Emily Carr University of Art + Design (abbreviated as ECU) is a public art and design university located on Great Northern Way, in the False Creek Flats neighbourhood of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Merging studio practice, research and critical theory in an interdisciplinary and collaborative environment, ECU encourages experimentation at the intersections of art, design, media and technology. According to the QS World University Rankings, ECU has ranked as the top university in Canada for art and design since 2019, and is currently ranked 24th in the world.

The university is a co-educational institution that operates four academic faculties: the Faculty of Culture + Community, the Ian Gillespie Faculty of Design + Dynamic Media, the Audain Faculty of Art, and the Jake Kerr Faculty of Graduate Studies. ECU also offers non-degree education via its Continuing Studies programs, Certificate programs and Teen Programs.

ECU is also home to the Libby Leshgold Gallery — a public art gallery dedicated to the presentation of contemporary art by practitioners ranging from emerging and marginalized artists to internationally celebrated makers. The Libby Leshgold Gallery serves a broad and varied community that includes the students, faculty and staff of the university, the arts community, the public of Greater Vancouver and visitors from around the world.

The institution is named for Canadian artist and writer Emily Carr, who was known for her Modernist and Post-Impressionist artworks.

Emily Carr is one of the oldest post-secondary institutions in British Columbia and the only one dedicated to professional education in the arts, media, and design.

Formally established as the Vancouver School of Decorative and Applied Arts in 1925, the school was renamed the Vancouver School of Art in 1933.

In 1978, ECU was designated a provincial institute and renamed the Emily Carr College of Art and Design in before moving to Granville Island in 1980. In 1995, it opened a second building on its Granville Island campus, at which time it was renamed the Emily Carr Institute of Art + Design. Around the same year, ECU was granted authority to offer its own undergraduate degrees (BFA and BDes) and honorary degrees (honorary Doctor of Letters (D.Litt.), Doctor of Laws (D.Laws), and Doctor of Technology (D.Technology).

The first graduate program was added in 2003 (MFA) and would later expand to include the Master of Applied Arts (MAA) in 2006, the Master of Digital Media (MDM) in 2007, and the Master of Design in 2013 (MDes). The MDM program was launched through the Centre for Digital Media, a campus consortium of four post-secondary institutions in British Columbia.

In 2017, ECU moved from its longtime home on Granville Island to a permanent, purpose-built campus on Great Northern Way. The new campus sits on a former industrial site within the False Creek Flats neighbourhood in East Vancouver. Emily Carr Institute of Art and Design’s arms, supporters, flag, and badge were registered with the Canadian Heraldic Authority on April 20, 2007. On April 28, 2008, the Provincial Government announced that it would amend the University Act at the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia and recognize Emily Carr Institute of Art and Design as a full university, which would be named Emily Carr University of Art + Design. The university began its operation under its current name on September 1, 2008.

The university’s campus is located within a four-storey 26,600 square metres (286,320 sq ft) building in the False Creek Flats neighbourhood of Vancouver. Designed by Diamond Schmitt Architects and completed by EllisDon in 2017, the building houses student commons spaces, galleries, exhibition spaces, studios and three lecture theatres. The exterior facade of the building has white metal panels and glass reminiscent of a blank canvas, as well as back-painted glass spandrel panels to evoke a sequence of colours and transitions. The building’s colour palette was selected by faculty members in honour of Canadian painter Emily Carr. In addition, several Indigenous design elements were incorporated into the design of the building.

The building forms a part of the larger Great Northern Way Campus, a 7.5 hectares (18.5 acres) multi-use property that is shared with four other post-secondary institutions through the Great Northern Way Trust. Emily Carr University, along with the British Columbia Institute of Technology, Simon Fraser University, and the University of British Columbia, are all equal shareholders in the trust. The Great Northern Way Campus also houses facilities used by the other three post-secondary institutions.

Asperger’s syndrome is now considered part of the autism spectrum. But many people with the diagnosis still see themselves as Aspies.

Asperger’s syndrome (aka Asperger’s disorder or simply “Asperger’s”) was used as a diagnosis from 1994 to 2013. What changed in 2013?

The current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) came out, and according to the DSM-5, Asperger’s syndrome is no longer a standalone diagnosis.

Rather, Asperger’s is now considered part of autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

There have been mixed feelings about this change, especially for people who have an Asperger’s diagnosis and feel it describes them best. It’s seen as a controversial removal from the DSM, and some people are advocating for it to be added back into the next version.

People with Asperger’s symptoms — some refer to themselves as Aspies — may have many of the same communication and behavioral patterns as autistic people, but with a couple of specifications.

Asperger’s syndrome was first described by the Viennese pediatrician Hans Asperger in the 1940s. He noticed that some children had behaviors similar to autism, but with average intelligence levels and language development.

When the DSM-4 added Asperger’s syndrome, it described the condition as the same as autism with a key exception: people with Asperger’s didn’t have delays in the areas of communication and language.

The DSM-4 criteria for Asperger’s disorder states that the person will have:

• closer to neurotypical language development
• average intelligence
• noticeable differences in social interaction
• repetitive behaviors
• strong, focused approach to certain interests or activities

Asperger’s syndrome tends to be seen as a form of “high-functioning” autism. High-functioning autism typically means that a person’s language skills and development are considered “normal” according to neurotypical standards.

When the DSM-5 was published in 2013, Asperger’s syndrome was folded into autism spectrum disorder.

The specific behavior and communication patterns associated with high-functioning autism or Asperger’s tend to be classified as “requiring support.” This means people with an Asperger’s diagnosis might not need as much support in day-to-day life as other autistic people.

The idea behind ASD is that autism is a spectrum — or range — of persistent communication and behavior patterns.

Support needs also exist on somewhat of a spectrum for autistic people. While some people require significant day-to-day support, others need less.

In 2013, four different diagnoses were combined into autism spectrum disorder. These conditions were:

• autism
• Asperger’s disorder
• childhood disintegrative disorder (CDD)
• pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS)

An ASD diagnosis means a person’s behavior and communication skills fit certain patterns. And according to the DSM-5, they must show signs of these patterns by the time they’re 2 years old.

Criteria for an autism diagnosis includes:

• difficulty starting, joining, or participating in conversation
• differences in nonverbal communication (like eye contact or facial expressions)
• sensory processing differences (may react to touch, sound, or light in different ways from non-autistic people)
• preference for routines (may have certain habits or a set way of doing certain tasks)
• focused, strong interest in certain topics or activities
• stimming, or repetitive movements (like repetitive blinking or finger tapping)
• difficulty adjusting to or understanding context in relationships, especially in neurotypical contexts

Some people felt that the DSM-5 took away their identity when it removed the Asperger’s diagnosis. Many websites and forums specifically for people with Asperger’s are still in use today.

One of the biggest differences between the two is that Asperger’s syndrome is no longer an up-to-date, standalone diagnosis.

The other major difference is that people with Asperger’s syndrome are considered high-functioning, meaning they:

• don’t have delays in communication and language
• have a higher chance of not being diagnosed as a child
• may need less day-to-day support
• may find it easier to mask or hide certain behavior patterns

And while autistic children may receive their diagnosis within their first two years of life, some research suggests that Asperger’s diagnoses happened at around 11 years old, on average.

Some “high-functioning” autistic people may not get a diagnosis until adulthood.

People with Asperger’s could also be likely to experience autistic burnout. This is an intense sense of exhaustion that can happen when an autistic person spends a lot of time masking, or hiding, certain behaviors or tendencies to blend in socially.

Autistic burnout can make it harder to handle emotions or do daily tasks. For example, an autistic person who usually communicates verbally (with words) may stop communicating that way during a time of burnout.

If you’re encountering any challenges related to an autism or Asperger’s diagnosis, there are ways to manage.

For parents of an autistic child, many approaches — including social or behavioral therapy — can be helpful during early childhood and beyond.

If you’re an Aspie, resources also exist to help you feel more supported and connected. The Asperger/Autism Spectrum Education Network (ASPEN) and the Autistic Self Advocacy Network are a couple of great resources to get started.

When Asperger’s syndrome was folded into the autism spectrum, some people voiced concerns that this change would make it harder to connect with services and support that fit their needs.

Some of these concerns include that a person with Asperger’s:

• might not meet the full diagnostic criteria for ASD
• might not receive all the support they need because they’re compared to people who need much higher levels of support or care
• may be placed in a learning program that doesn’t meet their needs

Still, other Aspies have embraced being on the autism spectrum as part of their identity.

Asperger’s disorder was a diagnostic term used between 1994 and 2013. People with this diagnosis behaved similarly to autistic people, but they were usually known for being “high-functioning.”

According to the DSM-5, people with an Asperger’s diagnosis now fit onto the autism spectrum and meet the criteria for an ASD diagnosis. Autistic people who identify with the Asperger’s diagnosis may not need as much day-to-day support as others on the spectrum.

Some adults may be autistic but undiagnosed. While it can be harder to receive an autism diagnosis as an adult, it’s not impossible — a diagnosis could also help you find support and understanding.

Asperger’s syndrome is no longer used as a diagnosis, but some people still consider it to be part of who they are. Whether you’re autistic or an Aspie (or both!), there are resources to help you feel accepted and connected.

On 10 March 2022, shortly after 11 pm, a Tupolev Tu-141 reconnaissance drone crashed in Zagreb, the capital of Croatia. Initially, many citizens took to social media after having witnessed the loud sound of engines and the glare of an unidentified object in the sky above the city, as well as an explosion that was felt kilometers away.

Shortly afterwards an impact crater was found some 50 m away from the city’s largest dormitory which accommodates thousands of students. Fortunately, there were no fatalities, the UAV’s impact on the ground knocked one man off his bicycle and damaged tens of cars parked nearby.

People began to gather around and photos of the debris from the crash site began circulating on social media, finding their way to military analysts who identified the aircraft as a Soviet-era unmanned aerial vehicle. The darkest assumptions thus proved correct, the Russia-Ukraine conflict raging more than a thousand kilometers away, just knocked on their door.

The shocked public began to ask questions: where was it launched from? Who launched it, and why? Is it an intentional act or some mistake? Today, six days later, the Croatian government still refuses to answer any of these questions.

Some twelve hours after the accident, Croatian officials began making their first statements, only confirming what was already known thanks to independent analysts. They announced that it was indeed a Tu-141 drone, and that it came from the direction of Ukraine, without specifying which side launched it.

The only new useful information was that the UAV first entered Romania and flew for 3 minutes, after which, it continued flying through Hungarian airspace for the next 40 minutes and finally through Croatian airspace for the last 7 minutes. All three NATO member states, as well as the NATO Integrated Air Defense System, claimed to have monitored the 14-meter-long 6-ton drone with radar but bizarrely failed to react.

There were no fighter jets being scrambled, no anti-aircraft missiles fired, nor even air raid sirens in Zagreb. The discussion in the following days mainly revolved around who should have reacted. Politicians and the media generally avoided naming the main culprit, but began talking about “a Russian-made drone,” indirectly accusing Russia of having launching it.

It isn’t like Russia lacked a motive for doing so, since Croatia has joined in the imposition of severe sanctions against Russia, obediently following directives from Brussels and Washington, and even sent weapons, ammunition and military equipment to the Ukrainian infantry.

The Croatian media unanimously took a pro-Ukrainian stance, many even jingoistic toward Russia, so public Russophobia is at its peak. Several media outlets praised right-wing extremists fighting in Ukraine as heroic celebrities, and even offered contacts for recruiting new mercenaries.

Russia consequently summoned Croatia’s defense attaché to the Defence Ministry over information that hundreds of Croatian mercenaries had gone to fight in the Ukraine, but the attaché refused to accept the diplomatic summons, claiming that neither Croatia’s Defence Ministry nor any other Croatian governmental institution has any connection to those individuals.

In fact, Croatia proclaimed that it has no intention of stopping or criminalizing such illegal activities. Croatia’s Prime Minister, Andrej Plenkovic, in contrast to President Zoran Milanovic who expressed balanced views on the conflict, openly described himself as “proud to be a Russian enemy.”

Although Russia may be angry at Croatia, as it is with many other countries with similar behavior, it sounds quite unconvincing that as a powerful country it would commit a terrorist-like act on a non-strategic civilian target, only against Croatia, and during the ongoing conflict. Such hostile action, overt or covert, would be of a zero benefit to Russia. Besides, even if Croatia changes its policy and declares itself an ally of Moscow, it would not help Russia in the military, political and economic sense.

As a matter of fact, any Russian involvement in the incident could benefit only Ukraine and its warmonger allies, as it would give them a perfect pretext to establish a NATO-led no-fly zone over Ukraine, something which Ukrainian politicians have been desperately seeking for days. This scenario includes a false flag operation with faked evidence for the world audience, and Croatia as a country devoid of an air force or any credible air defense systems, is an ideal target.

But unfortunately for the perpetrators, things did not go according to plan: the crash landing on a soft green area was relatively soft, enough for the debris with markings to stay preserved, and the appearance of witnesses who photographed them made it impossible for government services to conceal key evidences.

All technical evidence clearly points to direct Ukrainian responsibility. Firstly, the alleged “Russian-made drone” was actually built in the Soviet Ukraine during the Cold War, and today it is in service only with the Ukrainian Armed Forces. There is no evidence of Russian use in the last 33 years. Secondly, taking into account the known flight time over the three countries, the cruising speed and the maximum range of 1,000 km, the Tu-141 obviously took off from a mobile launcher at the Vinnytsia Airbase in western Ukraine.

This is exactly 1,024 km away from the Zagreb crash site (see map above). The city of Vinnytsia, which is under Ukrainian control, serves as the headquarters of the Ukrainian Air Force Command, and is known for operating Tu-141 drones. The speculative launch from Belarus, Transnistria or Russian-controlled areas of Ukraine (implying Russian responsibility) simply does not fit into the range and linear flight, and the latter also refutes claims that it malfunctioned and went off course. Furthermore, the fact that the drone did not hit some Eastern European empty fields but the capital of a NATO member state clearly reveals that the strike was intentional.

Another important piece of evidence was inadvertently revealed by the Ukrainians themselves in an attempt to refute their own involvement. On the same day that the Tu-141 crashed in Zagreb, another drone of the same type was shot down over Crimea by the Russian anti-aircraft system.

In both cases the Ukrainians denied that the drones belong to them, arguing that the photos of the wreckage show a red five-pointed star, which was historically used by Soviets and today by Russians, while theirs uses the Ukrainian coat of arms as the insignia. However, a closer analysis of the markings suggests quite the opposite.

As can be seen in many photos of the Tu-141 drones in Ukrainian service, Ukrainians simply pasted their markings over older Soviet stars (middle picture below), and this was done with some cheap material that obviously did not withstand flight or fire. If you take a closer look at the tail of both crashed drones, you will notice the burnt shape of the Ukrainian coat of arms, marked with red circles (left and right image below). In other words, Ukraine lied.

The above-mentioned details have, without a doubt, been known to the Croatian intelligence agencies since the first day, but the government continues to deceive its own nation and the European public by insisting that the main perpetrator is unknown, that the investigation is still ongoing, that facts are still being gathered, and so on, instead of acknowledging that it was a deliberate Ukrainian act, however, politicians and the media prefer to speculate about “drone malfunctions” and “pro-Russian separatists.”

There are two reasons for such spinning. The first being that it is difficult for the Croatian authorities to admit that their dear friend Ukraine, which they supported in all possible ways, committed a hostile act that almost killed dozens of students.

This would seriously shake the pro-Ukrainian government in Zagreb since much of the Croatian public would turn against Ukraine.

The second reason is of a far more insidious nature: it is hard to believe that the failed Ukrainian false flag operation was carried out without the express knowledge and complicity of a major NATO player whose radars and spy planes have complete control of the European skies.

And when the United States tells its puppets to keep their mouths shut, they must obey, or face untold consequences.

Bill Gates shares his thoughts on Leonardo da Vinci and the new biography about him by author Walter Isaacson.