NEW YORK (Reuters) – Unikrn, a U.S. sports betting digital platform backed by some of the biggest names in media, entertainment and sports, will launch the sale of $100 million in cryptocurrency next month, the company’s co-founder and chief executive officer, Rahul Sood, told Reuters in an interview earlier this week.
The sale is part of a trend in which creators of digital currencies in the blockchain space sell tokens to the public to fund their projects. Some start-ups call this mode of financing an initial coin offering (ICO); others refer to it as a “token sale.”
Cryptocurrency is a digital currency in which encryption techniques help keep transactions secure. Blockchain is a digital ledger of transactions underpinning the original online currency bitcoin.
Sood explained that Unikrn embraced cryptocurrency as a way to bypass banking institutions.
“The problem when you’re dealing with banks is that none of these guys are easy to work with,” Sood said. “You’re dealing with 20 different currencies, you’re dealing across borders. There’s no other reason to go this route other than to circumvent banking.”
The new coin will be called UnikoinGold, which will be a cryptocurrency version of the company’s existing coin UniKoin. The current UniKoin, which allows users to bet on e-sports in regulated markets and win prizes in markets where Unikrn is not licensed to operate, will be phased out once UniKoingold is launched.
Unikrn is capping its token sale at $100 million because “if we don’t, it’s going to go crazy,” Sood said.
Sood said there will be a pre-sale of the token in the next few weeks and a crowdsale in September. There will be no discount for early investors or company founders and employees.
Sood founded Voodoo, which manufactures high-end computers for video games, when he was in high school. He eventually sold his company to Hewlett Packard after 16 years and eventually joined Microsoft and ran the company’s venture fund for start-ups.
Seattle-based Unikrn, which was launched nearly three years ago, is backed by well-known investors including Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks professional basketball team; U.S. actor Ashton Kutcher’s venture firm Sound Ventures; Elisabeth Murdoch’s venture fund Freeland Ventures, as well as Shari Redstone’s Advancit Capital. TabCorp, the largest betting company in Australia is also an investor.
The company raised $10 million from early investors, Sood said.
Elisabeth Murdoch is the daughter of media mogul Rupert Murdoch, while Shari Redstone is the daughter of Sumner Redstone whose family is a majority owner of several media groups including CBS Corp., Viacom, and MTV Networks.
Reporting by Gertrude Chavez-Dreyfuss; Editing by Bernadette Baum
Say his goddamn name. That’s what Esquire’s Charles P. Pierce wrote Wednesday in response to Republican leaders like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell condemning racism without explicitly condemning racism’s present mouthpiece, Donald Trump. It doesn’t work that way. You can’t have the moral courage to denounce the pathetic “both sides” argument that the president is holding onto and then lack the real-world courage to break stride with the same man. He continues to cross lines, they continue to stick with him. Republicans could have walked away a year ago during Trump’s feud with the Khans; they didn’t. They could have walked away after the Access Hollywood tape; they didn’t. The events of the past several days have presented Republicans with the easiest lay-up in months to simply stand up to the president and maintain their dignity, and yet, here we are, two days after Trump’s disastrous lobby carnival without any hint that palpable change is actually on the way.
Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
Skip ahead to the 5:50 mark from Stephen Colbert’s monologue from last night, right to “Ohio governor and confused dad in the produce aisle John Kasich.”
“Well Matt, look, he’s our president, okay?”
Such is Kasich’s justification for not calling for Trump’s removal from office. (Keep in mind that Kasich is still very much a leading 2020 Republican candidate being floated to challenge Trump.) What better way to kick off his rumored campaign than to come out and say that the current president is simply unfit for the job, case closed? That would take courage, and it would take the willingness to gamble a certain amount of political capital, which people like Kasich (and Ryan, and McConnell) have so far simply deemed unworthy of the risk.
During Trump’s first Charlottesville press conference on Monday afternoon, he stuck to a teleprompter and momentarily poured water on the national fire lit by tiki torches last Friday night. He didn’t seem particularly happy. As Colbert put it: “You know it was the right thing to say because he hated saying it.” The same lesson could apply to Trump’s fellow Republicans, right now, but we’re still waiting for them to say his name at all. Do it.
When I was a teenager, I made a bucket list. On it were things like “collect all the O.C. soundtracks,” “meet Lindsay Lohan,” and “walk a runway”—the last being the most far-fetched, given that I was a size 10 and the average model was not. (This was the early aughts, people, the dark ages of body positivity!) Ten years later, though, I crossed that goal off my list, walking Isabel Toledo’s spring 2014 show for Lane Bryant alongside models like Ashley Graham, Iskra Lawrence, and Precious Lee. It was a big moment—not just for me but because it was a major win for size inclusivity on the runway.
In full transparency, I was a one-show wonder. I stopped modeling not long after, and started my career as a fashion editor. But these days, I still pay close attention to body diversity as an issue, so I was thrilled that during the fall 2017 shows, there were a record 27 plus-size model appearances in New York alone. (That’s up from 16 the previous season and a mere six the one before.) The roster included Graham, Lawrence, Lee, and newcomers like Georgia Pratt and Jocelyn Corona, at shows as varied as Christian Siriano, Chromat, Michael Kors, Prabal Gurung, and Tracy Reese. And fashion fans were quick to celebrate this development; Glamour’s online coverage got more than a million clicks in just a few days. So now the question is, Will the industry keep doing better? Here’s how it can—and why it should.
First, let’s tackle the hurdles. Despite the recent leap forward, plus- size women still account for less than one percent of runway models, even though 67 percent of women in the U.S. wear a size 14 or above. Long-entrenched industry norms explain why: “When you make patterns for a new collection, you start with a size-2 base pattern” in order to spend as little money on fabric as possible, says Becca McCharen, the founder of Chromat, one of the first brands to make plus-size models routine in its shows. “That’s why designers usually show only one size on the runway; to make a bigger [additional sample], it means at least double all the costs.” Later on, based on what buyers order, designers produce more sizes.
Making that investment early can strain emerging brands: “Chromat is small, and I’m thinking about how to survive—how we can still be a brand in five years,” says McCharen. “But to us, including different shapes, sizes, races, and abilities on the runway is important. It’s what we do, so the extra money is worth it.” IMO, this is an area where I think it would be amazing for the Council of Fashion Designers of America to establish a fund for young designers to make bigger runway samples, which would give them the financial resources to be inclusive.
Big box modeling agencies could do a better job too. Most “plus” models range in size from 10 to 16, something designer Tracy Reese learned when she wanted a more diverse runway for her recent presentations. “I made size-18 samples,” she says. “But all the models that were sent to me from agencies were size 12 or 14. So we had to find models that fit our garments.” We’ll see more plus-size models at Fashion Week only if agencies actually represent—and promote—a wider range of women. “Boutique agencies like JAG have amazing curve models, but they fly a little bit under the radar at Fashion Week,” says casting director John Pfeiffer. “And when I reach out to bigger agencies, they don’t always suggest or represent plus-size models. So, when IMG [the industry juggernaut] decided to include them in its show package [for spring 2014], it made curve models more prevalent in the conversation.”
And sometimes everyone just needs to anticipate the unexpected. “I work with Michael Kors, who has the resources to plan ahead and have additional samples made in bigger sizes,” says Pfeiffer. When Graham was the only plus-size model on Kors’ fall 2017 runway, the brand was both celebrated and called out for tokenism. But Pfeiffer insists the plan had been to be more inclusive. “Ashley was not meant to be the only curve model in the show, but there were a couple of hiccups last-minute,” he says. “We had booked another model, but there was a conflict, and the deal fell through when there wasn’t time to recast or refit [the garment], since it was tailored to her body.” Of course, casting more than two plus-size models would have helped, but sometimes fashion is very much like real life, and shit just happens.
But—thankfully—there is progress. The runway triggers a real ripple effect: Using women of all sizes there means we see them in other places too. “Quite often the girls who walk the runway shows also [go on to] book the high-fashion editorials and big ad campaigns,” says Lawrence, who walked Christian Siriano and Chromat. “Being welcomed into Fashion Week makes me feel like I have equal opportunity.” Lee, who walked Siriano, saw how she reached women everywhere. “I got reactions from curvy middle-school teachers on Instagram, college friends via text message, an employee at the Apple store, even a little girl from Switzerland on Facebook,” she says. “I’ve been brought to tears on the spot from their moving messages.” And that kind of impact is exactly what brands hope for. “Casting has everything to do with how a viewer feels when they watch a show,” says casting director Hollie Schliftman, who works with Siriano. “I want to create a runway that feels open-minded so that women can visualize themselves in the fashion.”
And when they can visualize it, they buy it: When designer Reese planned, invested, and yes, scrambled to show more sizes, her online sales jumped 15 percent; in department stores like Nordstrom, her extended sizes sold out. Others, like designer Prabal Gurung, are going above and beyond by finding new outlets for plus-size shoppers to get their hands on high-fashion pieces. “We started working with a new e-tailer called 11 Honoré,” says Gurung, who also designs a plus-size line for Lane Bryant. “It’s a new size-inclusive luxury platform, which sells designer collections in sizes 10 to 20.” I’m betting his investment will be a success because, “women want to shop at a brand that cares about diversity,” says Lawrence. “They don’t want to be sold products from brands preying on their insecurities. Consumers have power because they’re investing their dollars.”
So what’s next on the runway? Which brings me to what will happen this month at the spring 2018 shows. I’m waiting—fingers crossed—to see how many plus-size models will march down those runways. “I think designers will continue to make a statement by using curvy models,” says Graham. “But I don’t think that every designer that has used curvy models has embraced this as a movement.” Meaning we may still be in the one-off stage, and that bigger models aren’t yet routine. But Lee has some words for designers who have any doubts: “You are capable. It’s time to include all sizes. By doing so, you are reshaping society—and uplifting women.”
Larry King is heartsick over Donald Trump, because the guy in the Oval is not the guy he’s known for 35 years.
Passengers on the TMZ Celebrity Tour spotted the legendary talk show host Wednesday in Bev Hills, and he’s very clear … the Donald Trump he’s known over the years was actually pretty liberal and politically androgynous.
King seems genuinely depressed that Trump drank his own Kool-Aid during the election, and became a guy who is unrecognizable to the people who have known him over the years.
By 2017 standards, a bearded man ranting in his manifesto about how “one of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism” might, at best, have a chance ending up name-checked by Alex Jones. Most likely, he’d become the hero of a thousand faceless message board posters. His 35,000-word diatribe against technology titled “Industrial Society and Its Future” might be suitable for a personal blog, but a national newspaper? Surely not.
Of course, more than 20 years ago, when Ted Kaczynski mailed out what would come to be known as the “Unabomber Manifesto,” it was huge news. After over a decade spent living as a recluse without electricity or running water in a cabin in Montana – sending mail bombs to university academics and corporate airline executives – Kaczynski sent letters to the New York Times and the Washington Post demanding they publish his manifesto and agree to print an annual follow-up for three years. If they did, the bombings would cease. If not, the Unabomber hinted at more bombings to come.
It had started in May of 1978, when a package exploded and injured a Northwestern University security officer. A year later, another bomb was sent to the same college, injuring a graduate student. Also in 1979, Kaczynski snuck a bomb into the cargo hold of an American Airlines flight. It went off mid-flight, causing an emergency landing and afflicting 12 passengers with smoke inhalation. In 1985, he switched things up, and sent a shrapnel-loaded bomb to a computer store in Sacramento, California, claiming the owner as his first victim. By the mid-1980s, the Unabomber had become a real-life American boogeyman. A killer who would strike without warning, and without much reason. Why was he doing what he did – and when would he do it again?
The publication of the manifesto would end up being his undoing. Members of Kaczynski’s family had a slight suspicion Ted could be the person behind the terror campaign. His brother David was one of the thousands of people who called the FBI tip-line after the manifesto was published and a million-dollar reward was offered for information leading to the capture of the Unabomber. After a long search, FBI agents arrested an unkempt Kaczynski in his Lincoln, Montana cabin on April 3rd, 1996. They found bomb making components, over 40,000 journal pages and the manifesto’s original typed manuscript.
There’s no defending the actions of a person who mails bombs with the intent to do serious harm. But Andrew Sodroski, executive producer of the new Discovery mini-series, Manhunt: Unabomber, thinks there is plenty to take away from Kaczynski’s words. As he said in a phone conference with reporters leading up to the show, “What the manifesto has to say about our relationship with technology and with society is more true right now than it was when Ted published it.”
Not many domestic terrorists convicted of murder get called prophetic by television producers – and there are scholars from different sides of the political spectrum who agree that the the Unabomber’s anti-technology stance was ahead of its time. “His work, despite his deeds,” wrote Dr. Keith Ablow, a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team, “deserves a place alongside Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley, and 1984, by George Orwell.” Ray Kurzweil, noted author, computer scientist and futurist, quoted a passage from the manifesto in his 1999 book, The Age of Spiritual Machines. Some believe he’s a murderous modern-day Henry David Thoreau, while others say he’s a genius and a prophet. So what, exactly did he get right?
Kaczynski opens his manifesto with, “The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.” The technology he goes on to rail against, keep in mind, was mid-1990s – before smartphones, before Twitter, before “Likes” on Facebook and algorithms helped pick out things for you to buy and experience. Although the word “dystopia” never shows up throughout the essay, Kaczynski believed (and you have to assume still does so from his prison cell) that the future wasn’t some Philip K. Dick or Handmaid’s Tale scenario; the dystopian future started happening a long time ago. Computer networks, the mass-communication media, the modern health care system, pesticides and chemicals, all products of the Industrial Revolution, are destroying the planet, he writes. As one portion of the manifesto is sub-titled, “The ‘Bad’ Parts of Technology Cannot be Separated From the ‘Good’ Parts.”
In point number 49 the manifesto, Kaczynski writes, “In the modern world it is human society that dominates nature rather than the other way around, and modern society changes very rapidly owing to technological change.” One of the big problems, he believed while writing his manifesto, was the inevitable growth of artificial intelligence and how humanity will cope with it. “First let us postulate that the computer scientists succeed in developing intelligent machines that can do all things better than human beings can do them.” As one Wired article explained in 2015, “A manufacturing device from Universal Robots doesn’t just solder, paint, screw, glue, and grasp – it builds new parts for itself on the fly when they wear out or bust.” From checking you out at the grocery store to flipping burgers, robots are being designed to integrate into the labor force and cut costs.
He goes on to write in point number 172, “In that case presumably all work will be done by vast, highly organized systems of machines and no human effort will be necessary. Either of two cases might occur. The machines might be permitted to make all of their own decisions without human oversight, or else human control over the machines might be retained.” When Kaczynski’s thoughts were published, we were still dealing with the Terminator version of the robots overtaking humanity and destroying it – it was a nightmare scenario, fiction. But Kaczynski wasn’t writing speculative fiction; he was stating, from an academically-trained point of view, where he saw technology headed.
Technology overtaking humanity was only one of the scary possibilities. The rise of the “one percent” super rich and corporations controlling everything, was another. “Human freedom mostly will have vanished, because individuals and small groups will be impotent vis-a-vis large organizations armed with supertechnology and an arsenal of advanced psychological and biological tools for manipulating human beings, besides instruments of surveillance and physical coercion,” he wrote.
Tech companies have untold amounts of data on every person that logs online for everything from shopping for cat litter to ranting on Twitter. How to understand that data – and what to use it for – is an industry in itself. Could it be used to manipulate us? See the 2016 U.S. election and the rise of fake news spread through Facebook. “Hyperpartisan Facebook Pages Are Publishing False And Misleading Information At An Alarming Rate,” as one 2016 BuzzFeed article put it, showed up in feeds even if the people didn’t follow those groups. Some of the false news was spread the old-fashioned way, through word of mouth; but, as John Herman of the New York Times explained, misinformation on the social media service thrives or dies, “at least in part, on Facebook’s algorithm.” As Kaczynski believes, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. All of this seemed farfetched when Kaczynski’s words were put in front of a mass audience. In 1994, audiences were being told suave cyberterrorists like the ones in the movie The Net were the ones looking to steal your information online and do whatever they please with it.
After all this, however, calling Kaczynski a prophet might be a stretch. He’s a highly intelligent person who wanted to try and stop where he saw humanity headed by any means necessary – including murdering people. Yet he routinely points out throughout his manifesto that there very well might be no stopping the inevitable. The entire point of his manifesto, as he states, is revolution, anarchy: “Its object will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis of the present society.” Kaczynski, who has stated admiration for the eco-anarchist movement (“but I think they could do it better,” he also said in an interview in 1999), takes aim at both leftists, including “socialists, collectivists, ‘politically correct’ types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like”). He also writes, “conservatives are fools,” and that they’re, “just taking the average man for a sucker, exploiting his resentment of Big Government to promote the power of Big Business.” Kaczynski even engages in some gaslighting: “Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.”
All of this reiterates the point that Kaczynski is no hero whatsoever. The person who wrote “Industrial Society and Its Future,” is a fanatic. And as is sometimes the case, fanatics can take things to the tragic extreme. Yet there is something to be taken away from his words if you read closely; it’s that we give up a piece of ourselves whenever we adjust to conform to society’s standards. That, and we’re too plugged in. We’re letting technology take over our lives, willingly. It’s the sort of thing that doesn’t take a madman dressed up like a prophet to tell us; it’s all too evident. Kaczynski, to steal a phrase from the tech world, was just an early adopter of these thoughts. Yet his warning will probably forever go unnoticed because of the horrific deeds he carried out to get his message across.
If you’re into childhood nostalgia (?), prepare yourself: Timex has created a series of watches featuring the Peanuts gang and we cannot. get. enough. The partnership reintroduces a series of character watches featuring the likenesses of Charlie Brown, Linus, Lucy, and of course, everyone’s favorite beagle, Snoopy. The very first Timex Peanuts watches were released back in the early ’70s and enjoyed a strong re-sale market: Search for them on eBay now and you’ll find old-school options still in their original boxes, and with an original price tag of $17, going for $145.
Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
The newest rendition of the Peanuts x Timex collaboration
While many of the original watches were initially designed to teach children to tell time, pieces in this new edition (which are on sale now and retail for $57 each) have been made specifically for grown up wrists. The watches are based on the vintage-inspired Timex Weekender style, with its easy-to-change, military-inspired nylon NATO strap system. The straps also coordinate with aspects of the featured character’s personal style: Charlie Brown has his signature yellow and black zig-zag, Linus gets red stripes, Snoopy’s red strap matches his hat, and entrepreneur/dreamer Lucy Van Pelt has romantic puffy clouds to go with her sassy blue dress.
The beloved Peanuts friends can be seen putting their hands in the air (…like they just don’t care) to point to the time on the dials, which also features INDIGLO glow-in-the-dark readability. And while they may look like kids’ stuff at first, they’re surprisingly sophisticated—and totally chic.
White Supremacists Have Stumbled Into a Huge Issue in Genetic Ancestry Testing
Neo-Nazis, it turns out, dig gene tests—but they often don’t like the results. Two sociologists, Aaron Panofsky and Joan Donovan, plowed through years of posts on the white-supremacist website Stormfront in search of accounts of people taking genetic… Read more
Neo-Nazis, it turns out, dig gene tests—but they often don’t like the results. Two sociologists, Aaron Panofsky and Joan Donovan, plowed through years of posts on the white-supremacist website Stormfront in search of accounts of people taking genetic ancestry tests to prove their whiteness. The pair tracked 153 users who’d gotten tested as they discussed their results across 3,000 posts on the site. About two-thirds of them were disappointed with the results, which found that they had something other than white European ancestry in their genome. An excellent piece in Stat on the work talks about how the online community dealt with inconvenient findings. Suffice it to say, things quickly got weird.
Amazingly, though, as the racists scrambled to find ways to discredit the tests, they stumbled into a very real controversy among scientists. The companies that perform the tests, like 23andMe and Ancestry.com, strive to put numbers to the genetic variants they detect. So you might receive, as one prominent white supremacist did, a test claiming that your genes are 86 percent European and 14 percent sub-Saharan African.
As the Stat piece says, testing companies do a lot of work to try to validate these numbers—but they’re incredibly hard to pin down. People move around a lot, and our ideas about what constitutes a genetic group by geography are, as a result, pretty fuzzy. That may give racists some wiggle room to question results they don’t like. But it also means that any attempts to prove racial “purity” go from simply grotesque to, genetically speaking, completely absurd.
Designer Adriana Castro is expanding her luxury handbag line with a small collection of shoes and an exclusive deal with Moda Operandi.
The Colombian-American designer whose father operated a crocodile farm when she was a child has been making handbags from leather and exotic skins for several years, but this is her first foray into footwear and her first time selling with Moda, an online retailer that deals exclusively with high-end brands.
While Castro said she’s “honored” to be working with Moda, she puts design before distribution.
“[I spent] a lot of time, months, in the factory in Spain learning the shoe-making process,” Castro said. “We had to make a piece that managed to seduce a critical eye. It was worth it.”
The spring 2018 shoe collection is limited to a single style of loafer mule priced between about $400 and $850 that’s being offered in an array of colors and skins, from a canary yellow leather to a soft pink python and will be available for pre-order on Moda’s web site beginning this week.
Adriana Castro’s new spring 2018 shoe line in yellow leather and pink python. Adriana Castro
Castro said once spring rolls around, shoes will also be for sale on her own web site, but they will differ from those sold through Moda.
And although Moda does not sell Castro’s handbag line, which range in price from about $500 for a mini bucket bag in leather to $3,400 for a crocodile satchel, she sees that direction as “a natural evolution of our partnership.”
Castro also has an eye toward further expansion of her brand with the addition of other accessories categories.
“For several years I’ve wanted to get out of that ‘box’ of being a single category brand or designer,” she added.
As for what drew Moda to Castro’s designs, buyer Lisa Ruffle said she first discovered the line on Instagram and was “immediately captured by the rich colors and exotic materials” of the collection.
“The Moda woman loves vibrant colors and exotic skins — Adriana Castro’s line offers all of this,” Ruffle said. “[The Moda woman] also loves product that no one else has. To offer her something truly unique, we worked with the brand to develop exclusive colorways for this trunk show.”
Ruffle pointed to a python mule in olive green and another in pink as the result of Moda’s collaboration with Castro.
Mules appear to have taken hold again in the women’s shoe market after resurfacing as a trend in 2015, and Ruffle said the style is “absolutely a key wardrobe staple for our woman.”
As such, Moda feels confident that Castro’s shoes will be well received when pre-orders begin.
“Color, exotics and mules always sell exceptionally well for us so we feel very confident about the success of this trunk show,” Ruffle said. “From past results, we know it’s something [our shopper is] looking for.”
For More, See:
Pat McGrath Labs Expands, Unveils Core Collection
Resort 2018 Trend: Straw Pole
Kate Phelan, Gordon Richardson Exit Topshop, Topman as Creative Chiefs
When Benioff and Weiss first revealed that the final two seasons of Game of Thrones would be shorter than their predecessors, I was optimistic. Here are two guys that have a plan! They know exactly how they want to end things, and they don’t want to waste any time on filler! But watching this penultimate season, I’m struck by how quickly things are moving. Too quickly. Maybe Benioff and Weiss didn’t have a concrete plan so much as they just really want to be done with Game of Thrones.
Now that so many major story lines have started to converge, there’s barely any time to give them the gravitas they all deserve. Jorah and Daenerys’s reunion should have been more than a heartfelt hug. Same goes for Tyrion and Jaime’s emotional reunion, which felt lost in the middle of such an insanely plot-driven hour. Sansa and Arya should have had at least one scene together where they actually talk about their shared grief. Bronn shouldn’t have been able to magically save Jaime, an adult male in very heavy armor, and escape from Daenerys and Drogon’s wrath so easily. Jon shouldn’t just hop on a ship headed north with Jorah and not have a conversation about Jorah’s dad Jeor Mormont and the Valyrian steel sword (Longclaw) that should rightfully belong to him.
There’s so much lost in the journey and in Thrones‘ smaller, more human moments, and it’s all a little disappointing for a show that kept Daenerys exiled in Meereen for three seasons. It also just doesn’t gel with the pace of the show overall. This season feels frantic and discombobulated. But bring on the White Walkers and dragons, I guess.
On Wednesday night, the campus of the University of Virginia was once again lit up—but this time, it wasn’t with polo-shirt-clad racists holding tiki torches. Instead, hundreds of people in Charlottesville came together for a candlelit vigil against the hate and violence they witnessed over the weekend.
Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
TheWashington Post reports the vigil began after local memorial services ended for Heather Heyer, a counter-protester who was killed after a man drove his car into a crowd. The group moved slowly throughout the campus, singing spirituals and observing a moment of silence for the three people killed during the violent weekend. They also sang “Good Old Song,” UVA’s alma mater song.
According to CNN, news of the vigil was spread through word of mouth, phone calls, emails, and text messages. It was not posted on social media to ensure the safety of participants. But once the event started, social media was flooded with photos of the peaceful vigil, showing a stark contrast to the horrifying images that rocked Charlottesville—and the rest of the country. Here are more scenes from the vigil.