Welcome to this assignment

Yes, You Should Be Using Apple Pay or Google Pay


PHOTOGRAPH: APPLE

Author: WHITSON GORDON


WHEN APPLE PAY was first announced back in 2014, it seemed like a revolutionary idea that would take a while to catch on. Six years later, a little under half the iPhone users out there are paying with their phone, with Google and Samsung Pay growing on Android as well. Apple Pay currently accounts for 10 percent of all global card transactions.

That's impressive, but I can't help feeling it should be even more popular than it is. If you aren't using Apple and Google Pay at the grocery store, it's time to start—it's better than a credit card in pretty much every way.


It's Much Faster Than Chip-Based Credit Cards


To start, credit cards have gotten annoyingly slow, thanks to the new chip-based readers. This new (old) tech is much slower than the old swipe-to-pay credit cards of yore, making plastic a bit more of a hassle. Pull out your wallet, dig through to find the right card, put it in, wait, then do it all in reverse when the reader beeps at you like you've accidentally tripped some sort of alarm. With Apple and Google Pay, you just pull out your phone, unlock the home screen, and hover it over the reader—it'll "swipe" your digital credit card instantaneously, faster than any chip-based card. You don't even have to open the app—just unlock your phone and tap. If you have a smartwatch, you might be able to tap it to the reader without even touching your phone. Of course I'm exaggerating the annoyance of credit cards just a bit here, but I really can't overstate how fast and easy tap-to-pay is. Pulling out your card just feels archaic in comparison, and once you've tried Apple and Google Pay, you'll want to use it whenever possible.

The Most Famous Paradox in Physics Nears Its End


Author: GEORGE MUSSER


IN A SERIES of breakthrough papers, theoretical physicists have come tantalizingly close to resolving the black hole information paradox that has entranced and bedeviled them for nearly 50 years. Information, they now say with confidence, does escape a black hole. If you jump into one, you will not be gone for good. Particle by particle, the information needed to reconstitute your body will reemerge. Most physicists have long assumed it would; that was the upshot of string theory, their leading candidate for a unified theory of nature. But the new calculations, though inspired by string theory, stand on their own, with nary a string in sight. Information gets out through the workings of gravity itself—just ordinary gravity with a single layer of quantum effects.



This is a peculiar role reversal for gravity. According to Einstein’s general theory of relativity, the gravity of a black hole is so intense that nothing can escape it. The more sophisticated understanding of black holes developed by Stephen Hawking and his colleagues in the 1970s did not question this principle. Hawking and others sought to describe matter in and around black holes using quantum theory, but they continued to describe gravity using Einstein’s classical theory—a hybrid approach that physicists call “semiclassical.” Although the approach predicted new effects at the perimeter of the hole, the interior remained strictly sealed off. Physicists figured that Hawking had nailed the semiclassical calculation. Any further progress would have to treat gravity, too, as quantum.

No modern U.S. presidential candidate has refused to concede. Here’s why that matters.

Author: AMY MCKEEVER


Even though Joe Biden has secured enough votes to become president-elect of the United States, President Donald Trump has given every indication that he won’t accept the result as fair. Trump also has refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power. Both moves would be historical firsts if Trump refuses to concede even after all legal challenges are resolved. U.S. history has seen a handful of bitterly contested elections, most recently in 2000, when Democrat Al Gore called Republican George W. Bush to concede in the early hours after election night—only to call back back and retract his concession when the race unexpectedly tightened up. While their first conversation was congenial, the second was tense, with Gore famously telling Bush, “You don’t have to get snippy about this.” /br> No presidential candidate has ever refused to concede defeat once all the votes were counted and legal challenges resolved. For the country’s first hundred years or so, conceding a race wasn’t part of the process at all. Here’s how the loser’s concession went from nonexistent to an essential custom that all candidates have observed—albeit some less graciously than others.



How concessions became an election tradition

The peaceful transfer of power has been a norm since 1800, when the country’s second president John Adams became the first to lose his reelection bid and quietly left Washington, D.C., on an early morning stagecoach to avoid attending his successor Thomas Jefferson’s inauguration. Some early presidential candidates did send congratulatory letters to their opponents, says John R. Vile, dean of political science at Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro, who has written about the history of concession speeches. But formal concessions didn’t become an election custom until 1896, when Republican William McKinley defeated Democrat William Jennings Bryan. In his account of the campaign in a later memoir, Bryan wrote that he began to resign himself to the loss by 11 p.m. on election night—a resignation that grew in the subsequent days as states completed counting ballots. On Thursday evening, Bryan learned that his loss was certain and immediately sent a telegram to McKinley, offering his congratulations and stating: “We have submitted the issue to the American people and their will is law.”