Forensic science is often depicted in crime shows and movies, but how it plays a role in solving true crime cases can be very different.

Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian told NBC News on Friday that Iran will not retaliate against the Israeli strike in the Isfahan province, calling the Israeli drones "toys."

This article was originally published by Hakai Magazine.The water in California’s San Francisco Bay could rise more than two meters by the year 2100. For the region’s tidal marshes and their inhabitants, such as Ridgway’s rail and the endangered salt-marsh harvest mouse, it’s a potential death sentence.Given enough time, space, and sediment, tidal marshes can build layers of mud and decaying vegetation to keep up with rising seas. Unfortunately, upstream dams and a long history of dredging bays and dumping the sediment offshore are starving many tidal marshes around the world of the sediment they need to grow.To keep its marshes above water, San Francisco Bay needs more than 545 million tonnes of dirt by 2100. Yet for restorationists looking to rebuild marshes lost to development and fortify those that remain, getting enough sediment is just one hurdle: The next challenge is figuring out a way to deliver it without smothering the very ecosystem they’re trying to protect.To really understand the problem, one need only look at Louisiana, which faces the potential loss of three-quarters of its wetlands by 2070. The state’s Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have dredged the Mississippi River and pumped the slurry onto a rapidly drowning marsh along Bayou Dupont, near New Orleans.This approach builds up terrain quickly, but it also risks burying the marsh’s plants and animals in a thick coating of muck. Firehosing sediment into the marsh could destroy an ecosystem’s natural complexity, filling in the small variations in elevation that allow different plants to flourish and smoothing over the natural bumps and ridges that absorb excess energy from waves or storms.[Read: The Mississippi is losing its fight with the ocean]That’s why, in San Francisco Bay, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and its multiple partners have embarked on a pilot project to test what they hope is a less overwhelming approach to marsh restoration. In a method called shallow placement, the corps dropped sediment onto the bay floor, then let the tides do the work of moving it around.For 26 days in December 2023, USACE took sediment dredged up as part of routine work to maintain ship access in San Francisco Bay and deposited almost 70,000 cubic meters of it near the Eden Landing Ecological Reserve. On the east side of San Francisco Bay, between Oakland and San Jose, this site hosts a series of industrial salt ponds in various stages of being transformed back into wetlands.To track how much of this sediment actually makes it from the seafloor to the marsh, USACE and scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey mixed magnetic, fluorescent tracers the size of sand grains into the sediment. By hanging magnets in the water and taking samples from the marsh, researchers are hunting down these tracers. The work is giving them a sense of where—and how quickly—the sediment is moving around. They’re also monitoring the seabed to study the effect the dumping has on seafloor life.The goal, says Julie Beagle, the environmental-planning section chief for the USACE San Francisco District, is to increase the vertical growth of the marsh from its current rate of one to two millimeters a year to a few centimeters per year. Any more, Beagle says, would “drown out vegetation and change the composition of the marsh.”If the project is successful, Beagle says this technique could be particularly valuable for a place like Arrowhead Marsh, off Oakland, which is home to many of the Ridgway’s rails in the San Francisco Bay Area.This softer approach to ecosystem transformation might seem uncharacteristic for the USACE, which is known for massive water-controlling infrastructure like its levees. But Beagle, who says she “came to the corps to be a cultural changemaker,” heads the agency’s Engineering With Nature initiative for her district, helping her colleagues work with nature rather than always trying to control it.[Read: Playing God with the atmosphere]USACE’s San Francisco Bay experiment builds on similar tests—also aimed at delivering sediment more naturally—previously conducted in other parts of the world. One such project in Indonesia, for instance, led by the Dutch research organization EcoShape, used small wooden dams to ensnare naturally suspended sediment and allow a degraded mangrove forest to recover.But another of EcoShape’s projects—the Netherlands’ Mud Motor—shows just how tricky these efforts can be. The Mud Motor is a project implemented on the Wadden Sea coast to fortify a nearby salt marsh. The project worked for a time, adding two centimeters of elevation to the marsh. Eventually, however, water washed most of this new sediment away again, says Henk Nieboer, a civil engineer and the former director of EcoShape. “The area was too dynamic,” he says. “The sediments didn’t settle.”Researchers expect that is less likely to happen in San Francisco Bay because it’s protected, but the point stands: The quest to control nature is elusive. And maybe that’s okay.With the sediment-tracking study under way through the end of the year, Beagle says the knowledge that USACE and its partners gain will be useful when it comes to guiding future projects in San Francisco Bay.Engineers may not be able to make all the sediment go exactly where they want when they want it; some of it may swirl around the bay for a while, lingering on mudflats before possibly fortifying marshes in the coming months or years, Beagle says. But because officials in San Francisco Bay spent decades dredging sediment from the bay and dumping it out at sea, Beagle says changing tack to reuse material within the bay will almost certainly be a better move.

The sight of Bill Boeing was a familiar one on the factory floor. His office was in the building next to the converted boatyard where workers lathed the wood, sewed the fabric wings, and fixed the control wires of the Boeing Model C airplane. there is no authority except facts. facts are obtained by accurate observation read a plaque affixed outside the door. And what could need closer observation than the process of his aircraft being built? One day in 1916, Boeing spotted an imperfectly cut wing rib, dropped it to the floor, and slowly stomped it to bits. “I, for one, will close up shop rather than send out work of this kind,” he declared.When David Calhoun, the soon-to-be-lame-duck CEO of the company Boeing founded, made a rare appearance on the shop floor in Seattle one day this past January, circumstances were decidedly different. Firmly a member of the CEO class, schooled at the knee of General Electric’s Jack Welch, Calhoun had not strolled over from next door but flown some 2,300 miles from Boeing’s headquarters in Arlington, Virginia. And he was not there to observe slipshod work before it found its way into the air—it already had. A few weeks earlier, the door of a Boeing 737 had fallen out mid-flight. In the days following his visit, Calhoun’s office admitted that it still didn’t know quite what had gone wrong, because it didn’t know how the plane had been put together in the first place. The door’s restraining bolts had either been screwed in wrong, or not at all. Boeing couldn’t say, because, as it told astonished regulators, the company had “no records of the work being performed.”The two scenes tell us the peculiar story of a plane maker that, over 25 years, slowly but very deliberately extracted itself from the business of making planes. For nearly 40 years the company built the 737 fuselage itself in the same plant that turned out its B-29 and B-52 bombers. In 2005 it sold this facility to a private-investment firm, keeping the axle grease at arm’s length and notionally shifting risk, capital costs, and labor woes off its books onto its “supplier.” Offloading, Boeing called it. Meanwhile the tail, landing gear, flight controls, and other essentials were outsourced to factories around the world owned by others, and shipped to Boeing for final assembly, turning the company that created the Jet Age into something akin to a glorified gluer-together of precast model-airplane kits. Boeing’s latest screwups vividly dramatize a point often missed in laments of America’s manufacturing decline: that when global economic forces carried off some U.S. manufacturers for good, even the ones that stuck around lost interest in actually making stuff.The past 30 years may well be remembered as a dark age of U.S. manufacturing. Boeing’s decline illustrates everything that went wrong to bring us here. Fortunately, it also offers a lesson in how to get back out.In Bill Boeing’s day, the word manufactory had cachet. You could bank at the Manufacturers Trust. Philadelphia socialites golfed at The Manufacturers’ Club. Plans for the newly consecrated Harvard Business School called for a working factory on campus. The business heroes of the day—Ford, Edison, Firestone—had risen from the shop floor.There, they had pioneered an entirely new way of making things. The American System of production—featuring interchangeable parts, specialized machine tools, moving assembly lines—was a huge leap beyond European methods of craft production. And it produced lopsided margins of victory for the likes of Ford, GM, and Boeing. To coordinate these complex new systems, two new occupations arose: the industrial engineer, who spoke the language of the shop floor, and the professional financial manager, who spoke the language of accounting.[Charlie Warzel: Flying is weird right now]At first the engineers held sway. In a 1930 article for Aviation News, a Boeing engineer explained how the company’s inspectors “continually supervise the fabrication of the many thousands of parts entering into the assemblage of a single plane.” Philip Johnson, an engineer, succeeded Bill Boeing as CEO; he then passed the company to yet another engineer, Clairmont Egtvedt, who not only managed production of the B-17 bomber from the executive suite, but personally helped design it.After the Second World War, America enjoyed three decades of dominance by sticking with methods it had used to win it. At the same time, a successor was developing, largely unnoticed, amid the scarcities of defeated Japan. The upstart auto executive Eiji Toyoda had visited Ford’s works and found that, however much he admired the systems, they couldn’t be replicated in Japan. He couldn’t afford, for instance, the hundreds of machine tools specialized to punch out exactly one part at the touch of a button. Although his employees would have to make do with a few general-purpose stamping presses, he gave these skilled workers immense freedom to find the most efficient way to run them. The end result turned out to be radical: Costs fell and errors dropped in a renewable cycle of improvement, or kaizen.What emerged was a different conception of the corporation. If the managerial bureaucrats in the other departments were to earn their keep, they needed a thorough understanding of the shop floor, or gemba (roughly “place of making value”). The so-called Gemba Walk required their routine presence at each step until they could comprehend the assembly of the whole. Otherwise they risked becoming muda—waste.When the wave of Japanese competition finally crashed on corporate America, those best equipped to understand it—the engineers—were no longer in charge. American boardrooms had been handed over to the finance people. And they were hypnotized by the new doctrine of shareholder value, which provided a rationale for their ascendance but little incentive for pursuing long-term improvements or sustainable approaches to cost control. Their pay packages rewarded short-term spikes in stock price. There were lots of ways to produce those.Which brings us to the hinge point of 1990, when a trio of MIT researchers published The Machine That Changed the World, which both named the Japanese system—“lean production”—and urged corporate America to learn from it. Just then, the Japanese economy crashed, easing the pressure on U.S. firms. In the years that followed, American manufacturers instead doubled down on outsourcing, offshoring, and financial engineering. This round of wounds was self-inflicted. Already infused with a stench of decay, manufacturing was written off as yesterday’s activity.At GE, which produced three of Boeing’s last four CEOs, manufacturing came to be seen as “grunt work,” as the former GE executive David Cote recently told Fortune’s Shawn Tully. Motorola—founded as Galvin Manufacturing and famed for its religious focus on quality—lost its lead in mobile-phone making after it leaned into software and services. Intel’s bunny-suited fab workers were the face of high-tech manufacturing prowess until the company ceded hardware leadership to Asian rivals. “Having once pioneered the development of this extraordinary technology,” the current Intel CEO, Pat Gelsinger, wrote recently, “we now find ourselves at the mercy of the most fragile global supply chain in the world.”Phil Condit, the talented engineer who had overseen design of the hugely successful 777, was atop Boeing when I visited the company in late 2000. He was no stranger to the shop floor. Traversing Boeing’s Everett plant in a golf cart, he pointed out the horizontal tail fin stretching above us. Hard to believe it was larger than the 737’s wing, he marveled. Waiting back in his office—still located on the bank of the Duwamish River but greatly swollen by the recent merger with McDonnell Douglas—was a different sort of glee. “Wow! Double wow!” his mother had emailed him, referring to Boeing’s closing stock price that day. And, it would soon emerge, he wanted to get some distance from what he described to the Puget Sound Business Journal as “how-do-you-design-an-airplane stuff.” The next year, he moved Boeing’s headquarters to Chicago, pulling the top brass away from the shop floor just as the company was embarking on a radically new approach to airplane assembly.Its newest plane, the 787 Dreamliner, would not be an in-house production. Instead Boeing would farm out the designing and building to a network of “partner” companies—each effectively its own mini-Boeing with its own supply chain to manage. “It used to be you’d have some Boeing people develop the blueprints, then march over and say, ‘Hey, would you build this for me?’” Richard Safran, an analyst at Seaport Research Partners and a former aerospace engineer, told me. “Now, instead, you’re asking them to design it, to integrate it, to do the R&D.”The allures of this “capital light” approach were many: troublesome unions, costly machine shops, and development budgets would all become someone else’s problem. Key financial metrics would instantly improve as costs shifted to other firms’ balance sheets. With its emphasis on less, the approach bore a superficial resemblance to lean production. But where lean production pushed know-how back onto the shop floor, this pushed the shop floor and its know-how out the door altogether.Beyond that were the problems that a Boeing engineer, L. J. Hart-Smith, had foreseen in a prescient white paper that he presented at a 2001 Boeing technical symposium. With outsourcing came the possibility that parts wouldn’t fit together correctly on arrival. “In order to minimize these potential problems,” Hart-Smith warned, “it is necessary for the prime contractor to provide on-site quality, supplier-management, and sometimes technical support. If this is not done, the performance of the prime manufacturer can never exceed the capabilities of the least proficient of the suppliers.”Boeing didn’t listen. Wall Street dismissed Hart-Smith’s paper as a “rant,” and Boeing put each supplier in charge of its own quality control. When those controls failed, Boeing had to bear the cost of fixing flawed components. Most troubling was the dangerous feedback loop Hart-Smith foresaw. Accounting-wise, those fixes, which in reality are the costs of outsourcing, would instead appear as overhead—creating the impression that in-house work was expensive and furthering the rationale for offloading even more of the manufacturing process.In the short term, this all worked wonders on Boeing’s balance sheet: Its stock rose more than 600 percent from 2010 to 2019. Then the true folly of this approach made its inevitable appearance when two strikingly similar crashes caused by faulty software on Boeing planes killed a total of 346 people.[James Surowiecki: What’s gone wrong at Boeing]Today, if you stand along the Seattle waterfront long enough, sooner or later you’ll catch sight of a train headed south carrying the distinctive shape of a Boeing 737. Though it’s colored a metallic green and missing its tail—clearly not the finished product—it’s the kind of thing you point to and say, Look kids, a Boeing plane’s on that train! Not so. The logomark on the side spells it out: Spirit AeroSystems of Wichita, Kansas, has built this fuselage, which isn’t coming from Boeing. It’s going to Boeing.A plane is a complex system in which the malfunction of one piece can produce catastrophic failure of the whole. Assembly must be tightly choreographed. But now—especially with Boeing continually trying to wring costs from its suppliers—there were many more chances for errors to creep in. And when FAA investigators finally toured the premises of Spirit AeroSystems—maker of the blown-out door as well as the fuselage it was supposed to fit in—they did not find a tight operation. They found one door seal being lubricated with Dawn liquid dish soap and cleaned with a wet cheesecloth, and another checked with a hotel-room key card.A dark age doesn’t descend all at once. The process of emerging from one also takes time. It must begin with a recognition that something has been lost. Boeing’s fall just might have provided that rush of clarity. You could be from the 12th century and still know that soap and cheesecloth aren’t for making flying machines. Boeing’s chief financial officer recently admitted that the company got “a little too far ahead of itself on the topic of outsourcing.” It is in talks to reacquire Spirit AeroSystems and is already making the composite wings of its next-gen plane, the 777X, in-house at a new, billion-dollar complex outside Seattle. “Aerospace Executives Finally Rediscover the Shop Floor,” Aviation Week declared on the cover of a recent issue.As for the rest of corporate America, one of the strongest signals may be coming from the company Boeing has striven so hard to emulate: GE. Under operations-minded boss Larry Culp, the company is finally—only 40 or so years late—pushing itself through a crash course in lean manufacturing. It is belatedly yielding to the reality that workers on the gemba are far better at figuring out more efficient ways of making things than remote bureaucrats with spreadsheet abstractions.In the crucial field of semiconductors, meanwhile, Intel has recognized that Moore’s Law (the doubling of computing power roughly every 18 months) flows not from above but from manufacturing advances it once dominated. It has undertaken a “death march,” in the words of CEO Pat Gelsinger, to regain its lost edge on the foundry floor. The CHIPS Act has put a powerful political wind at his back. Green and other incentives are powering a broader, truly seismic surge in spending on new U.S. factories, now going up at three times their normal rate. No other country is experiencing such a buildout.Add all the capacity you want. It won’t reverse the country’s long decline as a manufacturing superpower if corporate America keeps gurgling its sad, tired story about the impossibility of making things on these shores anymore. It’s a story that helped pour a whole lot of wealth into the executive pockets peddling it. But a half century of self-inflicted damage is enough. The doors have fallen off, and it’s plain for all to see: The story was barely bolted together.

Maps show where weed and marijuana products are legal for recreational and medical use in the United States.

CNN's Bill Weir sits down with Grammy nominee Jayda G to talk about her new documentary "Blue Carbon: Nature's Hidden Power", which aims to fight climate change. The film premiers on CNN Sunday, April 21 at 9 p.m. ET.

Before she was famous, Rachael Ray was mugged -- twice -- by a teenage boy outside her Woodside, Queens, apartment.

A Gallup poll revealed more adults than ever are under-slept and stressed out. Fox News medical contributor Dr. Marc Siegel and sleep expert Dr. Wendy Troxel weighed in with recommendations.

It's fitting, really. 

A high school soccer game in East Harlem was canceled last weekend when a group of supposed migrants refused to get off the field for the permitted teams to play.

The Knicks and Rangers this weekend begin what they hope morphs into the type of magical two-month rides that drove them to glory in the spring of 1994 and championship starved New Yorkers can't wait.

NY Post readers discuss migrants rallying at city hall for work permits and more.

Senate Democrats who quashed the impeachment trial for Homeland Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas now have no plan to end the border crisis — other than to hope Americans stop paying attention.

Empires and nation-states are remembered for their monuments, but they also leave behind plenty of miniatures. Inside the Egyptian pyramids, within the chamber where the pharaoh’s mummy rests, stand collections of little statues—wooden figurines of mummified servants, clay hippos painted turquoise—to remind the ruler how the world once looked. Academics have complained that miniatures suffer from scholarly neglect. After carrying out the first comprehensive survey of more than 500 miniatures found in excavations along the Nile in 2011, the Italian archeologist Grazia Di Pietro felt compelled to remark in an essay that these were more than “simple toys.”A miniature is a replica of something bigger, a distortion of scale that makes it wonderful in a way the merely small is not. Miniatures are not the same as models, which are didactic (an anatomical model of the heart to educate students, for example) or utilitarian (a model showing the plan for a skyscraper yet to be built). Miniatures imitate life but have no clear practical purpose. They can be harder to make than their full-size counterparts. But they are portable, like the tiny mannequins the French government commissioned from fashion houses when World War II ended and Parisians couldn’t afford human-size haute couture. The mannequins toured Europe, splendidly dressed ambassadors carrying the message that the French had skill, if not much fabric.Miniatures seek detail rather than abstraction. They are competitive. Some strive to be ever smaller, like the diminutive books that surged in popularity during the Industrial Revolution, after the printing press had rendered mass production easier. The essayist Susan Stewart writes about this in her book On Longing: Narratives of the Miniature, the Gigantic, the Souvenir, the Collection. Maybe, she suggests, the guilds of printers and binders missed the challenges of craftsmanship. (Centuries before the printing press, Arab and Persian calligraphers figured out how to make Qurans smaller than their thumbs.) Other miniatures strive to be ever more perfect—consider the locket portraits once sold in England, each with its own magnifying glass.[Watch: Forget tiny houses–try miniature sculptures]“I think a lot about record books, like the Guinness Book of World Records,” Joan Kee, an art historian at the University of Michigan, told me. “There’s always the smallest and the biggest: two extremes of human achievements.” Monuments and miniatures both inspire awe, but the awe each inspires is of a different kind. The pyramids stand as testaments to the glory of great powers, pooled resources, and concerted human effort. They’re formidable. The Egyptian figurines conjure images of a single artisan’s obsession, squinting eyes, and precise fingers. They’re precious. Here’s an irony of time and size: Monuments, in their grandness, seem destined to last forever—but the unobtrusive miniature is often what survives the passage of centuries and the onslaughts of natural disasters. Today, museums are full of miniatures, though many institutions don’t seem to know what to do with them. Jack Davy, a British curator, coined the term miniature dissonance to criticize the practice of exhibiting them all together with little context, like souvenirs on a table. Museum collections are a kind of miniature themselves—a whole world made to fit inside a building. One way to tell the history of museums is that they evolved from the rooms in which noble families once displayed trinkets from their trips of conquest—dried butterflies, incense lamps, taxidermic birds, Chinese porcelains. The rooms were called cabinets of curiosities, or wunderkammer in German—“wonder rooms.” The word cabinet then came to mean the piece of furniture that might contain such wonders; the word became its own miniature.In the 1930s, Narcissa Thorne was a Chicago housewife and socialite, married to a scion of the Montgomery Ward department-store fortune. She mocked her ladylike education: “Knowing how to put on my hat straight was supposed to be enough.” Since childhood, she had relished traveling and collecting small objects, and liked to say that her miniatures were not a hobby but a mania. In 1933, hundreds of thousands of people lined up at the Chicago Century of Progress Exposition to see not some futuristic technology but an exhibit of 30 miniature rooms, imagined, commissioned, and furnished by Thorne. There was a Tudor hall, a Victorian drawing room, a Versailles-esque boudoir with a gilded bathtub. Some of the rooms had windows, through which the scenography of an outside landscape was visible and the light of a miniature sun seeped in. The audience found the realism uncanny, Kay Wells, an art historian at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, told me. Some were so shocked by the view of all that intimate domesticity, they felt like voyeurs. Quite a few compared the rooms to peep shows. Designed by Narcissa Thorne. E-14: English Drawing Room of the Victorian Period, 1840-70, 1937. Gift of Mrs. James Ward Thorne.” (The Art Institute of Chicago.) Miniatures are often said to be all about control: creating tiny utopias by shrinking what is big and intimidating. “You can control your dollhouse,” Leslie Edelman, the owner of the only dedicated dollhouse store left in New York City, told me, as he showed me a miniature fruit basket so exquisite that the bananas inside of it could actually be peeled. “I mean, the outside world these days is insane!” In Truman Capote’s In Cold Blood, the character who collects miniatures is a frail mother who falls into depression after the birth of her child. Poor woman, I thought when I read the book, making this little world for herself because she can’t handle the real one. [Read: Dollhouses weren’t invented for play]Narcissa Thorne, too, wanted to assert control—over the stubborn passage of time and what she saw as the ugliness of modern fads. Art Deco mixed influences from too many places in a pastiche she didn’t fancy. Instead, she liked the “period rooms” that were being added to museums in Detroit, New York, and Chicago to display the prettier interior design of bygone eras. She donated and volunteered at major institutions, but none big enough to accommodate a collection as comprehensive as she would have wished. By making her own compact period rooms, she could display the chronology of European domesticity at a manageable scale.But miniatures can do more than provide an illusion of control. And perhaps, despite her intentions, Thorne’s rooms did something of the opposite. Great miniatures create the fantasy that they are part of a world that will never fully reveal itself to the viewer. This is the same fantasy, as Stewart observed in On Longing, that animates The Nutcracker, Pinocchio, and other fairy tales in which toys come alive. A reporter at the Chicago Tribune wrote that looking into the rooms made you feel like a Lilliputian in Gulliver’s Travels.The Thorne rooms exert a power that preserved historic villas and museum period rooms cannot replicate. If a space can be inhabited, then the people inhabiting it can’t escape the presence of EXIT signs, plexiglass barriers, and one another. You always know you’re trapped in the present. You can’t walk into a miniature room, yet it feels somehow much more immersive. Thorne chose not to populate her rooms with tiny people. Ellenor Alcorn, the curator of Applied Arts of Europe at the Art Institute of Chicago, which holds the biggest collection of Thorne rooms, calls that a “really wise” decision. “The absence of figures means that we, as the visitor, become the human element in the room, and bring them to life,” she told me.The Thorne rooms at the Art Institute remain something of rarity: miniatures taken very, very seriously by a major American museum. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, in New York City, is home to the world’s biggest collection of American portrait miniatures—including a locket memento of George Washington and “Beauty Revealed,” a miniaturist’s self-portrait, which shows only her breasts—but only about 3 percent, are on display at the moment. (A spokesperson for the museum told me these paintings are rotated every few months because they’re sensitive to the light.)American miniature enthusiasts are used to thinking of their fascination as a quirk. Elle Shushan, who collects and sells 19th-century miniature portraits like those at the Met, told me her circle is “niche but passionate.” Carolyn LeGeyt, a Connecticut retiree who made dollhouses for all the girls in her family—10 nieces and two granddaughters—when they turned 9, told me that her favorite week of the year is when she goes to a summer school run by the International Guild of Miniature Artisans at Maine Maritime Academy. For that one week, she doesn’t need to explain her “love for small things.” (That’s also where she learned to paint and then sand down her dollhouses’ door knobs so that they look worn by use.)It doesn’t help their reputation for quirkiness that, as a group, American miniaturists are drawn to old-fashioned things. Most American dollhouses are Victorian. The miniature railroad at the Brandywine Museum, near Philadelphia, emerged out of nostalgia for disappearing old trains. This needn’t be the case. In Germany, Miniatur Wunderland replicates Hamburg’s warehouse district. Niklas Weissleder, a young man who works for the museum, told me that curators are getting anxious because many of the city’s cars are now electric, and the tiny cars have not yet been updated to reflect this change.Not all American miniatures are quaint idylls. Frances Glessner Lee, a contemporary of Narcissa Thorne, created detailed room boxes too, but hers were murder scenes, with blood stains and decomposing bodies. Glessner Lee liked to read Sherlock Holmes stories, donated money to fund the school of legal medicine at Harvard, and hoped the budding detectives there would use the rooms as puzzles to crack in 90-minute sessions. For her contributions, Glessner Lee earned the title of “godmother of forensic science” and became America’s first female police captain.A few years ago, the Smithsonian Institution’s Renwick Gallery, in Washington, D.C., displayed Glessner Lee’s rooms in “Murder Is Her Hobby,” a three-month exhibition. Nora Atkinson, the show’s curator, told me that it had been a tough sell for her bosses: They were “skeptical that anybody would be interested in sort of dollhouses, as they put it.” She felt there was a sense that the miniature rooms were just a feminine hobby, and not particularly “innovative.” In fact, the exhibition was so popular that the museum extended its hours. (A spokesperson for the Smithsonian told me that the exhibition was part of a series “showcasing women artists” and “challenging the marginalization of creative disciplines traditionally considered feminine.”)Is there a country in the world where miniatures are more than a strange little pastime? I’m talking about a place that could serve as a site of pilgrimage for miniature-lovers, or a first destination in the event that a team of scholars finally sets out to write the Unified Theory of Miniatures as an Important Category of Artistic Expression.There are probably quite a few candidates, but I’d submit Japan, where a long tradition honors the fascination with all objects mijika (“close to the body”) or te ni ireru (“that fit in the hand”).Ayako Yoshimura, now a librarian at University of Chicago, told me that she doesn’t understand why collecting miniatures is seen as a bit weird in America; it was quite normal in Japan when she was growing up. When she moved to the United States for college, she brought along the miniatures from her childhood and has since kept a drawer for them in every place she has lived. She has all the makings of a miniature Japanese garden, with a fence and an ornamental water basin, but she rarely shows them to anyone.Scholars I interviewed about the popularity of miniatures in Japan suggested that it might have to do with Japan itself being so small and dense, or with the nation’s tradition of decorative crafts. Yoshimura thinks her fellow Japanese have a “philosophy of concealment”; they are people who like owning little treasures to enjoy in private.[From the January/February 2017 issue: Big in Japan–tiny food]In the 1980s, the Korean professor and politician O-Young Lee wrote The Compact Culture, a best-selling book arguing that Japan’s love for small things, such as haiku and netsuke—tiny ivory sculptures concealed inside a kimono’s folds—led to its innovations in small-but-powerful industrial products such as the mighty microchip, and is by extension key to the nation’s economic success. Sushi, one of Japan’s most famous exports, is arguably a miniature—all the ingredients of a big plate, in a single bite.Japan is also the master of what I believe to be the canonical miniature: bonsai trees, which are microcosms of nature outside nature. Originally from China, the practice of making miniature landscapes was supposed to teach students how to manipulate the elements. Individual pieces were called silent poems. When the art form spread to Japan, it conserved the meaning of an environment subdued. “A tree that is left growing in its natural state is a crude thing,” reads Utsubo monogatari, a 10th-century story. “It is only when it is kept close to human beings who fashion it with loving care that its shape and style acquire the ability to move one.” (Srdjan Zivulovic / Reuters / Redux) There’s something cruel about a desire for control that necessitates trapping a tree with wires, for decades, to stunt its growth and sculpt its shape. Keiichi Fujikawa, a second-generation bonsai artist from Osaka, told me he strives to hide or remove the wires before the trees are exhibited, but that without them the bonsai is not “aesthetically viable.” The wires are the price of beauty. Crucial to the Buddhist belief system, Yukio Lippit, a professor of Japanese art at Harvard, told me, is the idea of “nestedness,” of universes contained infinitely within universes. Miniature trees can remind their beholders of a cosmology in which every small thing holds an entire world.When I first saw them, in the Brooklyn Botanic Garden, I understood that bonsais are not small trees but enormous ones—all of the complexity is there, simply at a reduced scale. I struggled to define why this effect is so beautiful, but I met an academic who came close: “Bonsais show the respect the artist has for you as a viewer,” Robert Huey, a professor of Japanese literature at University of Hawaii, told me. The bonsai artist knows that a miniature that simplifies would be an impostor, and bonsais are the opposite of impostors: not just miniature trees but real ones. They take decades to grow; they have leaves that blossom and fall with the seasons, and trunks that get sick and age. Like the trees that grow in the forest, they are fully alive.

Readers of the Los Angeles Times Sports section share their thoughts and opinions on the Dodgers' broadcasters, as well as Dave Roberts and Arte Moreno.

Rooney, a once-loved pet, at first found himself in an atmosphere heavy with the scent of fear until a rescue center stepped in.

Head coach Peter Laviolette has been preparing the Rangers for this since the day he took command last summer. They’re ready for this.

The popular shows were on their second and third seasons.

It's Jokic vs. James. Here's how and when to watch today's Los Angeles Lakers vs. Denver Nuggets NBA playoff game.

"I had a black eye, I have never had a black eye before," said Noa Cochva.

Erica Ciaramella blew the whistle on Trump fro something bis former boss Joe Biden also did. Pure hypocrisy.

It's a pivotal moment for House Speaker Mike Johnson as he tries to stave off a right-wing rebellion.

Humility can be a bulwark against arrogance, absolutism, purity and zeal, and an antidote in our age of grievance.

The Stanley Cup Playoffs kick off on Saturday, with 16 teams all vying for the chance to hoist the Cup at the end of it all. But which 4 teams have the best chance to do so?

The NBA playoffs tip off on Saturday, and despite the playoff picture being stacked from seeds one through eight, these four teams are the ones to watch for.

The former first lady is swept back into the Stormy cyclone.

At the spring meetings of the IMF and World Bank in D.C., U.S. officials pushed Europeans to use some of the Russian central bank reserves that were frozen.

Here’s how America should build on the end of Roe v. Wade

The Los Angeles Police Department is offering a $25,000 reward for information about a South L.A. street takeover where a driver struck several pedestrians, including two women, then fled the scene.

A number of new tech companies want to solve the opioid crisis with algorithms. It’s a flawed and potentially harmful proposition.

The Biden administration is imposing sanctions on entities accused of fundraising for extremist Israeli West Bank settlers who attacked Palestinians.

The Los Angeles County medical examiner determined the death of 16-year-old Shaylee Mejia was caused by an accidental fall down stairs, not a school fight.

The Lakers face a big task in a first-round playoff series against the reigning champion Nuggets, starting with LeBron James' health and the offense.

Parents have hidden toys, secretly removed batteries and even run toys over with a car to get away from the noise.

Here's how and when to watch the Orlando Magic vs. Cleveland Cavaliers NBA playoff series today.

Find out how and when to watch the Suns vs. Timberwolves in the first round of the 2024 NBA Playoffs.

USC takes yet another self-inflicted wound over its decision to cancel the commencement speech by its valedictorian, plus more from Opinion.

The duke's new Netflix show could come in for criticism over its privileged subject matter, "The Royal Report" has heard.

John Ellis was initially confused when he spotted the word "hinty" on his wife's birthday cake. Then it suddenly made sense.

Find out how and when to watch the Philadelphia 76ers vs. New York Knicks NBA Playoff game today.

The Post’s Ryan Dunleavy gives his top 10 safeties in this year’s NFL draft, based on evaluations and conversations with people around the league.

Journalist Fareed Zakaria speaks during the Ellis Island Medals of Honor ceremony at the Ellis Island Honors Society meeting in New York on May 13, 2017. | Kena Betancur/AFP via Getty Images Fareed Zakaria on the age of revolution. What does it mean to say that we’re living in a revolutionary era? Even political scientists can’t agree on the meaning of a “revolution,” but at the very least, we can agree that living through a revolution means living through extraordinary change in a relatively brief period. By that standard, we’re definitely living in a revolutionary moment. The pace of change — both technological and cultural — in the last couple of decades has been astonishing. But is it really all that unusual in historical terms? Things are always changing. What makes the digital revolution so different? Is it about the scale or the scope of change? Or is it both? Fareed Zakaria hosts CNN’s GPS and is a columnist at the Washington Post. His new book, Age of Revolutions: Progress and Backlash from 1600 to the Present, tries to make sense of the present by situating it in this historical pattern of revolution, starting with the Netherlands in the 16th century and ending with the digital era. I recently invited Zakaria on The Gray Area to talk about those patterns and why he thinks this might be one of the most revolutionary ages in human history. Below is an excerpt of our conversation, edited for length and clarity. As always, there’s much more in the full podcast, so listen to and follow The Gray Area on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you find podcasts. New episodes drop every Monday. Sean Illing It might surprise people when they learn that you think of the Industrial Revolution as “the mother of all revolutions.” Why place so much importance on this period? Fareed Zakaria Because it really created the modern world. The Industrial Revolution takes human beings out of millennia of poverty, backwardness, disease, and turbocharges the growth standards of living. It also gives us the idea that this is now a self-sustaining process where we’ll always grow, or we now just expect that every year the economy will grow more than it has in the past. And that was a completely new phenomenon. It happened because we are able to do something that was technologically thought impossible, which is to harness inanimate forms of energy. The Industrial Revolution is really an energy revolution and all of that completely remakes society because you go from a world of agriculture to a world of industry. People forget, but places like Harvard, to the extent they had trade elements, they were agricultural schools. Why? Because 95 percent of the people in America during the colonial era were engaged in agriculture. That transformation of society from an agricultural society to a modern industrial society happens because of the Industrial Revolution, and it completely overturns the politics of the age and much else. Sean Illing The pace and scale of societal change seems to be crucial here, maybe the most important variable. You even open the book with that famous quote from Marx and Engels talking about how the soil is fertile for revolution because the world that people live in keeps getting upended and uprooted by capitalism. To the extent that they were right about that, and I think they were, that does not seem all that encouraging because the pace of change keeps accelerating. Fareed Zakaria Yeah, absolutely. And that is Marx and Engels, they were bad economists, but they were brilliant social scientists. In the 1840s, they observed that the nature of capitalism was this constant progress or change because it was constantly creating new things. And they’re saying that capitalism will inevitably create new wants and new needs. So even when you think you’ve made everything that you possibly could, you discover that you need new things and that those new needs then drive the economy to new forms of dynamism and innovation. Which is why they write that “All that is solid melts into air.” What they’re talking about there is every belief system that you have is going to collapse because the underlying structure on which it was based has been changed by capitalism. At the end of the book, I quote Walter Lippmann, the great political columnist, who wrote in 1929 that the central problem of the age is that basically the “acids of modernity” are dissolving every belief system or custom or tradition. And the nature of modernity is that those acids will never let another belief system come into being or stay in place for long enough because they will be dissolved. I mean, we just thought we were finished with the software revolution, which had completely upended the economy, and now we have the AI revolution, which is going to upend whatever we thought we knew. Sean Illing Do you think we might look back and say that the digital revolution was the most revolutionary period in human history, in terms of how dramatically it changed human life and, really, human beings? Fareed Zakaria I suspect so because I think what we are doing is even broader, even faster, and even more disruptive. It’s broader because the Industrial Revolution, as you know, basically takes place in a handful of countries clustered around the North Atlantic. This revolution, by its nature, is happening everywhere. You go to India and you notice a country transformed by the smartphone, poor farmers are now using it to transact business in a way that they never did, but also consuming information and entertainment in a way that they never were. It’s also happening faster. I mean, we all know those statistics about how it took so many years for the first hundred million people to go online and then use Google, and then it took something like two months to get to a hundred million users of ChatGPT. So everything is accelerating. But I think perhaps the most profound shift is yet to come, which is AI and gene engineering. Because so far, and I borrow this point from Yuval Noah Harari, for all of human history, the two things that never really changed were your fundamental mental capacities and your fundamental physical capacities. Human beings were as smart as they were. The brain didn’t change that much over the last 20,000 years, and the human body didn’t change that much. Now AI is going to multiply the power of the human brain exponentially. And then you’re going to physically be able to create human beings who are much less prone to disease, who are much more capable of enhancing their physical capacities. You’re talking about almost the creation of a superman. There’s clearly something very, very disruptive about this idea that you can actually change the fundamental mental and physical capacities of human beings. Sean Illing How did the Industrial Revolution transform the politics of the time, and how do those changes compare to the political disruptions in the digital era? Fareed Zakaria In the beginning, the right was opposed to the Industrial Revolution, and the left was in favor of it, because classical conservatism was basically rooted in the hierarchies of land, of blood, of religion. It was defending the aristocracy, the landed elite, the church, the monarchy, and all those things seemed to be disrupted by the Industrial Revolution. The left, on the other hand, represented the merchants, the liberals, the people who were against monarchy, against established churches and their authority. But by the end of the Industrial Revolution, you get a kind of new politics. And the new politics is that the roles have flipped. The right is now in favor of the Industrial Revolution, capitalism, because they realized it just created a new plutocratic elite and were perfectly comfortable defending that new industrial elite. And the left realized that while it had been in favor of free markets and free trade and all that, it also produced enormous inequality and immiseration for workers. That shift basically created modern politics, and it endured for 150 years. The left was the side that wanted to regulate capitalism and the right wanted minimal state intervention. That powerful framework is being upended. But will it be as powerful a transformation? I don’t know. Certainly the forces, the acids of modernity right now, are as strong, but the reason I wonder is what we seem to be returning to is a kind of politics based on identity, culture, nationalism, national chauvinism, which means they tend to be kind of particular. In India, you’re seeing the rise of Hindu nationalism. In Turkey, we’ve seen the rise of a certain kind of Turkish nationalism fused with Islam. In Russia, you’re seeing the rise of a kind of Orthodox Russian nationalism that sees Moscow as the third Rome. In China, you’re seeing Han nationalism. So there is a common theme, but they’re all going to manifest themselves quite differently. And I think you can’t imagine quite the same common conversation or common allegiance that everyone will have to this one idea. Sean Illing We don’t know what’s on the other side of all this change, but what do you think the stakes are right now? Fareed Zakaria I think the stakes are really liberal democracy, because what has happened is the people who are at this point displaced, anxious, angry, radicalized, the focus of their ire is basically to tear down the system, the world that produced all this change. You can’t un-invent AI. You can’t even really undo globalization because it’s so broad and it’s so interpenetrating. You can maybe decrease it a little, but how would you, for example, stop globalization of digital goods, which are increasingly the most important goods? So it’s not a target-rich environment, but politics is, and so the tendency to just utterly disrupt and screw up liberal democracy and make it totally illiberal, which is happening in lots of places, not just the United States, is concerning because my worry is that one act of illiberalism begets another. Sean Illing If the liberal era does fade away, do you think it will be because liberalism devoured itself? Because it unleashed so much innovation and growth and change and cultural disorientation that it actually imploded under the instability it created? Fareed Zakaria That’s a very smart way of putting it. But yeah, that’s exactly right that it produced so much accelerating change, and then it turned out we did not, as human beings, have the capacity to navigate through that level of change wisely. We gave in to our fears and our emotions, and we didn’t find a way to create some anchors, some balance, that allowed us to move through these times. I am ultimately not that pessimistic because I think that we’ve been through backlashes before. One of the biggest eras of change in the Industrial Revolution was really the second Industrial Revolution, from 1880 to 1920. Everything gets electrified — cars, telegrams, movies, all that. And look at the disorientation it produced and the backlash it produced. What did we get out of all that? We got communism, fascism, world wars, the collapse of three of the greatest empires in the world in World War I. So we have been there before, and I think liberalism does find a way to revive itself, partly because at the end of the day human beings want to be free. They like progress. They want the fruits of liberalism. I continue to hope that what we’re talking about is a temporary setback, not a permanent reversal. To hear the rest of the conversation, click here, and be sure to follow The Gray Area on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Pandora, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

As small candles flickered on 13 empty chairs, short biographies of Columbine students Rachel Scott, Kyle Velasquez and Corey DePooter and the other victims were read one by one.

Alexander Kuranov is the latest scientist linked to Russia's hypersonic program to be convicted of high treason.

The tragic events at Columbine High School in 1999, when 12 students and one teacher died in a mass shooting, marked a turning point for America.

Sadly, she became clingy to our babies, and she now wants to babysit most weekends.

The Post’s Peter Botte breaks down the key matchups that will decide whether the Knicks can get by the 76ers in the first round of the NBA playoffs.

The House will vote Saturday on foreign aid bills to provide assistance to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.