SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " comment " 1,790 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Joe Rogan was completely wrong about Donald Trump’s UFC event
Last weekend, United States President Donald Trump hosted the UFC Freedom 250 event on the South Lawn of the White House with thousands of fans in attendance and millions more watching on television. The event was, by all accounts, a success, but not exactly the type of success that commentator Joe Rogan tried to claim…
Germany vs Ivory Coast: LIVE
Follow our live build-up, with full team news coverage, ahead of our text commentary stream service.
Jim Cramer Says Clover Health Was a Good Speculative Pick But Still Prefers UnitedHealth and CVS
Clover Health Investments, Corp. (NASDAQ:CLOV) was among the stocks on Jim Cramer’s radar on Mad Money, as he advised investors to care about where a stock is going, not where it has been. A caller referenced Cramer’s previous comment, calling it speculative, and noted that the company reported GAAP profitability in Q1 2026 and guided […]
Stephen A. Smith apologizes to Jalen Brunson, Josh Hart for previous Knicks comments: 'I was beyond wrong'
Steven Bartlett Claims 3 Glasses of Wine Cost Him 3 Days of Productivity. Here's What the Science Says
When "The Diary of a CEO" host claimed a few drinks ruined his productivity for days, critics scoffed. We turned to medical professionals and researchers for their take.
Brent Nelsen comments on the importance of political endorsements
Furman's Nelsen weighs in on the impact of a key endorsement for South Carolina Lieutenant Governor Pamela Evette and what it means for the SC governor's race.
Commentary: ‘Disclosure Day’ underscores a Hollywood marketing dilemma
From "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" to "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial" and "War of the Worlds," a UFO-themed blockbuster from Steven Spielberg has long been a can’t-miss event, and last
Jelly Roll breaks silence on Bunnie Xo divorce mid-concert: 'I wasn't going to talk about it tonight'
Jelly Roll broke his silence on his divorce from Bunnie Xo mid-concert. His comments come days after news broke that the country artist filed for divorce from the podcaster.
Italian foreign minister cancels trip to US over Trump’s comments about Meloni
US President Donald Trump’s comments to an Italian media outlet about the country’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni have sparked a fresh diplomatic incident.
Entrepreneurs and small business owners: The importance of furthering your education
Commentary: When people think about entrepreneurship, they often picture someone diving in headfirst, learning through trial and error, and figuring things out along the way.
Dem Senate hopeful under fire for resurfaced comments calling cops 'opportunistic cowards'
Graham Platner's anti-law enforcement Reddit posts resurfaced as the far-left populist seeks to unseat Sen. Susan Collins in Maine's Senate race.
Seth Meyers reminds Donald Trump that the Reflecting Pool is not, in fact, a swimming pool: 'This isn't your chintzy golf club'
The 'Late Night With Seth Meyers' host reminded Donald Trump on Wednesday night that the Reflecting Pool is not a swimming pool. Meyers' quip comes amid costly renovations made to the water feature and comments the president made likening it to a pool at one of his clubs.
Katie Couric (@katiecouric)
3,068 likes, 268 comments - katiecouric on June 17, 2026: "Rahm Emanuel has been a major force in Democratic politics for decades—from congressman and White House chief of staff to mayor of Chicago and U.S. ambassador to Japan. As the 2026 midterms approach, he joined me on Next Question to discuss President Trump's second term, why Democrats "lost the plot," why he believes the U.S. should end taxpayer-funded military aid to Israel, and what it will take for the party to reconnect with voters and regain lost ground. 🎧 Watch the full interview on YouTube or listen wherever you get your podcasts.".
Hoy, business leaders pull out of effort to make it easier to sweep homeless encampments
A statewide petition led by Salem Mayor Julie Hoy sought to repeal a state law that requires cities and counties to be “objectively reasonable as to time, place and manner,” when clearing a homeless encampment from a public place. After state officials required the petition’s backers to change the ballot's title and description, they dropped the effort. To comment on this story, use the form at the end of the report.
Australian media turns Mike Grella’s ‘layup’ comment into World Cup storyline
With the United States and Australia set to face off in group play at the World Cup on Friday, comments from an American soccer commentator about the Australian national team have become a major storyline Down Under—even as the controversy has barely registered in the United States. It was CBS Sports Golazo commentator Mike Grella…
White House plan to take over federal grantmaking draws criticism from science groups
Science advocacy groups are attempting to mobilize public comments on a proposed rule.
Remembering the Emanuel 9 victims after a season of gun politics
In his latest commentary, Paul Hyde reflects on the 11th anniversary of the Mother Emanuel massacre, campaign ads, and the Charleston loophole.
‘Then there’s the matter of national security’
Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
JD Vance addresses controversial 'childless cat ladies' comment on 'The View'
JD Vance attempted to explain his controversial 'childless cat ladies' comment on 'The View,' after Joy Behar pressed him on the 'boneheaded' remark that even drew a response from Taylor Swift.
CMS proposes major TAVR changes, including Medicare coverage for asymptomatic patients
After months of consideration, CMS has proposed sweeping changes to its TAVR coverage policies. The agency is accepting public comments until July 15.
Joe Rogan makes bold declaration about UFC Freedom 250
UFC commentator Joe Rogan had some lofty praise for the company's Freedom 250 card on Sunday night.
No iPhone 18 This Year, Apple Supplier Comments Seemingly Confirm
Apple's standard iPhone 18 model will launch in early 2027, based on comments from a partner in the company's supply chain that appear to corroborate rumors of a delayed spring release for the base model. Apple typically works on an annual smartphone launch cycle where it releases the entirety of its latest flagship iPhone series in the fall, usually around mid-September. That appears set to change this year, however.
Dana White called a UFC fighter’s Michelle Obama insult ‘nonsense.’ The White House isn’t commenting on it
Less than 24 hours after a UFC fighter used a highly publicized White House match to lob a false insult at former first lady Michelle Obama, Ultimate Fighting Championship CEO and President Dana White called it “nasty and false,” dismissing it as “nonsense.”
Can Bankova Muster Political Will to Make Institutional Reforms During War?
Welcome to The Ukraine Compass, a weekly digest of Ukrainian commentary and analysis from across the political spectrum only for War on the Rocks members.
UFC fighter Josh Hokit shouts, 'Michelle Obama is a man,' at White House Freedom 250 event
Josh Hokit made a distasteful comment about Michelle Obama during the UFC Freedom 250 event at the White House.
Iran agreement: Bad, BATNA or both?
As the debate over a possible Iran agreement shifts from whether there will be a deal to what is in it, commentary is already racing ahead of the facts. We have not yet seen the text. We do not know the precise commitments, timelines or enforcement mechanisms — if any.
Commentary: ‘Scary Movie’ cements Hollywood’s spoof comedy renaissance
When "Scream 7" arrived in theaters in February, the Ghostface turning heads wasn’t from the horror hit itself but from "Scary Movie." The trailer for the long-running parody series’ sixth
World Cup: Undav adds Germany sixth after early Curacao hope
Listen to BBC Radio 5 Live commentary and follow live text coverage as Germany face Curacao in World Cup Group E.
Stephen A. Smith on political future: I only want ‘the big job’
Sports commentator Stephen A. Smith laid out his political ambitions in a Sunday interview, saying he would only seek the presidency if he were to ever run for public office. “I’m not i…
Sen. James Lankford says Congress should ratify any deal Trump makes with Iran
The Oklahoma senator’s comments come as President Donald Trump has signaled that the U.S. and Iran are close to working out a deal to end the war.
Harissa Apricot Chicken, Done in 20 Minutes
The word “perfect” turns up a lot in the comments on this new spicy-sweet dish.
Draymond Green on LeBron James' upcoming free agency
Draymond Green of the Warriors made an interesting comment about LeBron James' upcoming free agency.
SBA moves to revise 8(a) rules while preserving tribal, ANC eligibility
Details By Brian Edwards Native Contracting June 13, 2026 The U.S. Small Business Administration has proposed changes to its 8(a) Business Development Program that would eliminate race-based presumptions of social disadvantage for individually owned businesses while leaving eligibility standards unchanged for tribally owned enterprises, Alaska Native corporations and other Native entity-owned participants. In both the title and summary of the proposed rule published in the Federal Register, SBA emphasized that the changes only apply to individually owned firms and “do not impact entity-owned firms,” including tribes, Alaska Native corporation, Native Hawaiian organizations and community development corporations. The proposed rule, announced June 11, would require all individual applicants seeking admission to the 8(a) program to submit evidence demonstrating social disadvantage. Membership in a racial or ethnic group alone would no longer establish eligibility, according to the SBA. For Indian Country, the agency said eligibility standards for businesses owned by federally recognized tribes, Alaska Native corporations, Native Hawaiian organizations and community development corporations would remain unchanged. The proposal comes after the Department of Defense reaffirmed that participation by tribes and Alaska Native corporations in the 8(a) program is based on their political status under federal law rather than diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. In a May 28 letter to Alaska's Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Michael P. Duffey wrote that participation by federally recognized tribes and Alaska Native corporations in federal programs is “grounded in their political status as Native Americans, not DEI initiatives.” The SBA proposal follows a 2023 federal court ruling that found unconstitutional the program's rebuttable presumption that members of certain racial and ethnic groups were socially disadvantaged. SBA Administrator Kelly Loeffler said the proposed rule would establish a single standard for individually owned applicants by requiring evidence of social disadvantage. The 8(a) Business Development Program provides participating firms with business development assistance and access to federal set-aside and sole-source contracting opportunities. The program remains a major source of federal contracting revenue for tribal enterprises and Alaska Native corporations. Native-owned firms received $16.1 billion of the program's approximately $26 billion in federal contract awards during fiscal 2024, according to data previously reported by Tribal Business News. The proposal also arrives amid ongoing concerns from Native contractors about SBA administration of the program. In May, the Native American Contractors Association and 53 Native-owned businesses urged SBA to address delays in processing 8(a) applications, saying some reviews had stretched beyond regulatory deadlines and appeared to have stalled since August 2025. The proposed rule is open for public comment through July 13. The Federal Register notice does not reference tribal consultation or indicate whether SBA determined consultation was unnecessary because tribal eligibility standards are unchanged. The SBA has not announced when the proposed rule would take effect. The agency is expected to accept public comments before issuing a final rule.About The AuthorAuthor: Brian EdwardsBrian Edwards is associate publisher and associate editor of Tribal Business News and Native News Online. He is a longtime publisher, editor, business reporter and serial entrepreneur. Subscribe Today!Other Articles by this authorDefense Department reaffirms tribal, ANC eligibility in SBA 8(a) programTribal heritage projects eligible for up to $100K in federal funding through NPS programIHS launches tribal long-term care construction initiative with three projectsIḷisaġvik College acquires site for long-planned Utqiaġvik campus This article is available to paid digital subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
Elden Ring Director Insists FromSoftware Is Free to Make the Games It Wants To, Teases 'Unannounced Titles'
Dark Souls and Elden Ring creator Hidetaka Miyazaki recently commented on the shareholder pressure that is putting FromSoftware parent company Kadokawa in the news lately. Reassuring fans, he insisted that Fromsoftware can still “freely make the kind of games we want to make without excessive interference."
Selena Gomez reacts to claims she shaded Taylor Swift over Knicks game: 'Forget that most assume otherwise'
Selena Gomez took to social media to respond to speculation that a comment she posted was shading her longtime friend Taylor Swift for cheering on the New York Knicks during Game 4 of the NBA Finals.
Faith, political leaders celebrate religious freedom after Indiana LG's Islam comments
Prominent Republican leaders joined Democrats, religious leaders and devout Hoosiers at the Indiana Statehouse on Thursday to condemn faith-based discrimination — a response to anti-Islam comments Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith made last month, including calling the religion a "demonic death cult."
Oscar Health (OSCR) Stock Valuation After Conference Rally And Reaffirmed 2026 Guidance
Oscar Health (OSCR) has been back on investors’ radar after a sharp stock rally following its business update at the Goldman Sachs Healthcare Conference, where management reaffirmed full-year 2026 guidance and highlighted favorable utilization trends. See our latest analysis for Oscar Health. The stock’s rally around the Goldman Sachs Healthcare Conference and upbeat commentary on utilization trends come on top of very strong momentum, with a 90 day share price return of 118.52% and a 1 year...
McMahon weighing options on local laws passed by county legislature
He made those comments following a public hearing on Thursday, as lawmakers discussed imposing term limits on the county executive's office.
‘The current libertarian administration has deepened this tradition’
Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
Travis Kelce Comments on Patrick Mahomes' $500 Million Deal With Chiefs
Patrick Mahomes is now under contract with the Kansas City Chiefs until 2033.
I'd have vetoed foreign sale of UK tech giant, says Business Secretary
Peter Kyle's comments come as the government sets out how it would back British technology companies.
Trump’s most tone-deaf comments on Iran and the economy, ranked
President Donald Trump has repeatedly dismissed Americans’ economic pain and military casualties from the Iran war with comments critics call insensitive.
Mike Vrabel finally gives answer on Stefon Diggs, Patriots reunion
Patriots coach Mike Vrabel commented on the likelihood of the team pursuing a reunion with star wide receiver Stefon Diggs.
Trump labels Stephen A. Smith as ‘arrogant fool’ after criticism
President Trump on Wednesday slammed sports commentator Stephen A. Smith amid their feud, calling the ESPN analyst an “arrogant fool.” “Stephen A. Smith is an arrogant fool, a low IQ individual,” T…
Foley Hoag Advises Vesica Health in Sale to Photocure ASA
Learn more about the latest updates in legal, with expert commentary and insights from trusted attorneys from Foley Hoag LLP. Foley Hoag is a professional community of highly qualified attorneys from all over the US.
New OMB rule could break science in the United States
The drug that saved your mother. The treatment your doctor recommended. The clinical trial that bought someone you love more time. None of it was inevitable. It required a system built to operate outside politics and sustained over decades, because science doesn’t operate on the timeline of a politician. That system is now under direct threat. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has proposed a new rule to regulate all federal grants, not just science, but housing, education, defense, NASA and everything in between, that would fundamentally change how research is conducted in the United States. There have been a lot of fires in the past 16 months, and if everything is an emergency, nothing is an emergency. But this is a very big deal. These rules would strip away the independence that has kept science from becoming a political tool. The good news is there’s still something we can all do. How the grant system was designed to work When I was a new faculty member, I was full of millions of ideas, so I sat down and wrote an NIH proposal. I worked on it for months and thought it was so good. Then I sent it to my mentor. It came back covered in comments. Places where my reasoning wasn’t as airtight as I’d thought, methods that could be stronger, gaps in my thinking that I had been too close to the work to see. It stung, as honest feedback always does, but peer review almost always makes the work better. In fact, it’s the backbone of how American science has functioned for generations. At NIH, submitted proposals go to a panel of scientists who have experience in the field. These are the people who can read research methods and spot their weaknesses, who understand when an experiment is designed well and when it isn’t. Applications are scored rigorously, and often only the top 3-20% of proposals receive funding. The people making funding decisions are required to justify them based on these reviews. To be clear: this is not a perfect system, and good science still goes unfunded more often than any of us would like due to limited resources. There is also criticism that peer review may undervalue bold ideas that are risky but could have high payoffs. But the peer review system is nonetheless a meaningful part of the grant selection process. While thoughtful and careful changes could improve the system, the changes being proposed by OMB will not make things better. The rule that could change everything Through this OMB proposal, the system that helps decide what gets funded is being dismantled. There are many troubling elements buried in this proposal, but three provisions stand out in particular. Each would be damaging alone. Together, they would change what kind of science gets done in America, and who it serves. 1. Political appointees would decide which science gets funded, and peer review would be explicitly sidelined or ignored. The guidelines your doctor follows, the standards that determine what’s in your air and water, the drugs that get approved for your family: all of it starts with a funding decision. Right now, that decision is made by scientists who can evaluate whether the work is actually sound and whether it could move the needle forward. Under this proposal, funding decisions could be made by political appointees. The careful, expertise-driven review process that shapes grant funding would be effectively sidelined. That means that a poorly designed study could get funded simply because someone in a political office liked the sound of it, while rigorous, important work doesn’t get funded because it no longer aligns with the administration’s priorities. In other words, critical work that benefits all of us could now be missed just because it has become politically inconvenient. 2. Grants could be canceled at any point, without warning, in the middle of ongoing work. Say your tax dollars have been paying for a cancer study for two years. The grant was awarded for five years, so the team is mid-experiment. There are three additional years’ worth of answers that could change how the disease is treated for hundreds of thousands of people. With this new rule, the federal government could cancel the remaining funding tomorrow, walk away from the commitment it made with your money, and have no legal obligation to finish what it started. This is a huge waste of money. There are rarely other sources of funding for this work, which means the team, the graduate students, postdocs, and research staff who have dedicated years of their careers to this project could lose their jobs. Patients who have contributed their time to studies may not see it turn into useful learnings for others. Every hour of work already completed could result in nothing useful. Science can take decades to get to tangible outcomes. It needs a stable funding system to flourish. 3. Researchers would have a harder time communicating their findings without pre-approval from the federal government. There is a saying from Sir Mark Walport: “Science isn’t finished until it’s communicated.” Science is no use to anyone if it is kept locked away in the labs that produced the data. The proposed rule could make communicating research findings harder in a number of ways: Make it harder for scientists to widely share their findings in scientific journals. Publication costs, including journal fees that allow for broad public access, could not be paid for by federal funds which is often how scientists pay these costs. Restrict researchers from engaging publicly about how their findings should inform policy or public health guidelines. This would restrict scientists from doing the work that transforms years of lab work into decisions that actually affect people’s lives. Make it harder for scientists to attend conferences. Conferences would now need to be approved by the federal agency at the time of grant award. This disadvantages conferences or publications that are not politically aligned. Conferences are a key way in which scientists learn about work happening in their field so they can collaborate and build on each other’s findings. What good is science with a muzzle? The long-term impact These changes could (and hopefully would) be reversed under the next administration. But by then, damage has been done. Once projects are halted or denied funding by political appointees, people leave their science careers for other paths or even leave the country to do their amazing science elsewhere. You cannot pause a scientific study the way you pause a subscription you decided isn’t useful anymore. You cannot freeze a research team that depends on salaries to feed their families, causing a scramble for replacement funding that, in most cases, simply does not exist. When the money stops, everything stops, and all the work in progress and its potential are lost. Despite all of the language about reducing waste, fraud, and abuse, this new proposed rule increases the administrative burden tremendously. Every researcher watching this unfold will make a rational decision: don’t start anything that will take a decade to finish. This includes not building a team around funding that could vanish, or asking the big questions that need patience and stability to answer. The most consequential science, the kind that produces the treatments and the breakthroughs that reach your doctor’s office twenty years from now, is exactly the science that would be abandoned first. This is still a proposal, so we can all do something Some worry this rule is already a done deal. But by law, OMB is required to open a public comment period. Those comments matter because they inform members of Congress, they can be used in litigation, and they create a public record. So here’s what you can do: Submit a public comment. The public comment period on this proposed change is open until July 13. Anyone can submit a comment, and OMB is required to respond to substantial ones. Each comment must be different to count as distinct; identical comments will be counted only once. Comment as an individual, not on behalf of your organization. Here’s a full resource to help you, with useful examples, but in general: Share a story about how science or federal funding has benefitted you or is involved in your work. Are you or someone you loved a cancer survivor? Do you know someone with Alzheimer’s? Have you received NIH/NSF or other federal funding? All of these can be stories you use to highlight why you care. Explain why you’re worried about these proposed changes. You can use the wording found here or in other resources to help you. Ask them to withdraw this proposed rule. Contact your elected representatives. Congress allocates money to federal agencies to spend, and it has oversight of how that process works. You can let your representatives know this proposed change concerns you and ask them to intervene. There are levers they can push that can help at this moment. Let others know why federal funding matters. This isn’t just about science, but ALL federal grants, including for education systems, defense projects, and more. The process, including the importance of federal funding, is invisible to many. We can all make it more visible by sharing how science benefits us and why we value it. You can also share this article, or any of the resources linked here, to help spread awareness! Bottom line We are quickly losing ground in scientific research in the U.S. More changes, like the proposed rule by OMB, would decimate our ability to conduct research here, leaving us all worse off: fewer treatments for pancreatic cancer, less research on pollution impacts, fewer answers for patients with rare disease, and more unaddressed health needs. The impact will be very real for all of us, regardless of where we stand politically. Using our voices for science is more important than ever. Love, LM Big thanks to Dr. Megan Ranney for reading this over and providing brilliant insights, as always. Dr. Liz Marnik, PhD, is Executive Director of The Evidence Collective at YLE and a science communicator and immunologist working at the intersection of public trust, science, and public health. You can find her on Substack, LinkedIn, Instagram and Threads. Your Local Epidemiologist (YLE) comprises a team of experts, ranging from physicians to immunologists to epidemiologists to nutritionists, working together with one goal: to “Translate” ever-evolving public health science so that people are well-equipped to make evidence-based decisions. The YLE suite of newsletters reaches over 475,000 people across more than 132 countries. This newsletter is free to everyone, thanks to the generous support of fellow YLE community members. To support the effort, subscribe or upgrade below: Subscribe
Commentary: Spencer Pratt could have been a real contender. His greatest enemy was himself
Spencer Pratt had a few things going for him when he launched an insurgent campaign to become Los Angeles' next mayor.
Small Business Index Slips Below its Historic Average
NFIB Montana comment on May 2026 SBET
Small Business Index Slips Below its Historic Average
NFIB California comment on May 2026 SBET Report
Small Business Optimism Index Dips Below Historic Average
NFIB Oregon comment on June 2026 SBET
MacOS Golden Gate Fixes the Most Un-Apple-Like Thing About MacOS
Commentary: MacOS Tahoe's worst feature is finally being addressed, and it has nothing to do with AI or Siri.
Falcons head coach comments on Drake London's $141M extension
Kevin Stefanski praises Drake London, confirms $141M extension
Commentary: Does science need autonomous AI?
As technology developers and researchers rush to develop autonomous AI research tools (i.e., systems that independently perform tasks by designing their workflows and utilizing available tools) an urgent but rarely […]
Commentary: Eliminating contracting preferences hampers long-term growth
Two converging forces are reshaping American small business, and federal procurement policy just turned its back on both.
Commentary: Small businesses can overcome current government contracting uncertainty
Prepare for more complex requirements and identify opportunities that still exist — and there are still opportunities, advises two leaders leader in the field of women's economic development.
Commentary: Build a strong local safety net that can help Chicago small contractors get bigger
Federal contracts didn't build his company, a construction company owner with 40 years in the business says.
Commentary: Yes, we can end corporate influence in politics
There’s more money in politics than ever. But some state governments, like California, are finding ways to fight back.
The Bear’s Den, June 8, 2026
The Chicago Bears and Hammond Indiana stadium dominates the news and the comment sections
NTT INDYCAR SERIES: Bommarito Automotive Group 500 in St. Louis Highlights 🏁 INDYCAR on FOX
Check out the best moments from the NTT INDYCAR SERIES: Bommarito Automotive Group 500 with commentary from Will Buxton, Townsend Bell and James Hinchcliffe!
Times Opinion: US lead in science is shrinking fast as China, India and even Iran catch up
A country with one of the fastest-rising scientific profiles operates under sweeping international sanctions, has limited access to Western research infrastructure and is rarely mentioned in American conversations about global innovation. That country is Iran.
Fox Sports, including Alexi Lalas, prepare for extensive coverage of upcoming World Cup
The network has nine commentary teams lined up to cover all 104 matches on location in the 16 host cities.
Jack and Sharon Osbourne comment on plans for AI Ozzy
She said that creating the Ozzy avatar was about keeping up with the times and evolving technology, in addition to keeping the singer’s legacy alive.
How The Story Is Shifting For Phibro Animal Health (PAHC) As Analysts Reset Fair Value
The latest analyst update trims Phibro Animal Health’s assessed fair value from US$48.50 to US$45.60, bringing it closer to a cluster of price targets around US$44 to US$45.60. This shift aligns with more cautious commentary around regulatory risks and how the stock compares with peers. Read on to see what this may mean for you and how to keep track of the evolving analyst story around Phibro Animal Health. Wall Street's queuing for one rocket. While SpaceX counts down to its IPO, other...
Liverpool Transfer Talk Grows After Chiesa Comments on Midfielder
Liverpool Transfer Talk: Chiesa Offers Insight on Jones and AlissonFederico Chiesa has added another layer to what already feels like a summer of considerable change at Liverpool, with the Italian for...
Stellar Blade: Blood Rain Dev Comments on Launch Platform Plans
Stellar Blade: Blood Rain developer Shift Up says nothing is decided on day one platforms, leaving the door open to Xbox Series, PC, and PS5.
Trump says he’s considering government stake in top AI companies
Industry leaders will soon gather at the White House to discuss the idea, the president said. The comments come as SpaceX, Anthropic and OpenAI prepare to go public.
Joshua Wostal teases Tampa Bay Rays ballpark resistance planned by the Tampa CRA next week
If Wostal’s comments on The Ryan Gorman Show are to be believed, the CRA will vote to remove the Rays MOU from its upcoming agenda next week.
White House Plan to Take Over Federal Grantmaking Draws Criticism from Science Groups
Science advocacy groups are attempting to mobilize public comments on a proposed rule.
Brayan Bello Optioned: Boston Makes Bullpen Addition in Trade
After today’s disastrous outing, followed by some post-game comments that didn’t land well, Red Sox starter Brayan Bello has been optioned and sent down to Triple-A Worcester. Bello’s horrible run over the last couple of months came to a close on Thursday, giving up six runs in the first inning against the Baltimore Orioles. In …
Beckwith defends Islam comments, gas tax suspension| Crossroads Politics
Joel Klatt replaces Kirk Herbstreit as color commentator in EA Sports College Football 27
It was recently reported that Kirk Herbstreit will not be in EA Sports’ College Football 27. Herbstreit served as the color commentator alongside play-by-play announcer Chris Fowler for the “Big Game” broadcast team in College Football 25 and 26, after EA Sports relaunched the popular video game franchise that was previously known as NCAA Football.…
Boston Celtics insider drops surprising Giannis Antetokounmpo reality check
The Boston Celtics have emerged as a potential wild card in the Giannis Antetokounmpo trade conversation. Following Jaylen Brown’s unusual comments on Twitch after Boston’s postseason exit, some around the league have speculated that he may be open to seeking a situation where he can lead his own team. Antetokounmpo has also been mentioned as [...]
We Devised a “Friendly” Way to Keep Our Neighbor Out of Our Lawn. He’s Furious.
Prudie replies to readers’ comments and suggestions.
WATCH: Capital Planning Commission seeks more info on proposed 'Trump arch' after public comment session
The vote came after nearly three hours of public comment from about 20 members of the public, some representing historic and architectural organizations, and most of whom expressed concerns about the arch that is one of several projects the Republican president is pursuing to leave his imprint on Washington.
Stand against the politicization of science
You can take meaningful action to counter a new proposed rule that would subject federal grant-making to political partisanship. Submit your comment to the Federal Register or call your congresspeople before July 13.
Meta rolls out a new AI creator assistant on Facebook
Creators often have to parse through charts and dashboards to understand their performance, but with the new AI assistant, they can get quick answers to questions like "When should I post?" and "What are people saying in my comments?"
Bass has 'utterly failed' her constituents throughout political career, conservative commentator says
Conservative commentator Elisha Krauss and former California GOP Chairwoman Jessica Millan Patterson discuss California’s governor’s race and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass’ advancement to a November runoff on ‘Fox News @ Night.’
WATCH: Bessent recalls telling acting intelligence director Pulte he was 'going to kick his ass'
Bessent said he made the comment in the summer of 2025. President Donald Trump named Pulte acting director of national intelligence this week.
Dallas residents lament Downtown business exodus after Mavs, Stars plan suburban moves
Though centered around Dallas City Hall's future, the focus of public comment at today's Dallas City Council meeting was the exodus of businesses from downtown, with many residents taking time to lament the departure of sports franchises and companies alike.
Ubisoft all but rules out a Rayman 1 remake, says it's near impossible to do
Ubisoft comments on why a remake of Rayman 1 is unlikely to happen.
Pat Surtain comments on $5 million raise from Broncos
"It's a testament to ownership and the Broncos as an organization," Pat Surtain said after receiving a $5 million raise.
Milwaukee shouldn’t trade Giannis Antetokounmpo for one major reason
With constant trade talks swirling around superstar Giannis Antetokounmpo, this could be the summer a blockbuster deal finally happens. The Bucks’ owner has made comments about wanting to make a move before the NBA Draft to acquire assets, and looking…
Jason Sudeikis calls dating 'daunting' following Olivia Wilde split in rare comment about personal life
Jason Sudeikis finds dating 'daunting,' he says, six years after he and Olivia Wilde ended their engagement.
Elections to top science bodies test Croatia’s gender equality in research
Croatia’s track-record on gender equality in science has been both questioned and lauded in recent months, following both bad and good news on the topic. On the one hand, a senior awards committee was announced without a single woman researcher included. On the other, the national science academy welcomed its first cohort of fellows with more women than men.Members of the committee, which gives national awards recognising scientific achievement, are proposed by the ministry of science and endorsed by the parliament. The current line-up does include a woman, but she is culture minister Nina Obuljen Koržinek rather than a researcher. Even then, she didn’t make it into the photograph released to announce the appointments on April 16. “The image speaks a thousand words,” says Tanja Rudež, a science journalist for Jutarnji List newspaper. “I am surprised that none of these men, all well-known scientists, saw a problem with the fact that there was not a single successful female scientist on the committee,” she told Science|Business.Ivan Đikić, a prominent Croatian biochemist based at Goethe University Medical School, commented on LinkedIn that the news illustrated a “sad truth” about the state of science in Croatia.“It [. . .] reveals a system where women, despite contributing a substantial share of high-quality, internationally competitive science, are systematically excluded from the very processes that determine recognition and influence,” he wrote. Some 60% of researchers in Croatia are women, according to the Croatian Bureau of Statistics, and they perform well in international competitions. For example, of the 12 European Research Council (ERC) grants awarded to Croatian researchers, seven went to women.“So how is it possible that decision-making bodies are still dominated by men over 60, while not a single female ERC laureate is involved in the selection process?” asked Đikić. “This is not a marginal oversight; it is a structural failure.” The ministry of science did not reply to a request for comment. The awards committee is not unusual. For example, a scientific advisory body announced by the ministry of demographics in April comprises 35 men and five women. The board of the Croatian Science Foundation, newly appointed by the parliament, is a little better, with five men and two women, but still unequal. “This is especially significant because such bodies do not merely distribute prestige. They shape research priorities, funding allocation and long-term scientific development,” Marija Lugarić, chair of the parliament’s committee on gender equality, told Science|Business. “Representation here matters not only symbolically, but materially.”Referring to the awards committee and the board of the science foundation, Lugarić says that while both bodies were appointed by parliament, neither met the minimum 40% gender balance threshold that Croatian law and EU guidelines expressly recommend for public bodies.Đikić wants to see EU institutions put pressure on the government to ensure basic standards of fairness, transparency and democratic governance in science policy are met. “Meaningful change will not come without pressure,” he wrote. “It must intensify both within Croatia and at the level of European institutions. Anything less undermines the credibility of Europe’s commitment to excellence and inclusion in science.”Rudež also underlined the importance of talking and writing about this topic, “because public opinion in Croatia does influence changes in the status and visibility of women in science.”The European Commission has not yet responded to a request for comment.Good news from the academyA more positive story came from the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts on 21 May, with the announcement of seven new women fellows and five men. This is the first time in the academy’s 165-year history that women have outnumbered men in a new intake.One of the new fellows, two-time ERC grantee Iva Tolić, credits the academy leadership with trying to be more modern and inclusive, representing the whole community better. “The academy is really aware that so far, before this election, there were very few women,” she told Science|Business. “So, they are actively trying to make this more equal.”Related articlesExplained: How the MSCA is close to achieving gender balanceCall for EU to leverage academic freedom in global talent raceRudež is more cautious, noting that despite the academy’s “breakthrough this year [. . .] it is still a predominantly male institution, with only 18% women.”This reflects a wider imbalance in Croatia’s research landscape. “The key levers of power in science are still in the hands of men,” she went on. “For example, all 14 rectors of private and public universities are men.”Similarly, Lugarić says a structural glass ceiling still exists in Croatian science, which is “most visible precisely where power is exercised.”She cites data from the Commission’s She Figures 2024 report, which shows that Croatia ranks second in the EU for gender equality in research and innovation overall, with an equality index of 79.6 out of 100. It is in the top five for women’s career advancement, participation in research; representation across all research sectors and for scientific publications.In stark contrast, it ranks second to last when it comes to women in decision-making positions in science. “This is not a coincidence,” Lugarić says. “It is a structural pattern.”Informal barriersThe persistent under-representation of women in the highest structures of Croatia’s academies, boards, award committees and leadership positions is not down to formal barriers, Lugarić says, but arises from more subtle obstacles such as “informal networks, persistent expectations regarding traditional gender roles and the unequal distribution of care responsibilities.”Tolić would like to see more support for young women in terms of affordable housing and child support, and higher salaries. Currently, she says, salaries in science stay low for the first 10-15 years, while housing and spaces in kindergarten are limited and expensive. “You have to work a lot, you get very little money, so it’s not great to have a family in this situation,” she says.But despite the challenges, Tolić is optimistic, saying that gender equality in research in Croatia is “definitely improving and going in the right direction.” The situation is particularly promising in biology, she adds, where most full professors, heads of department and deans of faculties are women. Lugarić, too, see the glass ceiling “very slowly, cracking,” and cites the academy election as an example that structural change is possible. Yet the situation in the national awards committee is a “stark reminder that without a conscious, systemic commitment to gender balance, progress will remain slow and uneven.”
COMMENTARY: Politics and failure
Politics is the only profession of which I am aware in which competence doesn't seem to matter. One can fail miserably; one can be corrupt and one can get away with crimes that if committed by someone outside of elective office, arrest, prosecution and a stint in jail would be the result. Yet politicians, Democrats and Republicans, continue to get re-elected.
How Science Works
The 2nd Weather and Climate Livestream is now underway. It is organized by a group of early-career researchers concerned about declining funding for the field and eager to demonstrate how weather and climate research makes a difference in our lives. Last year’s event was a great success, drawing terrific press coverage including a piece in the NY Times. This year features a strong lineup of talks aimed at a general audience — I highly recommend tuning in. Share I gave a talk yesterday about How Science Works in Three Steps. You can see the short presentation here (I’ve appended a transcript below): And please tune into the livestream here. It runs through tomorrow at 6 pm ET. Thanks for reading The Climate Brink! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work. Subscribe Cleaned up transcript: Thank you, and thanks to everyone tuning in. I want to talk about something I think a lot of people don’t really understand: how science actually works. Arguments over any scientific topic — climate change, vaccines, you name it — revolve around competing claims. For climate change, the claims are: Is the Earth warming? Are humans to blame? What will the impacts be? Over the last 150 years, the scientific community has developed a remarkably robust method for sorting out which claims are true and which aren’t. That method is what I want to walk through. So how does science generate knowledge? If you ask a high schooler, they’ll give you the version they learned in ninth grade: an individual scientist forms a hypothesis, runs an experiment, and draws a conclusion. That’s more or less what happens at the individual level, though in practice it’s more iterative — you design, test, and refine all at once, landing on a slightly different idea each time until you reach a conclusion about whatever hypothesis you’ve ended up with. But this isn’t science. It’s only step one. Any individual scientist can make mistakes — scientists are human. Maybe there’s a bug in the code, maybe there’s an error in the experiment. Just because someone ran an experiment and reached a conclusion doesn’t mean it’s right, and scientists don’t treat a single result as settled truth. Step two is peer review, the first layer of quality control. The scientist writes up what they did and submits it to a journal, which sends the paper to other experts in the field. Those experts judge whether the methods are sound, whether it properly references prior work, and whether the conclusions actually follow from the data. Ask any scientist and they’ll tell you peer review is miserable — the comments come back brutal, often harsh, and you have to revise and resubmit, sometimes multiple times, before an editor finally accepts the paper. Peer review catches an immense amount of bad science, but it can’t catch all of it. Reviewers get sloppy or overworked, they miss obvious mistakes, and they can’t catch hidden errors — a bug in the code, a misread instrument. So a peer-reviewed paper making it into a journal doesn’t mean the paper is right. Nobody treats a single paper as the final word. That’s where step three comes in: the crucible of science. Important results get retested by the broader community. If you publish something interesting, it gets dissected. Sometimes people try to reproduce your work directly but more often they test its implications. If someone claims X is true, and that implies that Y is also true, then scientists will go check Y. If a claim survives this gauntlet long enough, it becomes accepted. That’s how we generate knowledge. Let me give an example: the ozone hole. In 1985 — and I doubt many people watching were around then, but I remember it well — Joe Farman and his colleagues published observations from Antarctica showing that a huge chunk of ozone was disappearing every year. This was shocking because most atmospheric chemists had expected ozone loss to occur at mid-latitudes and high altitudes, not over the South Pole. When scientists see something they don’t understand, they rush to explain it, and several competing hypotheses quickly appeared in the peer-reviewed literature. One pointed to chlorine chemistry from chlorofluorocarbons. A second blamed nitrogen chemistry, possibly driven by solar proton events — meaning the sun was responsible. A third argued it wasn’t chemistry at all but dynamics: winds were carrying naturally low-ozone air from the lower atmosphere up into the stratosphere. Then the community went to work testing which theory could survive the crucible. Aircraft flew into the ozone hole and found no nitrogen, ruling out the nitrogen theory. Measurements showed the air in the polar vortex was descending, not rising — which would bring high-ozone air down, eliminating the dynamics theory. Meanwhile, those same flights measured enormous amounts of chlorine, strongly correlated with exactly the regions where ozone was being destroyed. That became known as the “smoking gun” paper, and it established that chlorine chemistry was the cause. Through this process, a consensus emerged. And it’s worth being clear that this consensus is organic. There’s no vote, no poll, no meeting where it gets decided. Scientists go to conferences, talk to one another, and independently arrived at the same answer. It’s the ultimate free market of ideas. After the consensus was established, the peer-reviewed literature doesn’t even mention the rival theories — it simply takes chlorine chemistry as given. That’s what a consensus looks like. It doesn’t mean every single scientist agrees, but it does mean there’s no longer any legitimate debate. So where can you see what scientists actually think? It’s all in the peer-reviewed literature, which contains the entire historical record of the argument: the discovery, the competing theories, the debate, the testing, and finally the community coalescing around one answer. But there’s a lot of room for misrepresentation. You can dig up an old paper claiming the ozone hole was caused by dynamics and wave it around as if there still was a debate about the cause of the ozone hole — without mentioning that the idea was disproven long ago and that even its own authors no longer believe it. There’s a bigger problem, though: the peer-reviewed literature is written in a language I call “nerd.” It’s extremely hard to read — honestly, some of it is hard for me to follow. It takes graduate students years to work through the literature in a single field, so we can’t expect policymakers or ordinary people to do it. This is where scientific assessments come in. The most famous is the IPCC — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The job of an assessment is to read and summarize the peer-reviewed literature, synthesizing what’s settled, what’s been disproven, and what remains genuinely debated. To ensure the assessments accurately summarize the peer-reviewed literature, assessments are written by large teams, which are far less prone to bias than individuals and which dilute the influence of any one scientist with an axe to grind. The teams are deliberately assembled to avoid stacking the deck, and the reports themselves go through multiple rounds of peer review. That rigorous process is exactly why you can trust them and why people consider the IPCC to be the gold standard of what we know about the climate system. An assessment produced through a different process may well not be credible. You can even watch the consensus evolve across assessments. Take the attribution of warming. The 1990 IPCC report said the observed warming was broadly consistent with model predictions but also comparable to natural variability — in other words, we don’t know whether humans are responsible. By 1995, it concluded that the balance of evidence suggested a discernible human influence — a sentence only a committee could write, and one that barely commits to anything. By 2001, most of the warming over the previous 50 years was judged “likely” due to greenhouse gases; by 2007, “very likely”; by 2013, “extremely likely.” The 2023 report says essentially the same as 2013 — there’s not much stronger language available. So, to wrap up: science is our ultimate tool for deciphering the universe — the most successful method we’ve ever developed for determining what’s true and what isn’t. Our understanding is written into the peer-reviewed literature, so if you want to know what scientists think, that’s where to look. And for those of us who don’t speak nerd, scientific assessments are the Rosetta Stone — they translate nerd into English. Let me open the floor to questions. Thank you.
The work you can't always see: Beer is political, part 2
Recently I published a piece about beer, politics, and the question of who speaks up and who doesn’t. I meant every word of it. I still do. And then my inbox opened up. Cleveland Prost is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe I’ve been writing about beer since 2014. For most of that time, I kept things deliberately light — taproom profiles, new releases, the people behind the pints. Gradually, over years of building this thing, you gave me something I didn’t expect: permission. Permission to go deeper. To say what I actually saw in this industry and what I actually believed about it. That trust isn’t something I take lightly. It’s why that piece existed at all, and it’s why this one does too. I’m not walking anything back. But I want to go further. In that piece, I wrote that beer has never existed outside the system. That immigration policy affects who staffs breweries and harvests ingredients. That labor policy affects taproom workers. That civil rights policy affects who feels safe walking into a taproom. That “beer does not exist in a vacuum. The idea that it does is comforting. It is also false.” I believe that as much now as I did when I wrote it. But one idea came back at me, in different forms, over and over (from reader emails, comments, and conversations): that beer itself isn’t political — that it only becomes political when someone decides to make it that way. That what we’re really seeing is a choice by individuals to inject division into something that doesn’t inherently require it. It’s a comforting idea. It’s also wrong — and I think it’s worth being precise about why. That framing assumes that breweries operate outside the conditions shaping everything else. That politics is something you choose to bring into a room that was, until then, clean and neutral. That if you stay quiet, you stay clear of it. But the room was never neutral. It was never clean. Politics is already in the room. It’s in who walks through the door comfortably and who hesitates. It’s in whether a space can be used for organizing without fear. It’s in whether helping someone quietly might carry consequences you have to think carefully about in advance. It’s in who staffed the brewery, who harvested the grain, who can afford to be a regular. The idea that you opt out of all that by staying quiet is an illusion. You only change how visible your response to it is. This is, I realize, a hard thing to hear if you came to a beer newsletter for something lighter. I wrote recently that “beer, for me, has always felt like a refuge — a third place in an increasingly fractured world.” I meant that. I still do. But a refuge is not an escape from reality. It’s a place to gather strength to face it. Here’s what I actually missed — and what I want to correct. Multiple people in the industry reached out to me. I’m not naming them and I’m not identifying their businesses, because that’s not my call. If and when they want to be loud about what they’re doing, that agency belongs to them. What I can share is the substance of what they said, because it complicated something I presented too cleanly. The overall message: *You don’t know what we all are doing.* And they’re right. I don’t. One example involved a collaboration brewed quietly to support another business facing serious challenges in a whole different region, with proceeds directed toward solidarity, community, and keeping operations afloat. No announcement. It could have been broadcast widely. The point was never publicity. Another example involved logistical support for community efforts: organizing safe transportation, providing space for meetings on otherwise closed days, facilitating gatherings under difficult conditions. All of it happening while balancing real financial pressure and genuine concern for personal safety. None of what they described is a brewer “deciding to make beer political.” It’s people responding to the conditions around them — conditions that are already shaping who feels safe, who has access, who can gather, who needs help, and who has the capacity to offer it. Politics, again, already in the room. Already shaping choices. Whether anyone announced it or not. I’ve spent decades in taprooms, at barrel releases, at festivals, in back offices and brewing floors, talking to the people who built this industry from nothing. I know how much happens that never makes it onto social media. I know the owner who quietly comp’d a tab for someone having a crisis. The brewer who drove an hour to pick up a stranger who needed a safe ride. The taproom that stayed dark on a Tuesday so a community group could use the space without it becoming A Whole Thing. None of that gets a post. Most of it never will. So when I wrote recently about silence — when I said that “silence right now doesn’t feel neutral, it feels like complicity” — I was writing about what I could see. And I was right about what I saw. The public silence of breweries that have the platform, the stability, and frankly the safety to say something and choose not to? That still troubles me. I’m not softening that. But some of what I read as silence is actually something else entirely. It’s people doing the work with their hands instead of their phones. It’s people who are genuinely afraid — not of being canceled, but of real consequences for their families, their employees, their ability to keep the doors open at all. That deserves more than a footnote. It deserves to be named clearly. Here’s the tension I want to sit with honestly: public statements matter. They matter because people can’t rally around something they can’t see. Visibility creates awareness and solidarity. It helps people find each other. It tells someone standing outside your taproom door, uncertain whether they’ll be welcomed inside, something they need to know — or whether it’s even safe for them to be in public at all. That’s not performative. I wrote recently that the craft beer movement “was built on collective defiance. It was built on rejecting consolidation. On pushing back against homogeneity.” I believe that too. And I’ll extend it: breweries should be at least as loud about their values as they are when they drop a new seasonal. Your hazy IPA gets a full rollout — the label art, the tap handle photo, the countdown post. Human dignity deserves the same energy. Be as loud about human rights as you are about your beer. There is no reason those two things should require different levels of courage from you. But visibility isn’t the only form of courage. And not everyone can be visible right now without real consequences — financial, personal, sometimes physical. There are people in this industry doing hard, unglamorous, sometimes risky work in the background, and announcing it would compromise it or paint a target on someone who’s already stretched thin. That’s not silence as complicity. That’s operational discipline under pressure. What I want to push back on — clearly, not gently — is the idea that behind-the-scenes action and public visibility are in competition with each other. The person organizing quietly in the back room and the person posting a statement of solidarity on a Tuesday morning are both doing something real. We need both. We need the quiet infrastructure and we need the visible signal. We need people to know that this industry — at its best, at its most independent, and human — gives a fuck. I closed that piece with a question: “Reactive and fearful? Or clear and values-driven?” That question still stands. But having heard from you, I’d add a corollary: the values-driven path isn’t always the loudest one. Sometimes it’s a phone call and a recipe. Sometimes it’s a room made available on a closed Tuesday. Sometimes it’s a drive across town for someone who needed a safe ride home. All of it is political. All of it was always political. You don’t get to opt out of that — you only get to decide what you do with it. I’ve spent more than a decade writing about this industry because I believe it can be exactly that. I’ve been lucky enough to build an audience that lets me say so plainly. That’s a privilege I intend to use. The work is happening. Some of it you’ll see. Some of it you won’t. Support it either way. Cleveland Prost is a reader-supported publication covering beer and brewing across New York state. To receive new posts and support this work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Cleveland Prost is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe
Why interviewing Anthony Joshua made me uncomfortable
COMMENT: Six months after the ex-heavyweight champion survived a car crash that killed two of his friends, he spoke to Alex Pattle and others about how he is coping – whether he wanted to or not
Trump-backed Iowa Senate candidate says Iran war could become ‘political liability’
The comments, obtained by POLITICO, are a stark acknowledgement from Republican Rep. Ashley Hinson.
Dan Skipper Fires Back at Tom Brady Over Absurd Comments
Detroit Lions offensive lineman Dan Skipper strongly disagreed with Tom Brady's recent comments about practice squad players, calling the take "absolute bull***t."
Kennedy's comments on public health draw reaction from congressional candidate Shaheen
Congressional candidate Stefany Shaheen is calling out Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for comments he made last week during a visit to New Hampshire.
‘Neither toddlers nor anyone else can get that close’
Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
Jim Cramer Says Hinge Health “Delivered a True Blowout Set of Numbers”
Hinge Health, Inc. (NYSE:HNGE) was one of the stocks on Jim Cramer’s radar on Mad Money as he explained that many investors might be missing out on the market’s biggest winners. Cramer highlighted the company’s latest earnings and the following market reaction, as he commented: Earlier this month, we got a phenomenal quarter from Hinge […]