focused on their potential romance so much. (Ilurkthingsreborn suggested Iron Man will sacrifice Pepper Potts, but that seems a little too dark.)

An Avenger will wield the Infinity Gauntlet

The leaks said it’ll be Hulk, but I’d put my money on Captain America. In an interview with “Infinity War” writers Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, they said the goal for “Infinity War” is to put Cap, a former sickly, scrawny kid, in the most unbelievable situation imaginable.

What would be more unbelievable than that same kid, all grown up, using a gauntlet that’s powerful enough to destroy half the universe?

That or using a weapon in place of the god of thunder. Either choice sounds pretty worthy.

SEATTLE ― The 9:30 a.m. meeting of the Seattle City Council’s Finance and Neighborhoods Committee ― the most boring name imaginable ― was overflowing. People in the crowd held up signs: “Don’t vote our jobs away” or “Tax the rich.”

The committee was taking public comment on the proposed Progressive Tax on Business, a fee on Seattle’s largest corporations to support homeless services. Last week, Amazon — the employer of more than 45,000 Seattleites that is on the hook for an estimated $20 million under the tax — announced it was pausing construction planning on a tower downtown and would consider renting some of its office space to other companies if the fee goes through.

Now the mayor and City Council have to decide whether to take this threat seriously. About a third of the attendees at Wednesday’s hearing were wearing construction vests. One of them told committee members that if the tax passes, workers will have to go home, look their kids in the eye and tell them Daddy doesn’t have a job anymore. Another called a member of the City Council a communist (she’s actually a socialist) and said she “seems to be getting paid by the residents of Seattle to throw temper tantrums.”

The applause in the room was deafening.

But the fight is about more than just one company or one policy. It is about the growing challenge of running American cities and all the ways companies make it even harder. Seattle faces an impossible choice: Either raise revenue from employers and risk driving them away, or keep levying taxes on voters and risk a backlash that could exacerbate the very problem it’s trying to solve. Whatever happens here, it will be a template for the rest of the country.

Don’t Call It An ‘Amazon Tax’

The details of Seattle’s proposed tax are crucial to understanding why Amazon hates it so much. Under the current proposal, the city will charge large companies 26 cents for every hour their employees work. That’s about $520 per worker every year. Though the tax will apply only to companies with more than $20 million in revenue per year, or about 3 percent of Seattle businesses, Amazon employs about 145,000 people.

And that structure is only temporary. The tax is flat for the first three years: The same fee is levied on wages whether an employee earns $31,200 a year (the minimum wage here) or more than $100,000 (what many Amazon corporate employees make). But in 2021, the flat fee becomes a payroll tax. Large companies will have to pay 0.7 percent of their employees’ wages — that’s $220 per year for minimum wage workers and more than $700 for Amazon’s corporate employees.

It’s the second part, bigger taxes for bigger incomes, that seems to worry the companies here. A few days after Amazon’s announcement, the CEO of Seattle-based Zillow made the sametaking-our-ball-and-going-home threat, calling the tax “misguided and too blunt of an instrument.”

But you can’t talk about where the money comes from without talking about where it’s going. Homelessness is an emergency in Seattle. Literally. In 2015, the mayor issued an emergency proclamation over the sheer number of people sleeping outside and in their cars and overflowing from shelters. At last count, Seattle had 11,643 homeless people, and its home of King County had thethird-highest homeless concentration in the nation. A study last year by Zillow estimated that every 5 percent rise in Seattle rents pushed 258 more people into homelessness. Rents here rose 13.5 percent last year alone.

The proposed tax would raise about $75 million per year to help address this crisis, bringing the city’s total homelessness budget up to $200 million. Three-quarters of the revenue would go toward building affordable housing and a smaller chunk would go toward direct, immediate services — things like temporary shelters, “hygiene centers” and shelter beds.

“This isn’t about Amazon,” said Lisa Herbold, a Seattle City Council member and a co-sponsor of the tax. “It’s about the humanitarian crisis in our city.”

Amazon vs. Taxes

It’s clear that Seattle’s tax is going to piss off Amazon. The question is, how much?

Everything the company has said so far has been pretty tepid. Amazon has not, in fact, stopped construction on any downtown towers. It has stopped planning future construction, a much different (and less costly) decision. Similarly, the company announced it was exploring the option of subleasing some floors in one of its already-under-construction office buildings. That doesn’t mean Amazon is crying wolf, but it does mean there’s still a lot of uncertainty about the company’s response.

Even if members of the Seattle City Council approve the tax — hell, even if they triple it — Washington is still a relatively cheap place to do business. It has no income tax (which is effectively a pay raise for Amazon employees who move here from elsewhere), no capital gains tax and no corporate income tax. The city even passed an almost identical tax on employees, albeit at a much lower rate, in2006 before repealing it during the recession.

Then there’s the public relations aspect to consider. Though it will grow after 2021, Amazon’s tax bill under the law will be pocket change compared with its $1.6 billion in profits last quarter alone. Moving employees, halting construction and reversing course all have costs, too.

Plus, does a not-super-popular corporate behemoth really want to pull thousands of jobs out of a city over being asked to fund services for the homeless? While Amazon is less reputation-conscious and lesslikely to be harmed by a boycott than a lot of companies are, its executives must know that throwing a hissy fit over this law would create some backlash.

Amazon could still pull jobs out of Seattle anyway. The only thing CEO Jeff Bezos loves more than expanding his company is hating taxes. When a handful of states tried passing laws requiring internet retailers to collect sales tax in 2012, his vice president for global public policy called the efforts “unconstitutional.”

A few years ago, Amazon halted plans to build a warehouse in South Carolina when local lawmakers wouldn’t grant an exemption to the state sales tax. Bezos evenreportedly considered incorporating his company on a Native American reservation to avoid taxes. Just because leaving Seattle over a small tax increase would be bananas doesn’t mean it won’t happen.

This Proposal Is A Stopgap

In the past five years, Seattle has seen unprecedented growth, much of it driven by Amazon and other large companies. That has put unbearable strain on the housing market, schools and infrastructure. As the bill for services has grown, the way the city pays for them has become increasingly unjust.

Washington has the most regressive tax structure in the country. The poorest 20 percent of residents pay an average of 16.8 percent of their income in state taxes. The richest 1 percent pay just 2.4 percent. This means low-income people are effectively paying for the city’s growth.

And yet, nearly every route to fixing Seattle’s tax and revenue mess is blocked. The most obvious fix, an income tax, is illegal under the state constitution (or at least the way the state Supreme Court interpreted the constitution in 1951). Last year, the City Council passed a ”high earners tax,” but a lawsuit preventing its implementation was filed about 10 minutes later.

Alongside the (high and regressive) sales tax, Seattle relies heavily on property taxes. But, thanks to a 2001 ballot initiative, those revenues aren’t allowed to grow by more than 1 percent per year. Everything the city needs (libraries, fire stations, schools) has to be individually approved by voters. Though Seattle’s property taxes are below average compared with other cities, the constant levies and add-ons contribute to a sense among Seattleites that the city is squeezing them for more money every year without keeping up its end of the bargain.

Homelessness is the perfect encapsulation of this dynamic. As the city has grown, it’s nearly doubled its budget for homeless services. In 2016, voters approved a $290 million affordable housing levy. The city is getting more people into permanent housing than ever before.

But living here, it is immediately and viscerally clear that these efforts aren’t enough. Rising rents are pushing people onto the streets faster than the city can bring them back inside. Nearly half of the city’s homeless population is now unsheltered. Last year, a record 169 people died sleeping on the street, and the city is already on track to break the record again.  

Seattle’s current situation exposes a fundamental challenge for lawmakers across the country: Solving big problems requires bold, transformational policies. What city leaders can pass in the face of structural barriers and skeptical voters, however, are merely small, incremental improvements to the status quo.

And that’s exactly what the Progressive Tax on Business is: a half-measure. No matter what Amazon decides to do, taxing employment, just like taxing cigarette purchases, will result in less of it. And the new tax probably won’t result in a significant reduction in the city’s homeless population. The city estimates the tax will produce 1,780 units of affordable housing, even though its own resolution says it needs more than 17,000.

None of that is an argument against the tax. As council member Herbold points out, this may be Seattle’s only available route toward making its tax code more progressive. Despite the fireworks at public hearings, the tax is relatively modest and is specifically tailored to affect only the companies that can afford it. Nor is it the only tax of its kind: Wilmington, Delaware; Denver; and plenty of other cities tax companies on the number of employees they have, a so-called head tax.

This week, as Seattle debated the $75 million head tax, the Chamber of Commerce released a report estimating that solving homelessness would cost $400 million. A proposal by the mayor to reduce the revenue to $40 million triggered an even more raucous committee hearing, with protesters chanting “$75 million, no extortion!” to another packed audience. The original proposal passed and will be voted on Monday, but the mayor could still veto it.

But that is the debate here, what has become possible and necessary to the city to fight over: Whether to spend 10 percent of what it will cost to solve homelessness or 20 percent.

It’s Getting Harder For U.S. Cities To Run Themselves

But the bigger question is how cities should respond to threats like Amazon’s.

The request for proposals for the company’s second headquarters stated explicitly that “a stable and business-friendly environment and tax structure will be high-priority considerations.” Cities responded in kind: Chula Vista, California, offered free land. Fresno, California, offered control over how municipal revenues would be spent. Chicago even offered to waive income taxes for Amazon employees.

The calculation these cities are making is all about the multiplier: Every job created by Amazon creates another 1.5 in “indirect employment” — consultants, chefs, schoolteachers. Except those employers won’t get any of the tax breaks. Perversely, it’s only the largest companies, the ones with the most power and the littlest need for unfair advantages, who get cities falling all over themselves to give away revenues.

It’s not even clear what Seattle gave up to entice Amazon’s most recent expansion here. The company didn’t respond to inquiries about how many employees it has in Seattle or how much it pays in city and state taxes (though late last week, “a person at the company familiar with the data” made a “rare disclosure” to The Seattle Times that Amazon had paid $250 million in local taxes — without specifying what types of taxes or where they went).

No matter where they operate, companies have every incentive to play exactly the game Amazon is playing. To shareholders, every dollar a company pays in tax is waste. The minute Amazon announces its second headquarters location, it can start pitting its host cities against each other: Hey Seattle, we’re thinking of adding another 1,000 jobs. It’s you or Pittsburgh. What are you going to give us?

This is, in fact, almost exactly what the CEO of Zillow warned this week. “We are actively trying to decide where to put the next couple hundred heads, and this is the type of thing that causes us to consider looking at putting that expansion in other cities,” he said.

The challenge of finding enough revenue to adequately run a city is only going to get worse. Excluding health care, federal grants to cities are at their lowest since 1980. Despite the growing economy, 30 states have revenue shortfalls. The Trump administration has declared its intention to cut transportation funding and housing assistance. Without outside support, cities will become increasingly reliant on revenues from their own voters and their largest employers.

Seattle is a case study for what those fights are going to look like. The more desperate cities become, the more leverage corporations will wield over them. And, simultaneously, the more frustrated their populations will get at the constant tax raises and fee hikes.

The most depressingly insightful comment from Wednesday’s City Council hearing came from Howard Bess, a counselor for the Downtown Emergency Service Center, a homeless shelter in Seattle. He apologized for being tired; he had been up all night helping Seattle’s homeless population find an “island of relief.”

“I don’t see that anybody who is opposing this is going to die on the streets,” he said, “or not be able to pay their mortgage or not be able to wear new shoes or clean clothes. But our clients could certainly use that help.”

The applause for him was even louder. 

Eighty-two women including Cate Blanchett and Ava DuVernay marched up the red carpet at the Cannes Film Festival on Saturday to protest gender inequality at the festival and in the wider film industry.

Members of the group included actresses, directors and other women in the film industry, including Kristen Stewart, Salma Hayek and “Wonder Woman” director Patty Jenkins, The Associated Press reports.

Blanchett, the jury president of this year’s festival, led the group and read out a statement from the steps of the Palais des Festivals, joined by French film director Agnes Varda, who read the statement in French.

In her remarks, Blanchett explained the significance of the number 82.

“On these steps today stand 82 women representing the number of female directors who have climbed these stairs since the first edition of the Cannes Film Festival in 1946,” she said, according to The Hollywood Reporter. “In the same period 1688 male directors have climbed these very same stairs. In the 71 years of this world-renowned festival there have been 12 female heads of its juries.”

She added that 71 male directors have received the Palme d’Or, the most prestigious award of the festival. Only one female director, Jane Campion in 1993, has received the Palme d’Or, though Varda won an honorary Palme d’Or in 2015.

“Women are not a minority in the world, yet the current state of the industry says otherwise,” Blanchett said. “We stand together on these steps today as a symbol of our determination to change and progress.”

The march was planned by 5050 by 2020, a French movement dedicated to gender equality in film. The statement coincides with the Cannes Film Festival’s announcement that it will be signing “concrete, strong commitments” to diversity on Monday, Deadline reports, though it’s not clear what exactly those commitments will be.

Sophia started using Uber soon after it was founded in 2009. She doesn’t even remember agreeing to, much less reading, the fine print in the app’s terms of service. This would only become important in hindsight.

Last December, the 26-year-old San Francisco Bay Area native took her final Uber ride. It should’ve been a forgettable 12-minute trip from her company’s holiday party to her home, but it turned into something terrible.

When the car pulled up in front of her apartment building, Sophia’s driver asked if he could walk her inside. She said no. Then, just as she was keying in the code to open the front door, he snuck up behind her, pushing her into the foyer.

He grabbed her up into a bear hug and groped her. She got away, briefly, fleeing up the stairs to her apartment. He followed. In front of her apartment door, he again squeezed her tightly, putting his hand up her dress. Luckily, she made it inside her apartment and locked him out.

Later, after reporting her assault to the police, Sophia learned that her driver was a registered sex offender. How could Uber have allowed this man to drive for the company? she wondered.

Sophia, who does not want to publicly reveal her last name, is one of nine women suing Uber for fraud, misleading advertising about its level of safety, and assault, battery and rape. The women are demanding that the ride-sharing company truly reckon with what they say is a widespread sexual assault issue.

The details of Sophia’s attack are documented in the lawsuit, where she is identified as Jane Doe #3. The case was filed in 2017 and updated in March when Sophia and six other women joined the suit.

While a few of the other women suing have shared their stories publicly, Sophia is only now coming forward to HuffPost to share her experiences.

The women want Uber to fix what they see as its “flawed” background check system, the lawsuit says. Because the system is designed to quickly approve drivers, Uber skips steps that would screen out sex offenders like the one who assaulted Sophia, according to the suit. Though Uber has recently announced changes to its system, these women say they’re insufficient.

The women say the only way they can force Uber to improve its standards is if they bring their case into a public courtroom ― and this highlights a second, possibly even larger issue with Uber: When users download the app, they unwittingly click away their right to file a lawsuit against the company.

Uber’s terms of service, which, let’s admit, most people don’t read, require all customers to settle disputes ― even over sexual assault and rape ― in arbitration. These are private courtrooms, outside the public justice system, that notoriously favor big companies.

Uber has already filed a motion in court arguing that these women have no right to make their case in a public courtroom. That spurred action from the nine women and a few others, who penned an open letter to the company’s board of directors urging Uber to reconsider.

“Secret arbitration takes away a woman’s right to a trial by a jury of her peers and provides a dark alley for Uber to hide from the justice system, the media and public scrutiny,” the women wrote.

Uber defended its use of arbitration in a statement in March when the case expanded, but has since changed its tune somewhat. During a Twitter exchange with Susan Fowler, a former Uber employee who famously shared her story of workplace sexual harassment and discrimination, Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said he would look at the issue.

“Sexual assault has no place anywhere and we are committed to doing our part to help end this violence,” the company told HuffPost in a statement. “As we prioritize safety at Uber, we are taking a hard look at these important issues.”

In arbitration, each woman would have to fight her case alone, on an individual level. The best outcome would be, maybe, a cash settlement. Often, such settlements are kept private through nondisclosure agreements, so other assault victims wouldn’t learn about women who’ve gone through similar experiences. The chances that the company would be forced to re-examine the way it does business are nil.

Sophia told HuffPost she’s not doing this for money, but to effect change. “The only thing I can really do is help others,” she said. “I think it’s stronger to join others so we can help others not have this happen to them.”

Publicly embarrassed by the letter ― with Khosrowshahi getting called out on Twitter ― the company asked for more time from the court to consider the women’s plea. Uber now has a court-sanctioned deadline of May 17 to formally decide if its sexual assault issues get a public airing out.

At a time when women are increasingly unwilling to stay silent about sexual abuse, the idea that a company can keep its problems private through arbitration has become harder to defend.

There are bills at both the federal and state level to stop companies from forcing women into arbitration in sexual harassment and assault cases. Microsoft announced earlier this year that it would no longer force harassment cases filed by its employees into arbitration. Orrick, a major law firm, made a similar announcement in March.

Uber has said it has no issue with these women telling their stories in public. But news stories alone can’t always bring justice or closure to victims. There’s a particular power in letting rape survivors bring their stories into a public courtroom ― and to have other women join them and say “me too.”

Anyone who watched the victims of Larry Nassar confront their disgraced abuser in a Michigan courtroom in January knows this. We saw the power of a public trial again in the Bill Cosby case.

“Having public disclosure in a courtroom about what happened, that’s part of the public record. There’s a real power in that,” said Hannah Brenner, a professor at California Western School of Law who researches the intersection of law and gender, focusing specifically on sexual assault, institutions and disparate power dynamics.

That these women have banded together is particularly powerful. “There’s a tendency for us to dismiss sexual violence as a one-off,” Brenner said. Collectively, these women are a force more difficult to ignore.

How Bad Is Uber’s Sexual Assault Problem?

Citing hundreds of media reports about Uber-related sexual assault, the women suing the company say it has a systemic problem on its hands.

Jeanne Christensen, the lawyer representing the nine women, has been representing rape and assault victims in cases against Uber since at least 2014. She’s negotiated privately with Uber, case by case, but said that last year she grew fed up with the one-off system and became determined to push the company to do more.

“The stories are always the same,” she told HuffPost. Christensen’s clients typically said they hailed an Uber ride after a night of drinking, and that their driver then assaulted and, in some cases, raped them. She couldn’t go into more detail, citing confidentiality.

Many of her clients are living in fear, she said, afraid their attacker will come after them again. “It’s very common for clients to move apartments. They break leases. That’s how frightened they are,” she said. “They get new phones, change their numbers.”

Yet it’s hard to know the real scope of Uber’s sexual assault problems. The company does not release information about reported incidents, police departments don’t track rape data that way ― and sadly, most women do not report sexual assault to anyone at all.

The company said it is looking at ways to better track assaults.

While rapes and assaults that take place in Uber cars do get a lot of media attention, they are just a small percentage of sexual assaults in the U.S.

Strangers aren’t the biggest danger when it comes to rape.

“While the Uber assaults are scary, women are still most at risk of being assaulted by someone they know,” said Melissa Morabito, a professor at the School of Criminology and Justice Studies, Center for Women & Work, at the University of Massachusetts Lowell.

What Is Uber Doing About Background Checks?

Earlier this spring, Uber announced a host of changes meant to strengthen its background check process for drivers, as well as several new safety features. And Khosrowshahi has said publicly that safety is his No. 1 priority.

The Uber app will now be better integrated with 911, making it easier for emergency services to find you on the road. The company said it would re-run background checks on all drivers each year to make sure no new incidents have cropped up ― something it did inconsistently in the past. Uber also said it would begin using a technology that would alert them when Uber drivers were arrested in real time.

The company “offers features that ensure every trip is GPS tracked, 24/7 response from our safety team, and the ability to share your trip with loved ones in real time, and we’re committed to doing more,” it said in a statement.

Uber also announced it was bringing on former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson as chairman of Uber’s safety advisory board.

But Christensen says these moves are not enough. Uber’s checking process isn’t much different than the credit check you’d have to go through if you were trying to rent an apartment, she told HuffPost. The check only goes back seven years, according to the women’s lawsuit. (Uber says that its checks can extend beyond that period depending on the database the company is searching.)

The company needs to run driver’s fingerprints through the FBI and Department of Justice’s databases, the suit says. 

Uber says that the fingerprint system is not a panacea and comes with its own set of flaws. There are concerns, for example, that some people ― who haven’t been convicted or who’ve had their charges dismissed ― get inaccurately labeled as criminals. The company cites data that show hundreds of thousands of Americans can’t get jobs because of flaws and inaccuracies in the system.

Uber argues that “While no background check is perfect, our process is robust, fair and relevant to the work at hand.”

“The predominance of regulators believe that our screening processes are appropriate,” Khosrowshahi told The Washington Post recently. “I don’t think fingerprints would substantially change what happens with human behavior. … The predators in life look for dark corners. Our job is to tell the world that Uber has its lights on.”

‘You’re In A Constant State Of Panic’

“Sexual assault is about a predator stealing a part of you that you will never get back. I fight unceasingly against the shame, the loss of feeling safe, and the debilitating anxiety,” Sophia wrote in a statement she shared with HuffPost (read it in full below). “If Uber had done their due diligence, my devastation could have been avoided.”

For now, Sophia is trying to find another place to live. She will only stay the night at home if her roommates are around, she said. She fears that the Uber driver who assaulted her might come look for her again.

Sophia fought her attacker off that December night in a struggle that lasted minutes, but that she said felt infinite. “I don’t know if you’ve ever been in a car accident where time is moving extremely slow. You’re trying to make the best decisions you possibly can, but if you’re in the state too long, your brain can’t handle it,” Sophia told HuffPost. “You’re in a constant state of panic. It’s like going in and out of consciousness.”

She said she punched the Uber driver in the stomach and ran into her apartment, locking the door and windows.

The morning after the attack, she opened her Uber app and reported the incident.

“I think I was still in shock. I didn’t think about the right way to do this,” Sophia said. She figured since she had a problem with the service, she should start there. “It seemed like the right move. Very quickly I realized it was not the right move.”

A customer service rep called Sophia back and she told the woman what happened.

“She said she’d reimburse me for the ride and that they take this seriously and she’d follow up again soon. It was a very short call,” Sophia said, estimating that the conversation probably took less than five minutes. The representative wasn’t particularly empathetic. Sophia compared her demeanor to that of a barista taking your coffee order.

“My $17 back was just not what I was going for. It didn’t make me feel safer; that was the main thing,” she said. “I didn’t feel any safer, and it was a pointless call.”

Sophia walked to her local police department after that. The cops talked to her for hours, she said.

Uber eventually got back to her and told her that her driver was no longer working for the company and that he’d been warned by the police not to come near her. “I don’t know what happened to him,” she said.

The company didn’t respond to specific questions about Sophia’s allegations.

Sophia doesn’t use the Uber app anymore, but said that living in San Francisco, it’s impossible not to be reminded of the service every day. “Every time I have a noxious reaction,” she said, adding that she now feels like she had blinders on when it came to using the app.

She figured Uber was a strong business and had naturally figured this safety thing out, she said.

“I got a little bit fooled by that. I didn’t think enough through about what they were doing. I don’t think they did either.” 

Read Sophia’s full statement below.

Sexual Assault is about a predator stealing a part of you that you will never get back. There is no settlement amount or number of criminal convictions that can replace what has forever been lost. To me, this is the most painful aspect of being a sexual assault survivor. I’ve been given a life-sentence of battling the excruciating psychological effects of being violated; I fight unceasingly against the shame, the loss of feeling safe, and the debilitating anxiety. While I am strong and resilient, while I do not want to victimize myself, I want to be transparent and honest about the reality of surviving trauma, as I do not know how else to protect others.

If Uber had done their due diligence, my devastation could have been avoided. They hired a man whose personal information and picture are the exact match of a registered sex offender; the same man I accurately identified in a photo-lineup. This is the Uber driver who drove me home after a work event, followed me into my apartment building, and assaulted me.  

Uber is neglecting to acknowledge the severity and frequency of the sexual assault crimes being committed by asking for arbitration. By the same token, Uber is missing my purpose, and that of many other women, in joining this class-action. This is not for me, this is for every person reading this; for anyone who wants to strive for a world that does not turn a blind eye to acts of sexual violence. It’s too late for me, I am striving for it to not be too late for you.

As for Uber, I’d appreciate it if you stopped saying that “you take these allegations very seriously”. While the intention may be genuine, the lack of action proves otherwise. According to Uber’s website, there are approximately 15 million Uber rides daily and 75 million monthly users. For each day that you continue to put an incredible number of passengers at risk, for each day that you seek profit over safety, for each day that you try to silence women—I will not be able to conceive how that statement could possibly be true.

This story has been updated to include more information from Uber on how far back its driver background checks extend.

Need help? Visit RAINN’s National Sexual Assault Online Hotline or the National Sexual Violence Resource Center’s website.

There are “Avengers: Infinity War” spoilers below. Obviously.

Aw, snap!

Thanos’ deadly finger snap at the end of “Avengers: Infinity War” caused a number of fan-favorite Marvel characters to crumble into ash before our very eyes.

But given the conceit ― Thanos destroyed half the life in the universe with that single snap ― many were left wondering: What happened to everyone off screen?

In an interview with HuffPost on Friday, directors Joe and Anthony Russo revealed the fates of various Marvel characters we didn’t see in “Infinity War.” Did they turn into dust? Are they safe? Are their statuses too spoilery to even talk about?

The brothers prefaced their responses by saying that they would need to censor themselves when it came to certain Avengers and their associates. But without further ado, here are the off-screen characters who died and survived in “Infinity War”:

Howard the Duck (Seth Green)

Status: He’s safe.

Director comments: “He survived,” said Joe.

Thoughts: Howard made appearances in both “Guardians of the Galaxy” movies, and it looks like he’s going to have a chance to make it a hat trick in “Guardians 3.” 

Jane Foster (Natalie Portman)

Status: Too spoilery.

Director comments: “When we say spoiler, [we mean] potential spoiler,” Anthony clarified after I was a bit shocked they couldn’t comment on Jane. 

Thoughts: Whoa, what? Natalie Portman hasn’t been a part of the MCU since “Thor: The Dark World” back in 2013. However, Portman has said she’d be open to returning to the Marvel realm, so maybe a Thor-Jane reunion is on the horizon.

Actor Loki (Matt Damon) 

Status: He’s dead.

Director comments: “Did not survive,” said Joe.

Thoughts: Matt Deadman, amirite?

Betty Ross (Liv Tyler)

Status: She’s dead too.

Director comments: “Gone,” said Joe.

Thoughts: Betty Ross was last seen in “Incredible Hulk” (2008), but she was rumored to appear in “Infinity War.” That didn’t happen, and there’s probably not much hope for an “Avengers 4” cameo either since now she’s a pile of dust. 

Korg and Miek (Taika Waititi)

Status: Too spoilery, but probably still rockin’.

Director comments: “Spoiler,” said Joe.

Thoughts: Marvel Studios head Kevin Feige said there are big plans for “Thor Ragnarok” fan favorites Korg and Miek. We know half of the peeps on the Asgardian ship escaped from Thanos, so it looks this rock guy and that insect/slug thing are going to be around for a while. #SlugLife.

Shuri (Letitia Wright)

Status: Weirdly unknown.

Director comments: “Spoiler,” said Joe.

Thoughts: In interviews, the Russo brothers have mentioned Shuri as a possible replacement for Black Panther, so it doesn’t make sense why they wouldn’t just say she’s OK. But yeah, she’s probably OK.

Lady Sif (Jaimie Alexander)

Status: Super dead.

Director comments: “Gone,” said Joe.

Thoughts: Jaimie Alexander wasn’t in “Thor Ragnarok” because of filming obligations for “Blindspot.” The Russos confirmed she won’t be in “Avengers 4” because of obligations to being a mound of ashes.

Ned (Jacob Batalon)

Status: Too spoilery.

Director comments: “Spoiler,” said Joe.

Thoughts: Ned had better be all right. If Peter Parker doesn’t come back, he’s got a whole “Spider-Man” sequel to carry by himself. 

Aunt May (Marisa Tomei)

Status: Aunt May is OK.

Director comments: “Safe,” said Anthony.

Thoughts: May probably isn’t going to play a big role, or potentially any role, in “Avengers 4,” but at least we can sleep well knowing she’s not been reduced to powdery residue.

Nakia (Lupita Nyong’o)

Status: Unknown, but probably safe because #WakandaForever.

Director comments: When asked why she didn’t appear in “Infinity War,” Joe said, “She’s on missions.” Anthony added, “Yeah, deep undercover.”

Thoughts: We don’t know for sure what happened to Nakia, but the directors said she’s out on missions, so we’re going to accept that and hope for the best.

Now, in honor of those we lost to ashes, here’s Will Ferrell singing “Dust in the Wind” in “Old School.” You’re my boy, Korg!

With “Black Panther” and “Avengers: Infinity War,” Marvel has dominated theaters around the world this year. Now Marvel is branching out their comics division on a global scale.

Marvel teamed up with NetEase Comics, one of China’s largest online comic platforms, to roll out their first official Chinese superheroes this week. 

Until now Marvel has only featured Chinese characters in a supporting capacity or as villains. Two of the newest heroes are Aero, a woman able to control air currents (pictured above), and Lin Lie, a boy who obtains a powerful ancient sword to battle evil (pictured below). 

Marvel’s collaboration with NetEase leaned heavily on artists and writers from China with the intention that these new stories would be “based on Chinese culture and mythology but set in the modern world,” according to Marvel Editor-In-Chief CB Cebulski.

For now, these new graphic novels are only in Chinese, but the joint venture potentially means a dramatically expanded Marvel Universe for comic fans in both the U.S. and China. 

NetEase hosts a few Marvel comics already, including Spider-Man, Iron Man and The Avengers. 

In 2016, DC Comics made the effort to diversify their heroes by introducing New Super-Man, a China-based superhero with Kryptonian powers like those of Superman.

Marvel films have certainly outdone DC films in theaters. Could they be set to do the same in the comic book world?