# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Tinder is currently trialling a new feature in the app in India that allows its female users to decide whether or not they want to be the ones to start the conversation when they match with a man.

The feature, called "My Move", gives women the option in their settings on the app to decide if they want to let either party send the first message or if they want to be the ones to take control.

The aim of the feature is to make women feel more secure when using dating apps.

Tinder has been testing the "My Move" feature over the past few months in India.

If the initial tests prove successful, the dating app may then make the feature available to its millions of users worldwide.

While the function may be new to Tinder, the concept of encouraging women to make the first move when matched with a man on dating apps isn't a new phenomenon.

Bumble has been employing the same technique ever since the dating app was launched in December 2014 by Tinder co-founder Whitney Wolfe Herd.

The online dating platform, which has been described as "feminist" for its focus on its female users, was created by Wolfe Herd after she left Tinder and sued the company for sexual discrimination and harassment.

The fact that the "My Move" function has been launched in India in order to make women feel safe when using dating apps is very significant.

A few days ago, it was announced that India had launched a sex offenders register in an effort to tackle the country's "rape epidemic".

Official figures state that there are around 40,000 cases of rape in India every year.

According to Taru Kapoor, general manager for Match Group, the company that owns Tinder, giving female Tinder users in India the option to take control of the conversation may make them feel more safe when dating.

"We're a platform based on mutual respect, consent, and choice," she told . "We are focused on making the experience of women safer."

One male Tinder user praised the use of the feature, saying: "I know the kind of creeps out there on Tinder and other dating apps.

"One extra layer of security doesn't do much harm to men apart from slimming their chances of striking up a conversation."

While some may approve of the "My Move" feature, others remain doubtful that it will change the way in which men and women converse with one another on dating apps.

"Even after carefully picking someone, if they turn out to be nothing like you imagined, there is always an unmatch option," said a 25-year-old woman in Bengaluru.
The Independent's Millennial Love group is the best place to discuss to the highs and lows of modern dating and relationships. Join the conversation here.​

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tinder tests new feature in India where women make first move

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tinder is currently trialling a new feature in the app in India that allows its female users to decide whether or not they want to be the ones to start the conversation when they match with a man.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Rishi Iyengar

Tinder is allowing Indian women to really control the conversation.

The dating app announced a new feature called My Move on Tuesday that gives women the option to prevent men from initiating a conversation even if they've "matched."

The optional feature is currently only available to women using Apple's iOS operating system in India, but it will soon be extended to Android users.

"From user feedback, we have understood that while some women would prefer to exclusively make the first move, many other women do not want to feel like they have to so we are giving them the ability to choose," Tinder executive Taru Kapoor told CNN.

Kapoor said that My Move is being tested in "select geographies" and will be made available in other countries in the coming months. She did not specify which markets will next get the feature.

"Our aim is to continue to provide our users with a low-pressure environment where they feel in charge of the connections they make," said Kapoor.

Giving women more control over interactions on the app is particularly relevant in India, where crimes against women have grabbed headlines and prompted outrage.

Around 100 instances of sexual assault are reported to Indian police every day, according to figures from the National Crime Records Bureau. The data show there were 39,000 rapes in India in 2016 a rate of roughly one every 13.5 minutes.

Social media platforms have also come under intense scrutiny in recent months after more than a dozen mob lynchings in India were linked to hoax messages circulated on WhatsApp. The platform, owned by Facebook, has rolled out several features designed to prevent their spread.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tinder is giving women more control in India

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Rishi Iyengar Tinder is allowing Indian women to really control the conversation. The dating app announced a new feature called My Move on Tuesday that gives women the option to prevent men from initiating a conversation even if they've "matched."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A full-blown war of words between the first family and CNN broke out late Wednesday on Twitter, with the cable network mounting an unprecedented attack on President Trump in a jarring official statement defending a widely questioned story -- and the president delivering a withering counterattack.

The statement from CNN came after the president mocked Watergate legend Carl Bernstein, who co-wrote the disputed report that Trump's former lawyer was prepared to give damning information about the president to Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

CNN continues to stand by the story despite growing skepticism.

"Make no mistake, Mr. President, CNN does not lie. We report the news. And we report when people in power tell lies. CNN stands by our reporting and our reporters. There may be many fools in this story but @carlbernstein is not one of them," CNN's public relations department sent.

Leaving no attack unanswered, Trump hit back even harder early Thursday morning, mocking CNN boss "Little Jeff" Zucker and claiming the network's "extreme bias" has "clouded their thinking," rendering them "unable to function." He went on to slam NBC News and the media as a whole, including "fake books" - which could be in anticipation of Bernstein's Watergate reporting partner Bob Woodward's forthcoming Trump book.

CNN's overnight message was a response to Trump's earlier criticism of CNN for standing by a report on the infamous 2016 Trump Tower meeting, despite ex-Clinton aide Lanny Davis admitting he was an anonymous source and recanting key details he provided CNN for the story. Davis, the high-powered attorney of Trump's longtime "fixer"-turned-foe Michael Cohen, admitted Monday he was an anonymous source after The Washington Post outed him as a source for its own version of the story.

Bernstein weighed in late Wednesday: "I have spent my life as a journalist bringing the truth to light, through administrations of both parties. No taunt will diminish my commitment to that mission, which is the essential role of a free press. @CNN stands by its story, and I stand by my reporting."

Jim Sciutto, Marshall Cohen and Bernstein wrote CNN's original story that particularly was damaging to the president, and resulted in countless cable news segments that provided ammunition for anti-Trump pundits.

Davis told BuzzFeed News that he regretted being the anonymous source.

The CNN story, which cited multiple "sources," claimed Cohen said Trump knew in advance about the Trump Tower sit-down. However, Trump repeatedly has denied any advance knowledge of the meeting, and CNN has stood by its reporting amid widespread criticism.

"CNN is being torn apart from within based on their being caught in a major lie and refusing to admit the mistake. Sloppy @carlbernstein, a man who lives in the past and thinks like a degenerate fool, making up story after story, is being laughed at all over the country! Fake News," Trump tweeted earlier in the day, apparently drawing the ire of CNN execs.

While CNN responded to Trump via social media, the network has remained stone-silent when asked by reporters throughout the industry about Davis recanting his story.

CNN published a new report on Tuesday that acknowledged the changing stories of Davis, but critics were quick to point out that it left several key questions unanswered. Some feel the piece revealed Cohen as a source, while others noticed that the follow-up failed to explain why the original report claimed Davis declined comment when he was actually used as a source.

Donald Trump Jr., the president's oldest son, immediately took to Twitter to defend his father in a series of messages.

"CNN you just lied again by saying you don't lie. You said Lanny Davis declined to comment when he was in fact a source," Trump Jr. wrote. "Are you kidding me with this BS. Do you have any journalistic credibility at all? I mean seriously??? You're a joke!!!"

He continued: "This is @CNN. Quadrupling down when even the likes of buzzfeed and the Amazon WaPo have acknowledged the story was #fakenews. Ballsy... Stupid, but ballsy. You do you CNN."

Brian Flood covers the media for Fox News. Follow him on Twitter at @briansflood.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CNN fires back at Trump, stands by controversial story: 'CNN does not lie'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A full-blown war of words between the first family and CNN broke out late Wednesday on Twitter, with the cable network mounting an unprecedented attack on President Trump in a jarring official statement defending a widely questioned story -- and the president delivering a withering counterattack.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
August 24
We all do it sometimes, even though we know it's wrong.

But here's the problem with lying: Research shows that the more you lie, the easier it gets, and the more likely you are to do it again.

"The dangerous thing about lying is people don't understand how the act changes us," said Dan Ariely, behavioral psychologist at Duke.

Lying is in the news this week after President Trump's longtime lawyer testified that Trump had directed him to pay hush money to a porn star named Stormy Daniels just before the 2016 election. The courtroom admission not only implicated Trump in a crime, it also exposed months of denials by Trump and his aides as lies.

Psychologists have documented children lying as early as age 2. Some experts even consider lying a developmental milestone, like crawling and walking, because it requires sophisticated planning, attention and the ability to see a situation from someone else's perspective to effectively manipulate them. But for most people, lying gets limited as we develop a sense of morality and the ability to self-regulate.

A on the prevalence of lying in America found that in a given 24-hour period, most adults reported not telling any lies. Almost half the lies recorded in the study could be attributed to just 5 percent of participants. And most people avoided lying when they could, turning to deception only when the truth was troublesome.

Harvard cognitive neuroscientist Joshua Greene said for most of us, lying takes work. In studies, he presented study subjects with a chance to deceive for monetary gain while examining their brains in a functional MRI machine, which maps blood flow to active parts of the brain.

Some people told the truth instantly and instinctively. But others opted to lie, and theyshowed increased activity in their frontal parietal control network, which is involved in difficult or complex thinking. This suggests that they were deciding between truth and dishonesty - and ultimately opting for the latter.

For a follow-up analysis, he found that people whose neural reward centers were more active when they won money were also more likely to be among the group of liars - suggesting that lying may have to do with the inability to resist temptation.

Scientists don't really know what prevents all of us from lying all the time. Some believe truth-telling is a social norm we internalize, or a result of conflict in our brains between the things we want and the positive vision of ourselves we strive to maintain. But the curious thing about this preventive mechanism is that it comes from within.

"We are our own judges about our own honesty," said Ariely, the Duke psychologist. "And that internal judge is what differentiates psychopaths and non-psychopaths."

External conditions also matter in terms of when and how often we lie. We are more likely to lie, research shows, when we are able to rationalize it, when we are stressed and fatigued, or when we see others being dishonest. And we are less likely to lie when we have moral reminders or when we think others are watching.

"We as a society need to understand that when we don't punish lying, we increase the probability it will happen again," Ariely said.

In a in the journal Nature Neuroscience, Ariely and colleagues showed how dishonesty alters people's brains, making it easier to tell lies in the future. When people uttered a falsehood, the scientists noticed a burst of activity in their amygdala. The amygdala is a crucial part of the brain that produces fear, anxiety and emotional responses - including that sinking, guilty feeling you get when you lie.

But when scientists had their subjects play a game in which they won money by deceiving their partner, they noticed the negative signals from the amygdala began to decrease. Not only that, but when people faced no consequences for dishonesty, their falsehoods tended to get even more sensational.

"If you give people multiple opportunities to lie for their own benefit," said Tali Sharot, a cognitive neuroscientist at University College London who led the research, "they start with little lies and get bigger and bigger over time."
Read more: Are rich people more likely to lie, cheat, steal? Science explains the world of Manafort and Gates. America is a nation of narcissists, according to two new studies When we fight fire with fire: Rudeness can be as contagious as the common cold, research shows

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why liars lie: What science tells us about deception

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
August 24 We all do it sometimes, even though we know it's wrong. But here's the problem with lying: Research shows that the more you lie, the easier it gets, and the more likely you are to do it again.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US will be hit worse than almost anyone else by climate change, says study

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
India and Saudi Arabia are the other two nations set to be hit hardest, new report says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Tinder is testing a new feature in India that puts women in control of sending the first message to a match.

The dating platform currently works by letting either party send a message once two people have "liked" each other by swiping right on their profile.

Rival app Bumble, founded by Whitney Wolfe, who also co-founded Tinder, already has this new feature by default.

The two companies are currently suing each other in separates disputes.

Tinder's parent company, Match Group, has accused Bumble of copying its swipe-based model, while Bumble's countersuit claims Match fraudulently obtained trade secrets during failed acquisition talks.

Tinder's new control feature, My Move, had been tested in India for several months and may roll out worldwide, reported Reuters.

The company said it wanted women to feel safe and comfortable.

In June, the Wall Street Journal reported that the platform in India had many more male users than female - although Tinder has never released these figures publicly.

With high-profile cases of sexual violence against women in certain parts of India making headlines around the world, concerns about safety are growing.

"By giving our female users the ability to exclusively send the first message if and when they want to, My Move provides women the autonomy to choose how to engage with their matches and empowers them to control their experiences," said Taru Kapoor, India's general manager for Match Group.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tinder tests letting women message first

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tinder is testing a new feature in India that puts women in control of sending the first message to a match. The dating platform currently works by letting either party send a message once two people have "liked" each other by swiping right on their profile.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In a study published Monday, scientists estimate for the first time how much each country around the world will suffer in future economic damage from each new ton of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere. What they found may come as a surprise: the future economic costs within the U.S. borders are the second-highest in the world, behind only India.

The results suggest that the U.S. has been underestimating how much it benefits from reducing its greenhouse gas emissions and that the country has far more to gain from international climate agreements than the Trump administration is willing to admit.

"Our analysis demonstrates that the argument that the primary beneficiaries of reductions in carbon dioxide emissions would be other countries is a total myth," said lead author Kate Ricke, an assistant professor at the University of San Diego's School of Global Policy and Strategy and Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

She said that after modeling hundreds of scenarios, the U.S. consistently faces among the costliest damages, as measured by what economists call the social cost of carbon.

The social cost of carbon is a complicated calculation that puts a price on the future damages caused by today's emissions, expressed in today's dollars. It is used by economists to suggest how much people should be willing to pay now to avoid climate damage to future generations. Its value is inherently uncertain and depends on many scientific and economic factors.

This study, published in the scientific journal Nature Climate Change, estimates the future costs to each country based on all the ways climate change currently effects economies, such as higher health and energy costs and damage to property and agriculture. But the authors stress that it's still a very conservative estimate because it doesn't capture longer-term effects that are still coming, including sea level rise that will put coastal cities at risks and ocean acidification that can damage fisheries.

The results underline the inequality of climate damage and show why nations should consider-and be held accountable for-the global harm their emissions cause, and not just the impact in their own backyards.

Where the Economic Damage Falls

By looking at the economic damage on the national level, the study shows how each country's share of the global damage compares to its share of global CO2 emissions.

The U.S.'s share of the global damage, about 12 percent, is slightly less than its share of the global emissions. But India's share of the damage is four times higher than its contribution. "India is getting hit four times harder than it deserves to be based on its own emissions," said study co-author Ken Caldeira, an atmospheric scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science.

In contrast, China's share of the emissions is four times larger than its share of the estimated damages, the study says.

The case of Russia shows how some of the major emitters could even gain from rising temperatures, as a warming Siberia would benefit Russia economically in the short term (though the estimates don't account for longer-term impacts the country will face, such as damage to Arctic ecosystems and the rising ocean). Northern Europe and Canada also could have low costs or even net benefits from CO2 emissions, according to the estimates.

If these countries only considered the current economic impact within their borders, they would appear to have little incentive to cut their emissions. But those longer-term effects are coming, and even without them, economic damages will spill over as other nations struggle with global warming: trade disruptions will make it harder to import goods they depend on or to export their own, the risks of global economic of turmoil and mass migration will rise, as will the potential for liability for damage caused by their years of high emissions.

U.S. Government Estimates Are Far Too Low

The U.S. government uses a social cost of carbon in its cost-benefit analyses when it designs new environmental regulations or rewrites old ones, but its numbers are much lower than those in the study.

The Obama administration set its median social cost of carbon at about $42 per metric ton for 2020. It based that on calculations of the global harm being created by each ton of U.S. emissions. When the Trump administration came in, it argued that the social cost of carbon should only address the impact on the U.S., and it wanted a higher discount rate. When the Trump administration issued its cost-benefit analysis for rolling back the Clean Power Plan, it cited numbers closer to $3 per ton.

Looking just at the impact within U.S. borders, the new study estimates the U.S. social cost of carbon emissions is nearly $48 per ton.

That wouldn't support the Trump administration's plans for weakening the Clean Power Plan and energy efficiency standards, because the estimate of just U.S. damages is close to what the Obama administration used for global impact, Ricke said.

"American policy is looking backward to a world that no longer exists," Caldeira said. "It should instead be preparing for a future that is very different from the past."

Several other countries face damages above $20 per ton. The study estimates India's localized social cost of carbon at around $86 per ton, Saudi Arabia at $47, and China, Brazil and the United Arab Emirates at $24. The global cost when the economic impact on all nations is added up is around $417 per ton.

And even those are underestimates, the authors said. The researchers used an empirical macroeconomic approach that captures all market impacts of climate change that could already be seen affecting the economy by 2014, but that doesn't capture potential catastrophic events, short-term costs of adaptation, biodiversity loss, or the longer-term impacts of sea level rise and ocean acidification.

Pinpointing Where Adaptation Needs Are Highest

One challenge with using the social cost of carbon to drive policies is that it's an uncertain number, said Noah Kaufman, a researcher at Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy who served in the Obama administration as deputy associate director of energy and climate change for the Council on Environmental Quality.

He noted that most Obama-era regulations that used the social cost of carbon could have been justified solely with non-climate rationales.

"Where studies like this are most useful on the adaptation side," he said. "We're going to experience some level of climate change no matter what. These help us understand which areas of the world are most vulnerable."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate Change Will Cost U.S. More in Economic Damage Than Any Other Country But One

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a study published Monday, scientists estimate for the first time how much each country around the world will suffer in future economic damage from each new ton of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere. What they found may come as a surprise: the future economic costs within the U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Donald Trump's chronic dishonesty threatens to infect his entire administration.

By The Editorial Board

The editorial board represents the opinions of the board, its editor and the publisher. It is separate from the newsroom and the Op-Ed section.

Image

Credit Credit Doug Chayka

Everyone wants to curry favor with the boss. If she golfs, you hit the driving range. If he's a movie buff, you haunt the multiplex. So when the president of the United States continually makes clear that he is a huge fan of "alternative facts," what's an eager-to-please administration official to do?

Take Brock Long, the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. As Hurricane Florence buffeted the Carolinas last weekend, Mr. Long went on the Sunday news shows to discuss the government's response efforts. But he soon found himself fielding questions about President Trump's claim that, contrary to Puerto Rico's official estimate, " 3,000 people did not die" as a result of Hurricane Maria, which devastated the island last year. That death toll, according to the president, was manufactured by Democrats desperate to make him " look as bad as possible. "

Mr. Trump's denial of this mass tragedy prompted dismayed pushback, even among Republican officials. But Mr. Long, like a good soldier, rushed right in to shore up his boss's wild theory on how the data had been cooked. "You might see more deaths indirectly occur as time goes on because people have heart attacks due to stress, they fall off their house trying to fix their roof, they die in car crashes because they went through an intersection where the stoplights weren't working," he told NBC's "Meet the Press," adding: "Spousal abuse goes through the roof. You can't blame spousal abuse, you know, after a disaster on anybody."

Determining which deaths should be included in the official count (2,975 people) is indeed tricky business, which is why the Puerto Rican government commissioned independent researchers at George Washington University to conduct the analysis on which the death toll was based. Mr. Long was dismissing their methodology in his quest to support Mr. Trump's tale of political victimhood.

It has been noted that Mr. Long was going through a professional rough patch that might have made him extra keen to stay in the president's good graces. The FEMA chief has been under investigation by the inspector general at the Department of Homeland Security for possibly misusing government resources, including personnel and vehicles, while commuting between Washington and his home in North Carolina. On Monday, the news broke that the case had been referred to federal prosecutors, even as the House oversight c ommittee announced that it, too, would be looking into the matter. But on Friday night it was announced that Mr. Long could keep his job if he reimbursed the government for use of the vehicles, and that he might not face criminal charges.

However Mr. Long's ethical troubles factor into the equation, Mr. Trump has made clear that he considers it the duty of all administration officials to peddle his version of reality to protect his interests, be it on matters of policy, politics or the embarrassing Russia investigation. Failure to do so is the quickest path to the presidential doghouse. (Right, Mr. Attorney General?)

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross has been accused of ethical shiftiness in his past business dealings that would get someone in his position booted from any normal administration, or at least swallowed up in a major scandal. Former associates say he cheated them out of more than $120 million.

So it was no surprise this week when compelling evidence emerged that the secretary may have committed perjury in his zealous pursuit of the president's agenda. Mr. Ross has been under fire for months for his department's push to add a question about citizenship status to the census form. Critics see the move as part of the administration's effort to depress voting among certain demographic groups. The attorney general of New York, Barbara Underwood, has filed suit on behalf of 18 states to block the question.

In March, Mr. Ross testified before Congress that the question had been "initiated" in a request last December from the Department of Justice, as a way to improve enforcement of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Various documents have since come to light that appear to contradict his testimony, detailing Mr. Ross's early enthusiasm for the question. On Monday, Ms. Underwood released an unredacted Commerce Department memo showing that in fact, the Justice Department initially resisted pressure from Mr. Ross's department to request such a question. On Friday, a federal judge ruled that Mr. Ross can be questioned under oath, and called "the credibility of Secretary Ross squarely at issue."

Then, of course, there's Kirstjen Nielsen, the secretary of homeland security, who this past spring was reportedly on thin ice with Mr. Trump for her failure to shut down migrant crossings at the border. By early summer, Ms. Nielsen found herself insisting that the administration did not have a policy of splitting apart migrant families even as she was aggressively enforcing and publicly defending that policy.

On other issues, Ms. Nielsen has seemed more conflicted about toeing the president's line, such as on the question of whether Russia meddled in the 2016 elections specifically with an eye toward helping Mr. Trump win. The federal government's intelligence community says it did. Mr. Trump says it didn't. Ms. Nielsen has gone back and forth. In late May, she said she'd seen no reason to believe that Russia had favored Mr. Trump. Hours later, her office walked back those remarks. But come July, Ms. Nielsen restated her original position - after which she and her office promptly issued statements that made her view incomprehensible.

Over at the Interior Department last year, the secretary, Ryan Zinke, and top aides, in their crusade to downsize various national monuments, withheld data pointing to the benefits, both economic and archaeological, of keeping protections in place while they played up the benefits of removing the protections. The deception was discovered in July when the department accidentally released a nonredacted version of the study in question - only to quickly recall it and send out the version tailored to make their case.

And let us not forget Mr. Trump's most committed and creative defender, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary. She is regularly dispatched by her boss to mislead the American people on issues ranging from whether the president paid hush money to Stormy Daniels, the former porn star who claims to have had an affair with Mr. Trump, to whether he dictated a false statement about the Trump Tower meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and the Russians. She has also taken it upon herself to tell whoppers about less salacious matters, including the trend in black unemployment and how diversity visas are issued.

While scandalous, this kind of behavior is also depressingly predictable. When the president repeatedly sends the signal that he regards honesty as a handicap, he can quickly drag the whole executive branch down to his level.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTOpinion).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | Presidential Lying Is Contagious

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Donald Trump's chronic dishonesty threatens to infect his entire administration. By The Editorial Board The editorial board represents the opinions of the board, its editor and the publisher. It is separate from the newsroom and the Op-Ed section. Everyone wants to curry favor with the boss. If she golfs, you hit the driving range.