In a bombshell piece of investigative journalism by Associated Press reporter Jeff Donn, Americans learned on Tuesday that more than a century's worth of admonitions from dentists about how important it is to grind strands of filament into your gums a couple times a day until you bleed might just be bullshit.

Donn pressed the American Dental Association (ADA) to explain its conclusion that "Flossing is an essential part of taking care of your teeth and gums." He also tried to find the federal government's scientific basis for putting flossing in the list of dietary guidelines proffered by the Department of Health and Human Services every five years since 1979. It turned out there was practically no hard science involved in either one.

The ADA's representative, "acknowledged weak evidence, but he blamed research participants who didn't floss correctly," writes Donn. The federal government, meanwhile, removed the guideline after Donn inquired, and when he asked for an explanation, the Fed "acknowledged the effectiveness of flossing had never been researched, as required."

So is flossing a waste of time?

According to Los Angeles dentist Alessandra Raschkovsky, the Fed's removal of its flossing recommendation was dead wrong. "I can't understand why they did that," Raschkovsky told VICE. Raschkovsky said she'd observed cases in which flossing made no difference."Some people are lucky. They have good genes, so they don't floss. But the majority needs to."

But the AP isn't the only entity to question the flossing doctrine. A 2011 piece of meta-analysis published by The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews also investigated flossing's efficacy by compiling data from 12 different trials. In the end, that team found "weak, very unreliable evidence from 10 studies that flossing plus toothbrushing may be associated with a small reduction in plaque at 1 and 3 months."

When pressed for proof of flossing's efficacy, floss manufacturers Procter & Gamble and Johnson & Johnson both made questionable scientific claims, according to the AP. Johnson & Johnson simply claimed flossing fights plaque without backing it up at all, and the study Procter & Gamble used to defend itself had already been debunked by Cochrane's 2011 report.

But if that leaves you ready to repurpose your dental floss into a popcorn necklace or a prison garrote, you may want to keep shoving it in between your teeth for a couple reasons.

The Cochrane study may have dismissed most claims about dental floss regarding tooth decay, but it also adds that, "the review showed that people who brush and floss regularly have less gum bleeding compared to toothbrushing alone." So if you don't like your gums to bleed, you might still want to make flossing a priority.

Raschkovsky told VICE she has personally observed a reduction in gum bleeding in patients who began a new flossing regimen. But the real difference, she said, came from the measurements of patients' unhealthily wide "gum pockets"—an indicator of gum disease.

"I've seen people with six millimeter pockets reduced to three—a big improvement," Raschkovsky said, adding, "and that was in people who had always brushed before, and then started flossing."

But Raschkovsky said that for the seriously floss-phobic, tools other than floss can produce a similar effect to classic flossing. "I have patients that refuse to floss," Rashkovsky said."They start using a Waterpik, and it's a tremendous difference."

And Water Pik, Inc.—the makers of Waterpik, a brand-name water-flossing tool—stands to benefit if Americans ditch their string. They've already been on the war path against regular floss since at least last September. In celebration of their product being added to ADA's page on healthy habits for people under 40, Water Pick, Inc. crowed that Americans should buy their device instead of floss. "here is no evidence to support recommending string floss, with the possible exception to those who have perfectly healthy gums and can master string flossing at a very high level (and that's a very small group)," their advertisement claimed.

Still, despite the change in the federal guidelines, Raschkovsky plans to keep giving patients that classic dentist's bargain: floss or face a reprimand at your next visit. "Some people lie," she said, claiming that she can spot the difference between a flosser and a non-flosser.

But, she joked, "the gums don't lie."

Follow Mike Pearl on Twitter.

All screenshots by Dylan Roberts

After traveling several miles over the plains, I scramble forward and head through the forest. The leaves are a magnificent shade of violet, the ground is covered with a blanket of familiar green grass, and small birds fly overhead. There are bizarre creatures, with silhouettes that evoke earth creatures such as frogs and birds, but which are decidedly alien in origin. As I exit the thicket, there is a nearby mountain over a few more hills, and since I've already come so far, I scale it.

(Photo by Bruno Bayley)

Young British millennials are all skint with bleak financial prospects so you'd think this was the time to find enjoyment in the only pleasure in life which doesn't involve money: fucking. Given our access to Tinder and high unemployment rates, we should be sowing our seeds across the country, living the dream that the 1960s promised. Women have sexual freedom like blokes, so there's essentially nothing stopping us in 2016, right?

Except a new study shows that our pathetic sex lives are disappointing and stressful. The latest National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles of sexual health in Britain shows that large numbers of young people experience sexual problems such as pain or anxiety during sex, the inability to climax and finding intercourse difficult.

Just over a third (33.8 percent) of sexually active men aged 16-21 and 44.4 percent of sexually active young women of the same age experienced at least one problem, which lasted for at least three months, with their ability to enjoy sex in the past year.

For women, the most common problem was difficulty in reaching climax (for 21.3 percent). Other issues included lacking enjoyment in sex, feeling anxious during sex and no excitement or arousal.

Among men the biggest difficulty was having an orgasm too quickly (13.2 percent). Other problems ranged from feeling anxious to difficulty getting or keeping an erection.

"Our findings show that distressing sexual problems are not only experienced by older people in Britain," Dr Kirstin Mitchell, the lead author of the study, told the Guardian.

The gender differences in the study were significant too. One in five (22 percent) of women said they lacked interest in sex, while far fewer men – 10.5 percent – said the same. More women (9.8 percent) than men (5.4 percent) lacked enjoyment in sex, felt anxious during sex (8 percent compared with 4.8 percent of men) and experienced no excitement or arousal during sex (8 percent compared with 3.2 percent of men).

Much of this is down to terrible sex ed in schools, which is about as useful as putting a condom on a banana. Oh, wait.

If you're wallowing in misery at your three-thrust sessions, know that you're not alone. We're all fucking unsatisfactorily with you.

More on sex:

How Pokemon Would Have Sex: An Investigation

Paris Lees: Everything I've Learnt About Sex

We Asked Men What They Find Attractive on Tinder

It's not hard to hate Donald Trump. He's loud, he lies all the time, he's casually bigoted and prone to attacking people of color—he's like that fictional "racist uncle" trope trotted out for articles about surviving Thanksgiving, only breathtakingly real in his angry orangeness. Dislike for Trump cuts across many lines, but one group of voters he's doing particularly bad with are young people—even young Republicans.

A survey by Public Policy Polling released last week shows the depth and breadth of Trump's millennial problem. That poll showed Hillary Clinton leading Trump by 5 points among respondents overall—but that gap grew to 15 points—45 percent to 30 percent—among voters under age 30, with 35 percent of that group still undecided or opting for a third-party candidate.

The results echo those of a poll on millennial attitudes released by Harvard's Institute of Politics this spring, in which just over half of young Republican respondents—57 percent—said they planned to vote for Trump, compared to a full 83 percent of young Democrats who said they planned to vote for Clinton. More damningly, for Trump, the survey found that the Republican nominee is so toxic among 20-somethings that more than one in ten of those who identify with his own party admit that they would cast a ballot for an Establishment Democrat than Trump.

You could blame this trend partly on the banner Trump is running under. For years, Republicans have catered to a base of older, conservative white voters, while mostly ignoring millennials; in 2012, Mitt Romney got just 30 percent of the under-30 vote. But that was against Barack Obama, whose powerful speeches about the American Dream and general with-it-ness were political aphrodisiacs for younger voters. In 2000, George W. Bush split the youth vote with Democratic candidate Al Gore, your dad's most boring friend, and Ronald Reagan was actually pretty beloved by younger voters. The GOP isn't inherently unhip; it's just refused to modify its positions as the younger generation—which tends to be racially diverse, tolerant of homosexuality, down to smoke some weed—has come of age.

Jack and David Cahn are a set of precocious millennial twins writing a book about their generation. They told VICE that some Republican policies, like gun rights and charter schools, are attractive to millennials, but that Trump has gotten in the way of the party's ability to attract younger voters.

"On the one hand, the GOP continues to brands itself as the party of climate deniers, immigrant haters, and gay bashers. That's not helping them win millennial votes," David said. "On the other hand, Donald Trump is the ultimate anathema, not only to centrist millennials, but also to Republicans. The three core millennial values are optimism, tolerance, and authenticity. Trump's attacks on Mexicans and Muslims, mocking of disabled people, and refusal to denounce the KKK violate these values to the extreme."

Clinton doesn't have Obama's gift for uplifting rhetoric, and many young people aren't particularly drawn to her: The same Harvard study found that Bernie Sanders was the only candidate from either party to earn a positive net rating among under-30s. The leadership of the Democratic Party is old and getting older. So 2016 seems like it could have been a chance for the GOP to bring millennials into the fold. Instead, it nominated a man that two-thirds of voters under 30 believe he's a racist.

A Time magazine article about young people at the Republican National Convention claimed that most millennials in attendance weren't Trump voters; in fact, many were, like other Republicans, openly wondering if they could support a man who says such noxious things publicly. That lines up with exit polling from the GOP primaries, which found that on Super Tuesday at least, millennials were the least likely Republican cohort to vote for Trump.

"Younger conservatives are libertarian-leaning," Cliff Maloney, the executive director of the conservative group Young Americans for Liberty, told VICE. These young Republicans "not only want the government's hands out of their wallets, they want the government out of their bedrooms as well."

Maloney said that "pro-liberty" young people who backed Ron Paul in 2012 tend to support politicians like Ron's son Rand, a Kentucky senator, and other Paul acolytes like Reps. Thomas Massie, of Kentucky, and Justin Amash, of Michigan, both of whom have adopted libertarian-leaning stances during their terms in Congress.

"When Republicans embrace technology and innovation, support free speech, advocate for a sober foreign policy, and real criminal justice reform—they win," Maloney said. "Those topics are important to young people, and when Republicans abandon them, they lose any shot at youth support."

Trump, who is now running as the "law and order" candidate, has said he wants to make it easier to sue newspaper for libel, talks openly about torturing suspected terrorists, and has feuded with some of the tech sector's most prominent leaders. In other words, the problem isn't that Trump has lost young undecided voters and young people of color—it's that he risks losing even young Republicans.

In May, after it became clear Trump would be the Republican nominee, Katrina Elaine Jorgensen, the communications chair for the Young Republicans National Federation, resigned her post in protest. "I cannot live with being seen as supporting a candidate I truly feels tramples on all of our values," she wrote on Facebook.

She might be one of the most vocal young Republican #NeverTrump-ers, but she's not alone.

"Unfortunately, a Trump loss in 2016 is unlikely to push the GOP to adopt more millennial-friendly platforms on issues from weed to immigration and the environment," said David Cahn. "Republicans will use Trump as an excuse for the party's loss, instead of recognizing that Trump is only part of the greater problem, which is that GOP is out of touch with the beliefs of the next generation."

Follow Harry Cheadle on Twitter.

New York City police commissioner William Bratton is joined by Mayor Bill de Blasio during a news conference Tuesday. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)

When New York City police commissioner Bill Bratton's resignation was announced Tuesday, it marked another successful stint atop America's largest police department for the veteran cop. But the man is dipping his beak back into the private sector amid swirling corruption probes and fresh policy demands from Black Lives Matter activists in a city with a dense history of racially charged police killings.

Bratton started his 46-year career in law enforcement as a beat cop in Boston, eventually heading the city's department. In New York City, where he will continue running the show until next month, he climbed the ranks to become commissioner under Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in 1994. During that first stint atop the NYPD, Bratton helped popularize the "broken windows" approach to policing, which holds that going hard after minor or even petty crimes like vandalism can reduce more serious and violent offenses like rape and murder. The approach remains highly controversial among academics and activists alike, though Bratton's fans point to massive drops in NYC crime rates in the 1990s as evidence of its genius.

The commissioner's first stint in New York was also marked by pushing the department toward a data-driven system called "COMPSTAT," which tracks crime at the hyper-local level and has since been embraced nationally. The two approaches—and subsequent plunges in violent crime—helped make Bratton America's first modern superstar cop, landing him on the cover of TIME in 1996. (The magazine appearance is often rumored to be the reason Giuliani forced Bratton out that same year.)

In 2002, Bratton became the chief of the Los Angeles Police Department and the only person to have ever held the top position in both LA and New York. There, he was tasked with reforming a troubled department enduring federal oversight and earned some praise for engaging with critics early and often.

In between stints as America's most famous police boss, Bratton traversed the so-called revolving door typically associated with politicians like Eric Holder, who famously and controversially worked for Wall Street–friendly law firms before and after serving as US attorney general. The mixed career brought some scrutiny to Bratton when Mayor Bill de Blasio appointed him again in 2013; at the time, he was tied to multiple companies trying to partner with the department, like ShotSpotter, a series of sensors that help police locate where a gun has been fired. The commissioner stepped down from all three positions at great financial loss, though ShotSpotter was adopted by the department last year.

Bratton will reportedly move to a gig at Teneo, a global consulting firm whose success has rested in no small part on its close ties to former president Bill Clinton.

Although Bratton is known as a remarkably successful cop, one offshoot of his broken-windows philosophy has been "stop and frisk," a tactic used heavily in the city's outer boroughs and deemed unconstitutional in 2013 for basically consisting of racial profiling. Since then, the NYPD has required beat cops to hand out receipts when stopping and frisking, which revealed officers often can't articulate why they stop the people they do.

Critics also say broken windows was instrumental in the 2014 death of Eric Garner. The 43-year-old black man, suspected of the quality-of-life crime of selling illegal cigarettes, was killed after being placed in a chokehold by Officer Daniel Pantaleo, who is white. A searing video of the encounter helped galvanize the then-nascent Black Lives Matter movement.

Today that movement is looking increasingly like a nascent political party. On Monday, more than 50 groups associated with BLM released a list of demands that include reparations for mass incarceration and the demilitarization of police. Around 200 protestors also occupied City Hall Park in New York holding signs with messages like, "We see police get away with murder" and demanding Bratton be fired.

Bratton will pass the reins to NYPD chief of department James O'Neill––a move unlikely to quell activists's concerns given his long tenure as a uniformed cop. And while this week's long-planned protests almost certainly had nothing to do with his resignation, there is some precedent for Bratton at least being sensitive to a changing cultural landscape. He first applied for the police chief job in LA right after the Rodney King riots before taking his name out of the running because the political climate called for a black candidate.

O'Neill, meanwhile, has been instrumental in getting the NYPD to move toward a model of neighborhood-based policing. In the fall, 51 percent of precincts will have implemented his approach, de Blasio told reporters Tuesday, and the success of his tenure will rest in large part on bridging the gap between people of color and police.

Of course, given that some senior NYPD officers are currently under investigation for allegedly accepting money, diamonds, and sexual favors in return for police escorts, cleaning house might need to take priority.

"O'Neill is completely capable of taking over the department and moving forward," says Joseph Giacalone, a former NYPD detective sergeant and professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. "But remember, he's taken over a department where the entire upper echelon is suspected or being suspected of taking bribes and gifts. He has his work cut out for him."

Follow Allie Conti on Twitter.

All screens via Evolve PR/Adult Swim

Lately, my idle mind's found itself filling up with thoughts of a new, original sci-fi video game. You know, when drifting off on the train, taking a shower after nowhere close to enough sleep, glossing over in front of weeknight TV. Of how much I want to get back at it in the moments where I can't, how it's hooked me after the smallest taste. It's the work of an indie studio with a strong following, and its looks are immediately striking, setting it apart from any game of its kind on the market. And no, it's not No Man's Sky.

Headlander is the latest game from the Tim Schafer–founded Double Fine, whose Broken Age adventure of 2015 was one of the biggest Kickstarter successes ever seen (here's VICE speaking to Schafer and actor Elijah Wood, last year). This is no crowd-backed venture, however, with Adult Swim Games on publishing duties. Given these companies' previous form for singular, nudging-on-surreal gaming experiences—Psychonauts, Brütal Legend, Robot Unicorn Attack, Jazzpunk, I could go on but let's stick to the game at hand—it was inevitable that their first collaboration would be a game apart. And "apart" is a conceptual tenet that's been incorporated into the way Headlander plays, too.

'Headlander,' gameplay trailer

Sporting a retro-futuristic aesthetic, like 1960s Star Trek beamed into a present of PlayStation 4s and PCs via a stopover in Blake's 7, Headlander's unique twist on the metroidvania genre of two-dimensional exploration, and unlocking areas you've already seen the way to once will literally see you lose your head. After selecting from one of a handful of different faces to play with, you realize that you have no body whatsoever. Instead, you propel your helmeted head around the environments, connecting with and taking control of robotic bodies in order to complete puzzles and traverse the sprawling, map-essential stages. Sometimes this means popping off the noggin' that's already in place, and you can achieve this a number of ways, my favorite being to suck it from its shoulders, super-powered vacuum cleaner style.

The body you're controlling has a bearing on what areas you can access, with doorways color coded to match your attire—your head alone cannot pass, unless zipping through after a well-placed laser shot (which can be directed to bounce off walls). Sometimes there are ways around, though—sucking the cover from a handy vent can open up shortcuts and reveal stat upgrades to boost shields, increase speed and firm up each new body's resistance to exploding. It's all very simple to read, with objectives clearly marked and power-ups self-explanatory, while menus fit the feel of the game without any confusing icons cluttering up the screen.

There's plenty for your fingers and thumbs to do, and the action can get pretty intense as the enemy Shepherds—the game's name for the robots gunning for you, all of which are controlled by a nefarious AI by the intriguing name of Methuselah (check your nearest Bible)—increase in numbers, rooms locking down until all combat is calmed. The controls can get a little fiddly sometimes, as the button to aim your weapon-cum-skeleton-key contraption also sees you duck into cover (in a fashion reminiscent of Roll7's Not a Hero, but without the bloodlust), but quick restarts after each demise—and there'll be a few, accompanied by a psychedelic ripple of colors—ensure that frustration is rarely an issue. Die, retry, die, retry, done it: The core cycle of risk and reward in Headlander is a better greased machine than, say, Titan Souls, which infuriated (me, anyway, in a recent Vita revisit) with its slow turnarounds between boss retries.

Also: There is dancing, some wonderfully thick carpets, a Southern-drawling AI called Earl who's on your side, a psychotic chess player (sort of), and escape pods that look like a dick and balls. Though, the whole game's about giving head, right? So the occasional aesthetic nod to the male body's most sensitive parts comes with the territory. But it really is the head alone, apart from anything else, that makes this game—it's simply never not fun jetting your voiceless dome from point A to point B, dodging all manner of deadly things as you soar.

New, on Motherboard: What Do Retro Gamers Make of the NES Classic?

It's another cracking independently made game, then, in a year already enjoying its share, from Oxenfree to Firewatch via Hyper Light Drifter and Inside. The tone is playful, the visuals hypnotic, the gameplay hook flexible (want to take control of a robot dog, sentry gun or cleaning drone? Not a problem), and the difficulty curve just right—so far. I need to stress that last part because I'm not much more than three hours deep into Headlander, so it all might fall apart soon. I'm not expecting it to, though, as everything I've seen up to this point has had me itching to return to proceedings whenever possible.

Which I might just do tonight, given No Man's Sky isn't out until next week. Consider this your recommendation to do likewise, too.

Headlander is out now for Microsoft Windows and PlayStation 4. More information at Adult Swim.

Read more video games articles on VICE here, and follow VICE Gaming on Twitter at @VICEGaming.

Darcelle at her Showcase. Photo courtesy Greg Pitts

The first day that Walter Cole ever wore a dress, he entered the apartment of his friend Roxy Neuhardt, whose dining room table was covered in tubes and compacts. The year was 1967. Over the next two hours, Roxy artfully painted the cheeks of his 37-year-old companion, who was closeted with a wife and two kids at home.

The pair were preparing for a Halloween costume ball at the hotel where Roxy worked as a dancer. Roxy had convinced Walter to go in drag, inviting him over before the party to put finishing touches on his debut ensemble, and as he dabbed sponges and brushed over the fine lines of his friend's young wrinkles, he had no idea how fully Walter would come to embrace drag.

Before long, Walter would be standing uninhibited on bar tables as a glittering, fully realized drag queen. And by no stretch would he have imagined that four decades on, at 85 years old, Walter would still regularly grace the stage as the oldest female impersonator in the country, or that their budding love affair would last more than 45 years, and that together they'd operate what's now considered the longest-running drag revue in the country.

In fact, it's likely that none of Walter's friends could have envisioned he'd soon become the outspoken, over-the-top character known as Darcelle XV.

"Darcelle is glitz, glamor, and comedy—overdressed, over-jeweled, and with hair way bigger than it should be," Walter tells VICE. She's a diva he's honed onstage for nearly as long as the gay liberation movement has existed.

Walter and Roxy invented the identity of Darcelle together, naming her after the B-list French actress and stripper Denise Darcel. But the character's primary inspiration emerged from Gracie Hansen, a Pacific Northwest burlesque legend. Bedecked with rhinestones and a busty standout alongside shapely showgirls, Gracie would greet her audiences with brash theatrics, yelling, "Hiya, suckers!"

Hansen would later go on to run for governor of Oregon in 1970, on the platform that she was "the best politician money can buy." She ended up placing third in the democratic primary.

Darcelle with her cast. Photo courtesy Greg Pitts

Hansen was also the inspiration for Darcelle's comedic swagger—it certainly didn't emerge from his timid offstage personality. "Darcelle is completely different from Walter," he says. "Darcelle can do anything—and she gets away with it. Walter's hesitant. But when you're overpowering onstage, you can say just about anything you want."

In time, distinctions between Darcelle and the man beneath the makeup would blur. Nearly everyone in Portland soon came to know him simply as Darcelle, and over the years, he emerged as a key ambassador for Portland's LGBTQ community. From the same stage in the same club Walter has operated for over four decades, he's witnessed firsthand the story of queer America, from the Stonewall riots to the AIDS epidemic to marriage equality today.

The same year he first wore a dress, Walter purchased his then-rundown bar in Portland's dilapidated Old Town/Chinatown neighborhood. He'd operated several businesses previously, including Portland's first coffeehouse and a basement jazz club. But those ventures soon fell victim to urban renewal, and he was forced to move to what was then the city's skid row.

Before it became the Darcelle XV Showplace, as it's known today, the bar catered to lesbians. While 1960s Portland boasted several gay bars and bathhouses, lesbians had only the Old Town/Chinatown neighborhood to call their own. At first, it was a part of town Walter's friends were unwilling to hang out in.

Darcelle and friends. Photo courtesy Greg Pitts

Its stage was a four-by-seven-foot banquet table, and that's where Walter began hosting shows. He'd sew dresses and make hats by day while Roxy choreographed the night's entertainment. With homosexuality still widely considered a mental illness and LGBT harassment the status quo, Walter and the club's other performers knew the risks of openly performing drag.

"When we started, we didn't even walk outside in drag. This was our safe zone," he says. "That was about the time Stonewall was happening. We just didn't chance it."

Darcelle's personal brand of activism soon came in the form of sequins, makeup, and hair. She volunteered countless hours throughout the years for thousands of charitable events, using her status as the grand dame of Portland drag to support causes important to the community. And during the height of the epidemic, the club was available free of charge to any fundraiser for HIV/AIDS.

By celebrating all things glamorous and queer, she encouraged generations of misfits to love themselves with pride. And while Darcelle's wiseass quips haven't ceased, the audience has changed dramatically since the late 60s.

"It was almost more fun when it was, 'Oh, look, drag!' It was an intrigue," Walter says. "It's still exciting and people love it, but now it's no longer an intrigue."

A different kind of crowd now flocks to Darcelle's Showplace. "Some of these people come from different backgrounds," says Walter. "Perhaps they're religious, and they come in and think we jack off onstage—pardon me, masturbate onstage—and that we have two heads because we're queer. But we don't give that kind of show. Our show is geared toward everyone."

Darcelle on stage. Photo courtesy Greg Pitts

Drag stage performances have changed over the years as well. Drag queens no longer simply imitate women; today's characters are complex riffs on drag icons that have come before. In that sense, Darcelle has almost single-handedly paved the way for generations of Portland performers.

"Darcelle made drag as it stands possible to all who followed," says Kevin Cook, better known as his drag persona Poison Waters, who has performed at Darcelle's for more than 25 years. "There will always be new queens and new styles, but classic drag like Darcelle's has and always will stand the test of time."

Photo courtesy Greg Pitts

Even empresses get the jitters, and Walter still gets nervous before he performs. "I stand backstage before I go on with butterflies," he says. "Audiences are different; you just never know."

But there's one thing he's sure of: "There's no such thing as a bad night for Darcelle. There's only a bad night for the audience." After 85 years, chances are he's caught on to something.

Follow Jon Shadel on Twitter.

The creation of beauty vlogging content is exhausting. The wells of creativity must quickly run dry. How can you do a review of Kylie Jenner's Lipkit and make it stand out from the 200 other bloggers out there who got sent it? What's so special about your Lush haul of bath bombs and bubble bars? Through it all, there's only one question to ask yourself as a content creator: what haven't people seen?

About a month ago, YouTubers found the answer: what if they started putting make-up on, as per the norm, and didn't stop? Just carried on while the layers stacked and the tube got emptier? What if? No one would ever be bored enough or wasteful enough to think of doing it in their own time. YouTubers, however, get sent make-up by the parcel-full, half of it probably rubbish, to stick on eBay for extra income.

The 100 layers trend was born.

The videos involve YouTubers sitting in front of their laptop putting on 100 coats of liquid lipstick or mascara or fake tan. Some have made hideously impressive "polish mountains" from nail varnish. Jeely, a YouTuber who describes herself as "weird af" with just short of 63,000 followers, an underdog in the big beauty business, has pioneered this. A video of her putting on 100 layers of foundation from two weeks ago has 7.5 million views. Famous YouTuber comedian Jenna Marbles did one last weekend and it already has over 8 million views.

The response has been one of two things. Firstly, "white people are crazy" – a reasonable observation, given the circumstances. Secondly, "WHY DO I KEEP WATCHING THESE". A question probably every viewer has asked themselves. Why do beauty bloggers embark on this extensive mission – the nail polish towers take a whole day and night to create – and why are people so interested?

It seemed like a great way to waste an afternoon, so I went to Boots and bought the cheapest make-up possible and a pack of wipes, because as Jeely says in her video, "this is messy af".

I had a naked face to start off and just started layering up. Beauty bloggers have those little sponges that would have made my life a lot easier but that's why they're the professionals. I just used my fingers. Very quickly I realised that this was going to mess up my already terrible skin. I could do without aggravating my acne, but already five layers in, I was committed. My skin had quickly rejected the tinted moisturiser– no more cheap toxins are getting in here, it would've said if it could. Instead the liquid sat on top of the skin, drying and cracking.

I got a little rhythm going, splodging the tinted moisturiser on, wiping my hands on a facewipe, drawing on the eyebrows, lips, stabbing away with the mascara wand and writing another mark on the tally. Time started to acquire a fluid quality, expanding and contracting. The repetitive movements became meditative and the activity levels of my mind came to rest. A calm pleasure washed over me like I was close to completing an hour of guided relaxation.

My lips were so heavy by layer 24 that they were drooping. A few layers later, they began to stick together extremely tightly and I had to keep it open and breathe through my mouth because I was worried they'd get stuck and never open again. By 35, I'd lost a big clump of eyelashes. Periodically, a male colleague would come in and say, "Eurgh... you look butters". I suspected this was the opportunity he'd been waiting for to make similar comments.

Halfway through and it felt like rubbing lotion over severe sunburn that's peeling. Congealed lumps were gathering and if I was too heavy handed, they would fall off or I'd swallow them. But it felt amazing. My forehead was so smooth and thick with liquid, my fingers would glide through, like Ghost, except instead of clay, it was cheap make-up, and instead of Patrick Swayze, it was only me, indulging in the ultimate act of self-love.

By 70, I could hardly breathe. My nose was filling with foundation. My face got really hot and I started to feel a bit nauseous. Was I suffocating slowly? Or pumping my body full of toxins, which were poisoning me? More comments from passing colleagues – "christmas goblin" or "ugly waxwork". I was enjoying my new face for all its efforts. This is what you've done, capitalism. Take a good hard look at the results of your work too, patriarchy. Is this what you wanted?

It seemed as if my face had stopped getting progressively worse but then I realised my eyelashes had molded into 3 or 4 lashes on each side. Soon it could be a monolash. My whole fingers were wrinkly from the wetness of the foundation and the four hours spent doing this exercise in stupidity.

After layer 100, I looked magnificent. I'd wasted an afternoon doing this. I was winning. The YouTubers getting the #numbers were winning. Together we had created something. I looked like a living Picasso, one of his not-very-good ones. Was this performance art? Probably.

My main takeaway is: Why wouldn't you do this? If you can think of something, why not make it a reality or follow it to its final conclusion? Imagine if people had stopped at thinking, "I wonder what happens if I make these square wheels round?" or "I wonder what happens if we keep building floors of houses on top of each other?" Revolutionary ideas started from ridiculous 'what if's by dreamers who dared to dream. And we need dreamers in content.

Cynics might see this trend and think YouTubers are ridiculing their craft beyond recognition. But they've realised that by the fourth free bath bomb, no one cares. The harsh, overcrowded world of beauty content was reaching its demise, and beauty vloggers have done the most asinine thing possible, and they've won.

@hannahrosewens

More on internet stuff:

YouTube Channel of the Week

The Secret Confessions of an Internet Troll

The Cult of Negative Viral Content

Photo via Flickr user David Blaikie

If foods like bread and pasta make you feel sick, you may have had a rough time in 2014, when you rolled out the news that no, you didn't have celiac disease but were nonetheless "sensitive" to wheat. In those days, backlash against the anti-gluten craze was at its peak, and the bubble-bursting Penn Jillette in your family undoubtedly dropped a couple internet truth bombs about how dumb you were for buying into a pseudoscientific fad.

But the really stupid thing to do would have been to eat something that made you feel gross, including gluten—a collection of the the world's most studied proteins found in wheat, barley and rye. But now, a new study led by a Columbia University researcher indicates that your suspicion that something was wrong might be rooted in actual biology.

Published in the journal Gut last week, the study tested people without celiac disease who reported having wheat sensitivities. They turned out to show signs of their immune systems going haywire, and had indicators of damage to their intestinal walls. In other words: if anyone gave you a hard time about your "fake" illness, science has taken one step towards vindicating you.

A word of caution, however, to people who have already diagnosed themselves: the term "gluten sensitivity" might still turn out to be a misnomer, Armin Alaedini, head researcher on the new study, told VICE in an email. "t has not yet been definitively established whether gluten proteins or some other components of wheat are responsible for the symptoms in patients," he said. "There is some ambiguity there, which is why many investigators are calling it non-celiac wheat sensitivity for now."

Further research is needed to lock down what exactly it is in wheat that causes this reaction for some people. But one of the most important aspects of these findings, Alaedini pointed out, is simply that "the symptoms reported by individuals with this condition are not imagined."

Whether or not the effect comes directly from gluten, though, the takeaway for patients will likely be the same: They'll need to avoid wheat.

Talia Hassid, a spokesperson for the Celiac Disease Foundation, and a celiac disease sufferer, was cheered by the results. A significant number of the patients her organization deals with, she said, "have symptoms of celiac but didn't test positive for the disease." Until now, "if someone gets a test and it comes back negative, they'll be told that their symptoms are in their head, or they'll be misdiagnosed," Hassid explained.

With new research, according to Alaedini, diagnosis will become easier. "A blood test may become available in the future for diagnosing patients," he suggested. And with greater understanding of the condition, he continued, researchers "we'll also hopefully be able to identify and evaluate new treatment strategies."

Hassid told us that people with adverse reactions to gluten "are often misdiagnosed with IBS and crohn's disease." If a gluten-sensitive patient is misdiagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome in particular—as sometimes happens with celiac disease—doctors may recommend a bland diet, which can involve even greater consumption of wheat products like plain crackers, bread, and pasta.

For celiac patients like Hassid, and now, for patients with this mysterious but scientifically verified new non-celiac wheat sensitivity, there's been a real advantage to the gluten-free craze: "There are more products on the market."

Hassid called the study a "large step," toward distinguishing gluten sensitivity from fad dieting, but she cautioned that it was "just one study." Going gluten-free is still frequently misrepresented as a good way to lose weight, even though it really isn't. And unhealthy gluten-free food is still sometimes lumped in with health food—even though, as Hassid pointed out, "A gluten-free Oreo is still an Oreo."

Noting that a huge number of people suffer from these symptoms, and there's finally hard evidence that they're not just imagining things, Alaedini was cautiously optimistic."These are important areas to investigate, and deserve more attention and funding," he said.

Follow Mike Pearl on Twitter.

This could very well be a couple making up after an IKEA fight, but that's unconfirmed. Photo by Flickr user Noodles and Beef via

IKEA: come for the Swedish meatballs and the reasonably priced Scandinavian furniture, stay for the fight with bae about how many KALLAX shelves for your vinyl collection a sane household really needs. But it's not just you two: IKEA stores are basically designed to make you scrutinise every aspect of your relationship – in whatever state it may have been before you two headed in.

According to Dr. Gorkan Ahmetoglu, lecturer in Business Psychology at UCL, shopping at IKEA is such a trigger for couples because it's disorienting: "IKEA makes you visualise what it would be like to consume their products by presenting ready-made kitchens, model bedrooms and bathrooms. The easier it is to imagine using a product, the more likely you are to want to buy it—it's called availability bias," he explained to me.

Shoppers also don't realize how deeply the store's perfect setup can affect them—it makes them feel literally at home: "A lot of these influences are subconscious, and even if people realize they're being manipulated they're unable to resist it because the brain doesn't have the capacity to process these things properly," Dr. Ahmetoglu continued.

So, fights erupt. But what exactly are couples in IKEA fighting about? I headed to my nearest IKEA and walked around to overhear tidbits of couples' arguments. Since no fight is ever really about mattress toppers, I took four tidbits to Dr. Suky Macpherson, Chartered Psychologist and Associate Fellow of the British Psychological Society specialised in working with couples. I wanted to hear her thoughts on what those squabbles could tell us about the state of the respective relationships – and how to avoid falling into the black hole of coupledom during your own next trip to IKEA with an SO.

1. In the Kitchen Department

The Couple: A woman and a man near a selection of spatulas.

Man: "Are you sure this is the right place to get a cheese grater? Because I don't see any."
Woman: "Yes! Why do you always have to question everything I do?"

Dr. Macpherson: "This woman takes one remark and generalises it to all communication in their relationship. 'Always' is never a useful word where relationships are concerned. There is a struggle for power within this couple – each person probably feeling like the other one is more in control. She seems to feel that the man hasgenerally more power in their relationship, and this could very well be true."

2. In the Lighting Department

The Couple: A man and a woman, the latter eyeing a rose gold lamp.

Man: "We have so much copper shit in the flat already and I fucking hate it. Why do you always pick out the things you know I don't like? It's like you don't even care that we have to live in the same place."
Woman: "If you had good taste, I wouldn't have to choose everything for the both of us."
Man: "Just because we don't have the same taste it doesn't mean mine is bad."

Dr. Macpherson: "Shared living spaces are a problem – negotiating different tastes involves compromise, which some individuals are better at than others. There is a way around the fights this leads to: the good old give-and-take. Unfortunately, very self-oriented or narcissistic people are bad at this."

A mildly frustrated looking couple at IKEA – not one the author overheard. Photo by Leo Hildago via

3. In the Bathroom Department

The Couple: A woman and a man standing by a basket.

Man: "I don't care what this is at this point, but you need to realise it isn't big enough to hold our washing. Can't I just go wait in the car?"
Woman: "No you can't, I need your opinion. Honestly, whatever it is, it is big enough. I don't know what dreamland you live in."

Dr. Macpherson: " wanted a shared experience, while the man wanted the experience to be over as soon as possible. I'm guessing that he doesn't understand the point of practical things needing to be attractive – he is happy to let her decide. I would hazard another guess and say the argument this couple were having points to a lack of shared vision, which is making her feel alone and unloved."

4. Deep in the Impulse Buying Death Trap

The Couple: Two men near the stationary section.

Man 1: "Right, so now you want the wrapping paper too. Which would make perfect sense if you ever bought anyone gifts. And I get the feeling I'm going to end up paying for it at the till."
Man 2: "You know I get paid on Friday and I'll transfer you the money then. Can't you just do this one nice thing for me?"

Dr. Macpherson: "It is a low blow to say the other never buys gifts, so the other hits back with the idea that the first never does anything nice for him. I think they both feel undervalued and perhaps exploited by each other. This spat reflects some deep tensions, because money can be a huge problem within a relationship. From the mention of 'gifts' and 'doing a nice thing', you could also see that other aspects of the relationship are a problem – like time and attention."

I asked Dr. Ahmetoglu if there's any way couples can avoid getting into arguments in IKEA. "Couples need to make sure they have a shopping list they're both happy with in advance, and stick to it religiously," he replied.

If that fails and the shopping spree still ends in tears and frustration, Dr. Macpherson says couples shouldn't be too hard on themselves: Background stress worsens existing tensions in relationships, and if there's one thing IKEA does, it's deliver a shitload of background stress to your relationship.

More on VICE:

We Asked IKEA Employees What They've Learned About Relationships

The Ikea Monkey Three Years On: Here's What He's Up to Now

How to Make a Long-Term Relationship Work in Your Twenties

Meg Whitman speaks at the HP Discover 2016 Conference in Las Vegas on Wednesday, June 8, 2016. Image via Getty

Everything you need to know about the world this morning, curated by VICE.

US News

Hewlett Packard Boss Backs Clinton for President
Hewlett Packard Enterprise CEO Meg Whitman, a major Republican donor, said she will throw her support behind Hillary Clinton. Whitman called GOP nominee Donald Trump "a dishonest demagogue" and said, "I will vote for Hillary, I will talk to my Republican friends about helping her."—The New York Times

Top DNC Officials Resign Over Email Scandal
Amy Dacey, the chief executive officer of the Democratic National Committee, is resigning in the wake of the leaked-email scandal that revealed staffers attempting to thwart Bernie Sanders's campaign. Chief financial officer Brad Marshall and communications director Luis Miranda are also stepping down.—Politico

Millennials are Having Less Sex Than Generation Xers
According to a new study from Florida Atlantic University, younger Millennials, those born in the early 1990s, are more than twice as likely to be sexually inactive in their early 20s than Generation Xers were. Researchers say they are living with their parents longer, which delays sexual activity.—NBC News

Woman Had Facebook Deactivated During Police Standoff
Korryn Gaines, the woman who was killed Monday by Baltimore County police officers after a shootout at her home in Maryland, had her Facebook account deactivated during the standoff. Gaines, 23, had been livestreaming the standoff. Her followers had encouraged her not to give in, police said.—The Washington Post

International News

North Korean Test Missile Lands in Japanese Waters
North Korea has test-fired a ballistic missile that traveled 620 miles before landing in Japanese waters. Japan's prime minister, Shinzo Abe, said it posed a grave threat to his country's security, describing it as an "unforgivable act of violence." It is believed to be the longest distance yet for a North Korean missile.—Reuters

Toxic Gas Dropped on Syrian Town, Rescue Workers Claim
Helicopters dropped containers of chlorine gas on Saraqeb, a town in Syria's Idlib Province, according to rescue workers operating in the rebel-held area. Raed Saleh, head of the Syrian Civil Defense group, said 18 women and ten children were brought to hospital struggling with breathing problems and red, burning eyes.—Al Jazeera

Hottest Year on Record, Planet Earth in Trouble
Last year was the planet's warmest year on record, causing more tropical cyclones, less sea ice, and higher tides, according to a new report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Global sea levels also reached a record high in 2015, creeping 3.3 mm higher than in 2014.—VICE News

Nicaraguan President Names His Wife as Running Mate
Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega, seeking a third term in office, has named his wife as his candidate for vice president. First Lady Rosario Murillo has become a key spokeswoman for Ortega's government, and critics have accused the couple of running Nicaragua like a personal fiefdom.—BBC News

Everything Else

Parents of Anton Yelchin Sue SUV Makers
The parents of Star Trek actor Anton Yelchin have filed a lawsuit against the makers of the Jeep Grand Cherokee, the car that crushed him to death. Victor Yelchin said he hoped it would mean other families "never go through the same hell."—TIME

Cheryl Boone Isaacs Reelected Academy President
Cheryl Boone Isaacs has been reelected president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Boone Isaacs, the first African American to hold the post, will serve her fourth and final one-year term in charge.—The Hollywood Reporter

Rents Rising Across the Nation
Rents are creeping up across the US, reaching a median price of $1,300 for a two-bedroom apartment, according to Apartment List's latest report. New York City remains the most expensive place to rent: a median of $5,130 for a two-bedroom apartment.—The Huffington Post

Australian Coach Slams McDonald's in Olympic Village
Australia's swimming coach, Greg Shaw, says a huge McDonald's in the Olympic Village has the potential to ruin athletes' dietary plans. Shaw said the "food court on steroids" could prove "detrimental" to many of the competitors in Rio.—USA Today

Gluten Sensitivity Is a Real Thing
A new Columbia University study has found that gluten sensitivity, attacked in recent years as a trendy, pseudoscientific fad, has a solid basis in science. The head researcher prefers the term "non-celiac wheat sensitivity."—VICE

Dallas Police Department Sees Recruitment Spike
In the two-week period following the attack on July 7 in which five cops were killed, 467 people applied to work for the Dallas police force. That's 243 percent higher than during a similar period in the month prior.—VICE News

A Durham police officer was accused racial profiling when he pulled over a black man and white woman. Photo via Flickr user Kaye

An Ontario judge tossed out drug trafficking charges against a couple from Whitby on the grounds that they were only stopped by a cop because the man is black.

Durham Region police officer John MacKinnon began following Beverly Ann O'Grady and Jeffrey Ferguson-Cadore after he spotted them leaving a motel parking lot on September 14, 2014, according to a recently released judgment by Justice Robert Charney.

Charney said MacKinnon became concerned when he saw a "young looking white female" driving the car with a black man riding next to her.

"He was concerned for the safety of the female driver of the vehicle because it was possible that she was a prostitute in the company of her pimp," Charney wrote. "At that point the only basis for this suspicion was the fact that the female was young and white, that the male companion was black."

Once MacKinnon ran the vehicle's license plate—and found neither O'Grady nor Ferguson-Cadore looked like they were born in 1965, as per the car's registration—he pulled them over. O'Grady told him Ferguson-Cadore was her boyfriend and that she was driving her mom's car.

Upon smelling weed, MacKinnon called for backup and police wound up finding weed, MDMA, cocaine, crack, and percocets in the car. Both O'Grady and Ferguson-Cadore were charged with possessing controlled substances for the purposes of trafficking.

But Charney ruled the stop itself was a Charter violation because it was based on MacKinnon's racist instincts.

Read More: Meanwhile in Canada: Black Man Stopped By Police For Reading

"The police officer's initial suspicions and concerns for the safety of the young white female were based on the fact that she was seen in the company of a black male. There was really nothing more to it than that."

Charney said the stop amounted to a "very serious" Charter violation.

Follow Manisha Krishnan on Twitter.

A woman weighing her options at a marriage expo in Shanghai. Photo via Getty

On a windy midweek afternoon, Jingyi Cheng and her new boyfriend, Liu Ziyu, lazily pushed a shopping cart around a supermarket in Xinjiang, China. They had been dating for two months. So far, so good.

Like many new couples, there was an air of awkwardness between the two, as giggles gave way to terse silences and my probing questions on marriage initiated a jolt of panic.

"I mean, it's pretty easy to find a man," Cheng told me, nonchalantly.

Her boyfriend interrupted her to offer his view. "It feels like there are 20 boys trying to chase one girl," Ziyu told me. "The girls are going to run out like a resource."

Statistically, he's right. China's one-child policy coupled with a traditional preference for sons has led to a widespread imbalance in the number of men and women of marrying age. By 2020, the Chinese government predicts there will be approximately 30 million unmarried men in China. By 2050, some demographers have calculated that could be up to 186 single men for every 100 single women.

Historically, women in China who were unmarried by the age of 30 faced the stigma of being labeled "left over" or Shengnu—the Chinese equivalent of a spinster. The term was popularized by the government, which also funds enormous matchmaking events for singles, further cementing the belief that anyone who can't find a spouse by their late 20s must have some kind of defect.

And yet, some women are pushing back. In a beauty advertisement that went viral earlier this year, Chinese women described the enormous pressure they face to get married—and all the reasons they're refusing. "I'm happy being alone," one woman explains in the ad. "I feel free and I enjoy the single status." Last month, a Shanghai-based production company started casting for a new reality-television show where "leftover women"—those who are over the age of 27 and still single—will be the protagonists.

With the number of unmarried men in China soon to reach the population size of Australia, fewer women are feeling the threat of the feared title hovering over them. Instead, for Chinese women, the scarcity means they increasingly hold the cards in the marriage market and can afford to wait longer before settling down.

"Before people thought women should marry early, otherwise they are left over," Alexia Ping, a college student in Shanghai, told me. "But now, people think it's OK if women put their career in first place, marriage in second or third place."

Ping, 21, was recently proposed to by her boyfriend (who is significantly older), but she told me she hasn't made up her mind yet about whether she wants to marry him. She's educated, lives in the city, and she's a woman—she feels her future relationship status is very much in her own hands.

Wang Yu, who runs the Chinese Tinder equivalent TanTan, said that doesn't surprise him. TanTan's daily active users have doubled since December 2015, he told me, and most of its female users, he believes, are in no hurry to marry. "On average, male users 'like' 60 percent of female users, and female users 'like' 6 percent of male users," Yu explained. He attributes the discrepancy to a mix of Chinese women being too picky and globalization, since he says exposure to American television shows like Sex & the City and Friends "make you more modern."

Watch: Unmarried at 27, China's 'Leftover Women'

Globally, there's been a trend toward women staying single or marrying later, if at all. According to the Pew Research Center, barely half of all adults in the United States are currently married—a record low—and the average age that women are marrying at has never been higher, currently 26.5 years. Worldwide, that age is now 24.7, up from 21.8 years in the 1970s according to the United Nations.

But in China, the looming gender imbalance makes the contrast particularly stark. In just two decades, the number of married women between the ages of 25 and 29 has plummeted from 95 percent to 77 percent.

Meanwhile, in America: There Literally Aren't Enough Men

It's not just young women who are feeling liberated from the shackles of Shengnu status. Divorced women, traditionally viewed as "tainted" by their separation, are experiencing a renewed social standing. According to data from the Ministry of Civil Affairs, 2012 marked the first year that China's divorce rate surpassed its marriage rate, and it's kept climbing since. The shift could signal that women have greater agency and freedom to leave bad marriages; other reports have suggested it's the rise of social media and availability of dating apps that's led to the change.

Yu Li, a 50-year-old divorcée in Shenzhen, told me she met her ex-husband while they were both college students in Hunan. But their marriage was a wreck. "He cheated on me. He went to Beijing often and claimed it's for his job, he had an apartment there, with her," she told me, on discovering her husband was keeping a pregnant mistress in the capital. "I felt sad and pathetic about it."

For a woman of her mother's generation, leaving the marriage would've been unthinkable. But Li knew several women who had either divorced or dated multiple men contemporaneously. So she divorced her husband and registered on Jiayuan.com, a popular Chinese dating website similar to Match.com, where she soon found a new, younger boyfriend.

Li said attitudes among women are definitely changing. "We are becoming open as well, just like men," she told me.

Of course, not all women feel liberated by the gender imbalance and many, particularly those in rural areas, still subscribe to the traditional ways of thinking. In Zhejiang, a farming region in Eastern China, Zeron Don—who is still single at 33 years old—feels enormous familial pressure to marry and bear a child. "The most important reason for me to not give up on marriage is I want to have my own kid," she told me. "I have planned so many ways to teach and love my kid, but I just can't get married because it's too hard for a girl at my age to find a proper husband."

And although the gender imbalance has changed the dating landscape, sociologist Yong Cai argues it is merely "a bargaining chip to get into the marriage "and that the dynamic within marriages actually hasn't changed much." Cai, who researches the effects of China's one-child policy at the University of North Carolina's Population Center, told me most Chinese women—as with many women in other parts of the world—still bear the responsibility for cooking, cleaning, and raising children. Even if Chinese women have greater agency in choosing a spouse, women still make the most compromises during the marriage, illustrating that gender equality remains premature in China.

But that, too, may change. The heightened awareness among young women of their growing leverage reflects a popular Chinese saying: yin sheng, yang shuai, meaning the female force is on the up, while the male is on the down.

Additional reporting by Qiushi Li and Pavni Mittal.

Follow Adela Suliman on Twitter.

Photo via Yasuyoshi Chiba/Getty Images

With the opening ceremony of the 2016 Rio Olympic Games just days away, athletes from around the world are in the final stages of preparation. In addition to competing, this year's open-water swimmers, rowers, sailors, triathletes, and others will face invisible foes, too: disease-causing microorganisms in Rio de Janeiro's waterways. For decades, raw sewage has been pumped into Rio's water, including the site of several Olympic events, Guanabara Bay. To be clear: there is literally poop in the water.

When it bid to host the 2016 Olympics, Brazil promised to clean up Rio's bays and beaches, and some progress has been made. "Work has been undertaken by the Rio authorities to monitor and improve the quality of the water in Guanabara Bay," the International Olympic Committee claimed in a statement emailed to VICE. These efforts include increasing water sanitation treatments and the reduction of industrial pollution and floating waste. There are now 17 barriers in place to stop debris from entering the Guanabara Bay, with boats collecting any floating debris that could enter areas of competition.

But the cleanup efforts have fallen short of what was promised, and it isn't clear how much raw sewage and dangerous microorganisms persist in the water. In July 2015, the Associated Press reported that an independent analysis of water quality showed high levels of viruses and bacteria from human sewage in Rio's Olympic and Paralympic water venues—levels that are up to 1.7 million times what would normally be considered alarming in the U.S. or Europe. Recent reports obtained by Reuters have surfaced that dangerous, drug-resistant super bacteria have been found in the Rodrigo de Freitas Lagoon in the heart of Rio, as well as in a river that empties into Guanabara Bay.

Athletes who ingest just three teaspoons of contaminated water have a 99% chance of being infected by an enteric virus, which can cause diarrhea and other gastrointestinal symptoms. "The data that has been released indicate that levels of sewage that have been released into the environment in Rio is so high that the likelihood of infection is imminent," Kristina Mena, an associate professor of environmental and occupational sciences at the University of Texas Houston School of Public Health, told VICE.

Photo via Bloomberg/Getty Images

According to Mena, the risk of contracting a gastrointestinal illness or an infection "is driven by the level of exposure and the person's immune status and health status. Healthy athletes could potentially fight off enteric viruses but it could affect their performance in competition."

Gastrointestinal illnesses aren't the only worry in Rio. Experts have been culturing substantial amounts of bacteria in the city's bay, where the open-water swimming and rowing events will take place; Becca Rodriguez, Team USA Medical Director for the high performance training center in Flamengo, Brazil, told VICE that there are concerns athletes could develop Staph, Strep, or antibiotic-resistant Staph skin infections if they have open wounds or cuts.

Of course, Olympic athletes tend to be fit and healthy with strong immune systems, but the risks associated with swimming, boating, or ingesting the contaminated water are so high that U.S. Olympic Teams are taking extra precautions this year. The U.S. Rowing Team will wear anti-microbial body suits to protect their skin from the dirty water; according to Rodriguez, those competing in the open swim will wear special masks. Athletes with open skin wounds will wear Tegaderm waterproof bandages to create a barrier between the water and their skin, and there will be shower stations with antibacterial soap at the competitive events so athletes can wash off as soon as they get out of the water. Their clothes will then be sent to a laundry service that sanitizes them within 24 hours to prevent the spread of infection. Alcohol-based hand sanitizers will also be in abundance.

In addition, Rodriguez told VICE that the U.S. Olympic Committee will be bringing its own cooks from the U.S. to make sure they're using proper food-safety precautions: "Athletes will be provided with yogurt, fermented foods, and probiotic supplements to improve their gut health and keep the as strong as possible to fight off diseases." Athletes, trainers, and staff members are also instructed to drink only bottled water (and to use it to brush their teeth), to eat only at the Olympic Village and the High Performance Center cafeteria, and to avoid eating raw food; Rodriguez also said tourists should take the same precautions.

"We're telling athletes, 'Don't take any chances!'" Rodriguez said. "Team USA has a really good prevention and treatment protocol for our athletes that will be in the water. We've been bringing a strong foot forward to educate our athletes, focus on prevention, and not wait for symptoms to emerge."

Pam and Jim definitely hit it at work. Still from The Office.

Admit it: the idea of having sex at work sounds pretty awesome.

Incoming NYPD commissioner James O'Neill appearing with Mayor Bill de Blasio Tuesday. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

When New York police commissioner Bill Bratton announced his retirement Tuesday, a bald 58-year-old Brooklyn native Mayor Bill de Blasio likes to call "Jimmy" was next in line. As chief of the department, James O'Neill has long been a low-key presence at NYPD conferences, but he'll step into a more political role next month. Bratton has groomed the guy for years, though, touting O'Neill as someone who can bridge the gap between the police force and communities of color—a divide that could be pivotal as de Blasio heads into a reelection campaign in 2017.

"He is ready to take this department where it's never been before in terms of a truly deep and consistent bond between police and community," the mayor said Tuesday. "It's an idea. It's been talked about for decades. It's never been achieved on a sustained basis. But this is the man who will achieve it, and that is very good news for the people of New York City."

Bratton, of course, is leaving behind a safe city but a department under fire––some of the NYPD's top officers are being probed for allegedly accepting bribes in returns for police escorts, and activists irate at police killings are still a fixture of local life. This means O'Neill will require the skills of both a house cleaner and a PR strategist; he'll need to stomp out corruption and engage seriously with Black Lives Matter, a once-nebulous movement that is veering toward traditional engagement with the political system. Whether he can pull that off while continuing the city's transition toward community policing will determine the future of an agency that tends to serve as a model for the rest of the country.

Born in East Flatbush, O'Neill started off as a transit cop in 1983 and became a sergeant four years later. He rose through the ranks until 2008, when he was demoted after the Narcotics Division he ran saw four cops get arrested for allegedly having sex with informants, paying them with drugs and even hitting up dealers for cash. Although O'Neill apparently thought about leaving law enforcement, Bratton urged him to stay on and eventually made O'Neill the city's highest-ranking uniformed cop in 2014.

Along the way, O'Neill became right-hand man to one of the most influential cops in US history, Bratton having helped put broken windows policing on the national radar. O'Neill carried himself rather differently than his boss, though, who has a reputation of a publicity hound, someone who has more in common with a politician than a beat cop. "The beauty of my job is it's apolitical," O'Neill said during a July press conference. "I love what I do. I love being a cop."

Joseph Giaclone, a former detective who worked directly with O'Neill for two years, remembers someone with no airs about him—even when he became a one-star chief. "He's a soft spoken guy who doesn't fly off the handle," he told me. "He's not a politician, he's a police officer, and morale is so bad in the NYPD right now that they need a guy like him."

Over the past few years, O'Neill has largely been tasked with formulating the city's response to a national dialogue on racially charged policing. In the search for an alternative method of fighting crime, he sent a team of officers to Los Angeles with the goal of aping that city's community policing program, according to the New York Times. That philosophy calls for officers to become fixtures in a particular area, get to know its inhabitants, and work toward addressing the social problems that cause crime—as opposed to merely reacting to it. What that looks like in practice is cops making "community stops," or chats with locals, and radioing them in.

De Blasio has suggested this model will be used in a majority of the city's police precincts this fall.

Before he could expand that approach, though, O'Neill had to manage the protests that exploded after video of Eric Garner's death went viral in 2014 and Officer Daniel Pantaleo was not charged with a crime. Earlier this week, Black Lives Matter activists again protested outside city hall, demanding Bratton be ousted. They got their wish, however inadvertently, but if de Blasio is going to win reelection, he'll need O'Neill's name to carry a shade less notoriety than his predecessor's.

"Chief O'Neill's status as the number two and hand-picked successor of Bratton makes it difficult to believe that he will not simply maintain the problematic state of affairs," said Anthonine Pierre, a spokesperson for local activist group Communities United for Police Reform. "Talk is cheap and our communities are tired. So-called community policing, training, and the rhetoric of police-community relations are no solution to the systemic problems with policing in this city and nation."

Follow Allie Conti on Twitter.

Photo via Flickr user Gage Skidmore

Republican officials are reportedly preparing a backup plan in case the Trump Train fully derails and the candidate decides to drop out of the race last minute, ABC News reports.

Donald Trump's brain-bleedingly bad last few days have already prompted some prominent Republicans to lodge their support behind Hillary Clinton, and senior party officials are reportedly getting antsy to explore what other options they have in case Trump throws in the towel. If that should happen, it'd be up to the 168 members of the Republican National Committee to choose a successor.

In less than a week, Trump has ramped up his ongoing feud with the family of a fallen Muslim American soldier, kicked a crying infant out of a campaign rally, denied that Russia was meddling in Ukraine, and said he's not supporting John McCain and Paul Ryan after they openly criticized him.

Newt Gingrich, who was practically drooling at the chance to be Trump's VP not long ago, has turned against him, and even some of Trump's staff are reportedly on the brink of a complete meltdown. CNBC reported Wednesday that Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort is "mailing it in" and that his staff is "suicidal."

It's not clear who Republicans would pick as another option for their party's candidate, or if Trump would actually ever drop out, considering complete chaos isn't new for his campaign. But it looks like even some top Republicans have joined the rest of the country in blubbering about Obama's inevitable departure.

Read: Obama Says Trump Is 'Unfit to Serve as President'

We are living in the midst of an anxiety crisis. By conservative estimates, about 20 percent of Americans suffer from anxiety disorders and even more will experience anxiety attacks at some point in their lives. There's an entire economy centered on helping people calm down. For the past 80 years, Americans have become increasingly more and more anxious—about working and not working, texting and not texting, about living and dying, and everything in between.

But actually, no, our brains have always been driven by fear to some extent, according to Dean Burnett, a neuroscientist and the author of Idiot Brain: What Your Head Is Really Up To. The book, which was released in the United States last week, is an Osmosis Jones–style tour through the human brain: Here, on the left, the reason why your brain triggers motion sickness on a boat. Here, the reason why you can remember enough information about a person to write their Wikipedia entry but can't seem to remember their name. And here, the reason why singing karaoke in a crowded bar puts some people on the verge of a panic attack.

I skyped Burnett at his home in Cardiff, England, to talk more about how our brains evolved to be scared of everything—and why, in our modern times, it's creating an anxiety epidemic.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

VICE: Why are our brains so predisposed to be fearful?
Dean Burnett: You have to think about the brain as evolving over millions of years. A tendency to be afraid of anything unusual seems like paranoia by our modern standards but is very good in an evolutionary sense. A branch snapping in the woods or a shadow could be, for a more simple creature, a genuine predator or threat. So a consciousness or unconscious system that constantly says, "What's that? Is it dangerous? What's that? Is it dangerous?" is a really good survival strategy.

Over time, the brain evolved to maintain that level of apprehension and watchfulness. We have a threat-detection system that takes in sensory information and tags anything unusual or unknown or potentially dangerous, based on memories and biological instinct, as scary. That's what's kept us alive for millions of years. It's just that now we've become sophisticated to the point where we've tamed our environment. It's overkill.

Right. Like, there's no good reason for me to be scared of insects, but I am. You also mention in your book how some people are too scared to get up and sing karaoke in a bar—which, when you think about it, is really stupid.
And I really don't like talking on the phone. If I'm dialing someone, I feel like I'm bothering them, and it puts me off from doing it. Social anxiety is the most common phobia, because there are so many ways it can manifest. It doesn't seem like an evolved mechanism, but it is. Humans are very social, tribal creatures. We evolved in tight-knit communities, which is our evolutionary strength. When we're all working together, we can compete with any other animal. We can live together in massive cities with multiple millions of people living on top of one another, like in Cairo or Delhi. Even insects can't rival that level of population density without killing each other.

In the wild, if you're rejected, you're going to die pretty quickly. So we are very wary of others peoples judgement of us. The idea of being embarrassed or rejected—even if it's just singing karaoke—the brain does not like that idea. If you think of Hells Angels, they've rejected the rules of society, but they all dress exactly the same. So they still clearly have this strong compulsion to be part of a group, because the appraise of your peers is something the brain really wants. Anything that jeopardizes that is very unpleasant for the brain.

Need to refuel your anxiety? Read our series "How Scared Should I Be?"

How does the brain reconcile something that we consciously know we shouldn't be afraid of but we're afraid of anyway?
Well, when it comes to actual phobias, it's by definition an irrational fear. You can be afraid of clowns and also know a clown isn't going to sneak up and murder you in the street. That's not something clowns usually do, outside of Stephen King books. So if you encounter a clown and nothing bad happens, the brain should learn, "I saw a clown, nothing bad happened, clowns are not scary." But because it has the existing connection to fear, you get the fight-or-flight response. The brain floods you with adrenaline; you're trembling and tense, and your heart rate goes up. There's a strong physical response when you're afraid, and it's not pleasant. So the brain associates encountering the thing you're afraid of with the fear response, which makes your brain think the fear is justified. It's a feedback loop that only intensifies the fear.

Yikes. How do you overcome that?
Systematic desensitization is one way. It gradually introduces you to the thing you're afraid of on a very slow basis, so you don't trigger the fear response. If you're afraid of spiders, might show you a small picture of a spider. Then a plastic spider. Then a video of a live spider, then a small spider in a box, then a tarantula in a box, until you end up holding the spider. You get to the point where you're at your max level and tip it slightly further each time without triggering the fight-or-flight response.

This all makes sense for a primitive, threatening environment. But how does this inclination toward fear fit into our modern world?
Well, it's a problem in our current environment. We're capable of a lot more abstract thoughts like planning, imagination, rationalization, predictions—all things that can trigger the fear response. For example, a lot of people are afraid of losing their job, especially if they hear about a downturned economy. That's not a thing that physically threatens you—there's no threat of death or injury, and there's no guarantee it'll even happen—but people are still very afraid. We can extrapolate to the extent that these wild predictions can trigger the same fear response as an actual physical threat would.

Things today are so complex that it's not just about surviving or finding enough food but about progressing your career or being liked by your friends or even having enough Twitter followers—all things that people now care about and can be fearful of. There are so many things to worry about that we're constantly worried.

So information overload has turned into anxiety overload?
Exactly. The modern world provides so much information now. Especially with the internet, it seems like the world is getting a lot worse, but statistically it's improving. Now that we have a lot more exposure to other people and other things happening in the world, we have a lot more awareness of things going badly.

Read our series from So Sad Today about dealing with overwhelming anxiety.

In the book, you write about panic attacks, which you describe as "the brain cutting out the middle man and inducing fear reactions in the absence of any feasible cause." Is there an evolutionary reason for that?
The brain hasn't evolved to do all the things it does for a specific purpose. It's more like a consequence of the way it's arranged itself. So, people ask, "Why has the brain got two hemispheres?" and there's no real purpose; it just happened by chance. Evolution isn't about what's the best option; it's just about what does the job well enough.

With panic attacks, there are many theories: You might start off with a strong tendency toward phobias. You could have an overdeveloped fear response system, or rather an overdeveloped part of the brain, like the prefrontal cortex, which would override the more basic responses and would suppress a fear response. It could be a traumatic experience that gives you a strong, fearful memory . Or it could be a glitch in one area of the brain where, if you're already prone to fearful responses, you don't even need anything specific to trigger them just due to a quirk of brain chemistry. It sounds like I'm describing the brain backfiring, and it's obviously more complex than that. But basically, there's no real reason for panic attacks. They don't serve a purpose. They happen when the fear system becomes unpredictable and isn't associated with an actual fear trigger and response.

It seems like a lot more people suffer from anxiety disorders and panic attacks now than, say, 50 years ago. Is anxiety socially contagious?
There's definitely potential for that. We take so many cues from other people. That's why you get things like mob mentality. A few years ago, there was a riot in London when a a kid threw a fire extinguisher off the roof. Could've killed someone. He wouldn't have done that otherwise, but in part of a highly aroused group, you become part of that. So if you are constantly experiencing other people expressing anxiety, whether you logically agree with it or not, your brain subconsciously logs it. This is especially true with the internet, where you can constantly see peoples' neuroses laid bare. If someone else has arrived at these conclusions and your brain takes them in to a certain extent, over time it could create a low-level anxiety.

If our brains evolved to be super fearful, do you think it's possible for our brains to evolve toward chilling out?
To say we'll evolve out of it is a hard one. Evolution takes so long, especially with something that doesn't kill you, and anxiety is not necessarily something that does that. But the brain is very good at getting used to things. It's called habituation. Anything that's constant or reliable, the brain stops paying attention to it or giving it weight. For example, soldiers can fall asleep in war zones whereas if you and I were to drop into a war zone, we'd be constantly panicked. So if we get to a point where technology or the pace becomes more consistent, I can see a world where we become more used to things and the things that make us so anxious right now are not a problem anymore.

In the meantime, what are some things people can do to make their brains less anxious?
Each individual brain is so different than anyone else's that providing a blanket solution is actually not very helpful. But the obvious answer is: If something's upsetting or scaring you, then dissociate yourself from it for a while. Some people say reading their Twitter or Facebook feeds make them depressed; well, if that's the case, detach for a while. The brain also gets stressed by loss of control—perceived or real. That's where superstition comes from. It gives you the illusion of being in charge of your world. So do something to give yourself a sense of control again.

Follow Arielle Pardes on Twitter.

Comedian Leslie Jones was forced off Twitter by trolls. Photo via Associated Press

About a month ago, comedic rock star Leslie Jones left Twitter after being bombarded with incredibly racist, and misogynistic tweets from users offended by her role in the new Ghostbusters reboot. Her mentions were a minefield of racist memes and statements thrown her way by trolling egg shaped profiles. She was likened to various gorillas who have starred in Hollywood movies, including Harambe (the gorilla that was shot in a Cincinnati zoo). She was called a n***a, a slave, an uncle Tom, a big-lipped coon, sent pictures of penises and all other levels of racist depravity. It's fucked and gives a whole new definition to cyber bullying.

Follow Tari Ngangura on Twitter.

The federal government's inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women starts in September. CANADIAN PRESS/Justin Tang

After years of debate and inaction, the Canadian government has finally launched an inquiry into the national crisis of missing and murdered Indigenous women.

In an announcement made Wednesday morning in Gatineau, Quebec, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Minister Carolyn Bennett named the five commissioners—four women and one man—who will be heading up the investigation, which will start in September and carry on until December 2018.

The chief commissioner, Marion Buller, became BC's first female Indigenous judge in 1994, and has a background in civil and criminal law.

The other four commissioners are Michèle Audette, former president the Québec Native Women's Association; Qajaq Robinson, a lawyer who hails from Iqaluit; University of Saskatchewan professor Marilyn Poitras; and Brian Eyolfson, acting deputy director, Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, legal services.

The RCMP estimates 1,200 Indigenous women went missing or were murdered between 1980 and 2012.

The inquiry will have the power to call any witness—including police—to give them evidence. It will also have $16 million in funding to set up family liaison units in each province and territory and to support victims of violence.

Bennett said the announcement was "historic" while Justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, moved to tears, said, "We know that the inquiry cannot undo the injustices that Indigenous peoples have suffered over decades, but we can review what's happened in the past, reflect on our present circumstances, and chart a path moving forward."

However not everyone is convinced the inquiry will go far enough. VICE reached out to several stakeholders to ask what red flags they see in the government's plan.

Melina Laboucan-Massimo (third from left)

Melina Laboucan-Massimo, sister of Bella Laboucan-McLean, who died after falling 31 stories from a Toronto condo building. (Her death remains unsolved.)

VICE: How are you feeling today?
Melina Laboucan-Massimo: It's very bittersweet in the hope that change will be made but also knowing that the systemic issues are huge and not something that can be changed overnight. It's going to be a big overhaul for the public to be engaged, for people to be moved it can't just be five commissioners, it's going to have to be all of Canada to understand the depth and gravity of this issue.

What do you make of the inquiry's power to question police?
What does that actually mean? If the commissioners can compel cops to give evidence but they could potentially utilize the fact that cases like my sister's and other cases are still unsolved and still sitting idle, still open essentially, what the police could do is basically decide to utilize lawyers and also say these cases are still open so therefore we don't actually have to give evidence. (Minister Wilson-Raybould said cops will maintain authority over individual cases.)

So do you think it doesn't go far enough?
What role will commissioners have in investigating the police misconduct or police in general in police investigations of our families' cases? What we are seeing from the terms of reference is that's not stated. This is a problem and this is a concern for a variety of human rights and Indigenous communities and grassroots communities. This is something we have repeatedly said—that it is important to look at police misconduct and to hold police accountable for the inadequate protection of Indigenous women. It is a sense of disappointment, and i think that's something a lot of people are feeling.

Obviously this inquiry has to do more than just point out that there's a problem. What do you think we need to do to move forward?
We need to see more solutions implemented, more steps towards protecting our women. We have seen previous recommendations, up to 700 recommendations, about what steps now can be taken to protect Indigenous women. Like putting the community liaison unit towards a bus that will make women along the Highway of Tears safer. There are very concrete examples like that of safety parameters that can be put into place now—not having to wait two years.

Erica Violet Lee, Cree activist

What's your reaction to today's announcement?
I cannot begin to describe what it is like to grow up in a country where we are shown that Canada believes Indigenous women are disposable. It's the strength of our families and communities that shows us otherwise. I've seen so many headlines this morning about the cost of the inquiry, and how it is "higher than expected." I wonder if the media will comment in the same way about the cost of the "Canada 150" celebrations we will be bombarded with in 2017. This inquiry is the result of decades of activism, and fundamentally, about our right to exist as Indigenous women. There is no amount of money in the world that will ever replace our sisters. There is no report that will make things OK while we are still facing colonial violence.

How do you feel about who is leading the commission?
The commissioners are some of the most powerful and intelligent people in the country, and I imagine they will do their best to honour the experiences of our communities. But ultimately this is an issue of structural violence rooted in the colonial history of this land. This is an issue of gendered violence and racism and dispossession from our lands. Fixing all of that is not the job of a few Indigenous women.

So are there voices you think are missing?
It's necessary for young girls and young women to be involved in the commission, queer and two-spirit people, people who are or have been sex workers. These are intersections that cannot be erased when we talk about who is going missing. Not a single one of these girls or women ever "deserved" to be stolen: that we spend so much of our time repeating this simple point illustrates how much work still has to be done on the part of Canada. There are so many varied experiences to be considered under the label of MMIW.

Once the inquiry is complete, does it seem like it will actually have "teeth"?
It's important that the complicity of police and RCMP in violence against Indigenous women is being acknowledged. We are told that the police are here to help us, but in our communities, we know that going to the police can be dehumanizing at best or a death sentence at worst. All the brave work done by black, migrant, and queer activists has been instrumental in bringing police brutality to the attention of the Canadian public. However, as we saw with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, there will be no legal power to prosecute based on the inquiry alone. Many families are still fighting in courts and they need access to legal help and financial resources. For those who survive sexual violence, there is often little social support. Incarceration rates of Indigenous women and two-spirit people are rising. All of these issues need to be addressed when we are talking about the lives of Native women being taken away.

Rebecca Kudloo, President Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada, speaking at a press conference on the lack of Inuk representation on the commission:

It was our expectation from the beginning that we would have an Inuk commissioner and that our recommendations to the federal government would be honoured. I am sorry to say that we have not been successful and as of today, it is my understanding that not one of the five commissioners will be an Inuk woman.

As Inuit women, most of us live in regions with the highest rates of violence in the country. I cannot understand how in 2016 we are still not being included in our own right as full participants in these historic opportunities. To us, this does not feel like it is 2016 for all women in Canada.

When the new government was elected last fall, I was very hopeful for the first time in many years. I then became very frustrated as we have not yet established a new relationship with the federal government that is rooted in reconciliation and gender equality. Pauktuutit has been reaching out and we are still hopeful that we can find a way to work together and move forward.

Vanessa Watts, academic director Indigenous Studies at McMaster University

What stands out to you about the structure of the inquiry?
Indigenous women are being empowered to have some level of control over the inquiry. Families of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls have been promised that they will be involved.

What has to happen for this inquiry to go beyond what we've seen in the past and actually make a change?
A meaningful inquiry doesn't end at rebuking policing services and the like, but actually changing how authorities value Indigenous lives. Is there going to be an apology by various policing services? Is there going to be a promise to take these cases more seriously? Canada needs to respond to Indigenous peoples on these questions and others. Asking families of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls to re-live trauma for the sake of a successful inquiry better include some serious commitments to alleviating grief in whatever way possible while also preventing future cases of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.

Interviews have been condensed for style and clarity.

Follow Manisha Krishnan on Twitter.