SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " mail " 1,433 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Despite Fast-paced Momentum, AMC Entertainment (AMC) Is Still a Bargain Stock
AMC Entertainment (AMC) made it through our 'Fast-Paced Momentum at a Bargain' screen and could be a great choice for investors looking for stocks that have gai
'Sports come second': Student-athletes work to balance between classroom, competition
For many college athletes, balancing academics and athletics isn’t achieved through last-minute emails or excuses about missed assignments.
Former Pinterest team redesigns email with Extra — and it’s actually good
Extra, from a team of former Pinterest designers and engineers, reimagines email around your life instead of the traditional inbox.
Shaky political science: using "simulated" elections over real-world elections
[Dear DSOS readers – this article is the latest in our “Shaky Political Science” series. In our 38 page report, “Shaky political ‘science’ misses mark on ranked choice voting,” released in early December, we examined over 40 studies focused on ranked choice voting. We found that many of these studies suffered from puzzling research methodologies, poorly constructed surveys, unrealistic simulated elections, cherry picked data, and faulty analyses that often were contradicted by results from real-world elections (a link to our full paper is here). Here are links to the first three articles in our series: the first one summarizing the overall results of our report, the second one analyzing a study co-authored by University of Minnesota academic Larry Jacobs, which was one of the most error-prone of all the research we reviewed in our report, and a third article showing an admirable example of two political scientists holding two other political scientists accountable for their flawed, sloppy research]. In this fourth article in our “Shaky Political Science” series, we shine a spotlight on seven studies that were web-hosted and funded by New America’s Political Reform Program and its Electoral Reform Research Group (the ERRG is an ad hoc committee headed by New America’s Political Reform Program and joined by the American Enterprise Institute, the Unite America Institute and Stanford University’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law). This research consortium has been led by Lee Drutman, senior fellow with New America’s Political Reform Program. These seven studies are simply not credible from any objective standard about how political “science” is supposed to illuminate our understanding of either ranked choice voting or politics in general. The feature that six of these seven studies have in common is that they all used surveys – artificial, simulated elections -- to attempt to say something cogent or interesting about ranked choice voting (RCV) elections. None of them used real world data from actual RCV elections – either the 1000+ elections in the US or the many thousands of elections from places like Australia, Ireland and elsewhere where RCV has been used for 100 years. While a few of these studies conclude with some mixed positives about RCV, our analysis here is content neutral. The idea that, with a political reform like RCV, you can ask respondents in a mock, artificial election to vote with that method, with only the barest of explanation about how RCV works or its likely impacts (i.e. no spoiler candidates, majority winners, voters liberated to pick their favorite candidates, coalition-building), and then ask them their thoughts/reactions about voting in that system, with fake candidates and no real campaigning, no real exposure to an actual election or actual candidates, rests on some very puzzling assumptions. The findings of these seven studies actually are contradicted by the findings from many other studies based on real-world RCV elections. These New America studies also failed to list the real-world RCV studies in their own citations, instead including those studies that reinforced their conclusions. The seven studies featured in this article were chosen because they form a cohesive cohort which precisely illustrates one of the main points of our research paper, namely that using surveys, i.e. artificial elections, or mathematical/theoretical models, instead of real-world data, is in fact “shaky political science.” Below are summaries of our analysis of five of the seven New America studies. You can read our complete analysis of all seven studies at our paper, “Shaky political ‘science’ misses mark on ranked choice voting.” Choosing to “Vote As Usual” by Andre Blais, Carolina Plescia, and Semra Sevi. New America. (Blais et al., 2021). This study, web-hosted and funded by New America’s Political Reform Program and its Electoral Reform Research Group, used two surveys in which respondents completed ballots for simulated elections using plurality, approval, RCV and point (Score) voting. In both cases the authors provided the respondents with only minimal explanation of each method. For example, the entire explanation for RCV was “For this vote, rank the candidates from your first to your last choice (you do not need to rank them all). This is called the ranked vote.” That’s it. The study did not provide any context or explanation to survey respondents about why she/he might want to rank multiple candidates. Participants were not even told that ballots would be tabulated using an “instant” runoff, not to mention any description of RCVs ability to eliminate the spoiler effect or liberate voters to rank their favorite candidates without fear of helping the “greater evil” candidate to win. That’s like taking an iPhone back in time to 1970 and asking someone if they like it better than their rotary phone without explaining how it works. Their first survey targeted states that held 2020 Super Tuesday Democratic primaries and used the real candidates’ names in the survey; the second survey used fictitious candidates. In other words, they surveyed respondents who had only ever participated in plurality elections, had no history or background with using RCV or any of the other methods, had no clue about its likely impacts, and did not communicate how the alternative methods would be counted, and then asked them: “How satisfied are you with using each system?” Predictably, the winner was plurality elections, the system used for president, Congress, gubernatorial and state legislative elections – in other words, the method they have been using, year after year, all their voting lives. With so little explanation of RCV and its impacts, this study is simply not credible in discovering anything useful about real-world RCV elections. It merely shows that a basic voter education campaign is needed when adopting a new election system. Additionally, the result contradicts many other post-election surveys following real RCV elections, asking opinions from voters who had just participated in a RCV election, that showed a great deal of satisfaction with RCV (see details on that in Studies 22-25 in our paper, as well as the four studies cited in the review for Study 28). Share Other studies on “satisfaction” and “understanding” make similar mistakes, in terms of basing their surveys on inadequate explanation to respondents and lack of education about context. How could any survey ever hope to measure accurately, in essence simulate a real-world election, without actual campaigning candidates, the media writing about those candidates, organizations endorsing candidates and voters being inundated with crucial information? More than anything, what these “studies” based on surveys show is that if you ask voters about something they don’t know very much about, and fail to adequately educate them, their responses will unsurprisingly reflect their confusion. Equally puzzling is that New America’s Electoral Reform Research Group, headed by political scientist Lee Drutman, found this to be a credible enough study that they not only published it but highlighted it in Drutman’s own discussion of research related to ranked choice voting. This pattern was repeated in study after study featured by New America’s Electoral Reform Research Group. For example in Ranked-Choice Voting and Political Expression: Voter Guides Narrow the Gap between Informed and Uninformed Citizens by Cheryl Boudreau, Jonathan Colner, and Scott MacKenzie, the researchers based their analysis on a survey which found that respondents who were asked to vote in a simulated RCV election, with minimal explanation of RCV or how it works, displayed less evidence of being informed about how to use RCV effectively, with the least informed voters ranking fewer candidates. As pointed out under the study above, in a real election voters are informed by a wide variety of methods, including public education by the election administration, by interested political groups, the media, and the candidates themselves who benefit from voters being aware of how to vote in the new system. In Support for Ranked-Choice Voting across Race and Partisanship by Joseph Anthony, David C. Kimball, Jack Santucci and Jamil Scott, the researchers used respondents from different parties and races voting in simulated plurality and RCV elections, who indicated their satisfaction with each voting method. Instead of using real world election results, the authors fell back on the easy, armchair and less reliable academic research methodology of making up mock elections. As with the other studies, little explanation was given of how RCV works or what its implications might be (electing majority winners or eliminating spoilers, for example). Unsurprisingly, this study found that respondents were not very satisfied with RCV. However, when the authors added an explanation that RCV has a tendency to elect more women and people of color, they found that this greater explanation increased the preference for RCV. The more voters were familiar with it, and the more they understood potential positive impacts – surprise! -- the more they were open to switching away from the status quo. Of note, the results from this study are thoroughly contradicted by a number of other studies whose data was obtained from real RCV elections with real voters. Those studies show a great deal of satisfaction with RCV. More “fake election” research An interesting wrinkle on this “research by fake elections” approach, which only served to illustrate how unreliable such “research” can become, was taken in Ranked-Choice Voting, Runoff, and Democracy: Insights from Maine and Other U.S. States by Joseph Cerrone and Cynthia McClintock_,_ also web-hosted and funded by New America’s ERRG. It gets high marks for creativity, but an eye-roll for thinking this could possibly add anything meaningful to our understanding of real world RCV elections. This study tried to determine whether RCV, plurality or two-round runoff elections provided greater voter satisfaction and acceptance of election results. To determine that, the authors conducted a survey asking if voters were satisfied with a fictional newspaper report of an election, with three different versions given to respondents – plurality, runoff and RCV, with variations of Republican/Democrat winners and variations of “come-from-behind” winners,” i.e. candidates not initially in first place but who win the “runoff.” Again, a minimal explanation of RCV or how it works was given, and the survey showed that respondents had the greatest unfamiliarity with RCV than the other methods. The unsurprising result? Respondents were much more satisfied with “come-from-behind” victories in a traditional two-round runoff election than in RCV, even though RCV is also a runoff system but with a single round of counting. Interestingly, the dissatisfaction with RCV disappeared for those who were more familiar with RCV. In fact, among those respondents who were “very familiar” with RCV, they were equally satisfied with RCV, runoff and plurality. Surprise, surprise. Again, what this study revealed, more than anything, is not only the inadequacy of the explanation for RCV given by the authors of this study, but the failure of the research format itself, thinking that such an artificial mock election could somehow simulate what actually happens in the real world in a real RCV election. Those four studies reviewed above are fitting examples of inadequate and shaky political “science.” Other studies reviewed in our paper from the New America/Electoral Reform Research Group cohort which also used mock elections included: Ranked-Choice Voting is an Acquired Taste by Joseph Anthony and David C. Kimball. New America. (Anthony et al., 2021). Ranked-Choice Voting is No Refuge for Extreme Candidates by Melissa Baker. New America. (Baker, 2021). Also included in this New America cohort is Does Ranked-Choice Voting Reduce Racial Polarization? by Yuki Atsusaka and Theodore Landsman, which actually did use real-world election results data but applied an odd and unconventional methodology to the data which relied on shaky assumptions and non-real-world scenarios that were too divorced from reality. To determine levels of “racially polarized voting,” the researchers imagined “ethnic parties,” by which they mean political parties for each ethnic group, which was especially odd since the election data they were using came from nonpartisan RCV races. But then they made an even odder assumption, namely that since race and ethnic characteristics of studied voters were not available, the authors tried to infer that information based on who voters selected and the racial make-up of voters in each district. This amounted to little more than vague and ambiguous guesswork dressed up with a bunch of mathematical equations used to give it a veneer of scientific appearance. Indeed, it seemed to assume racial polarization in order to prove racial polarization. Based on this questionable methodology, the authors concluded that RCV doesn’t reduce racial polarization. But the premise of this study missed an obvious reality: since RCV incentivizes more candidates to run and can result in more diverse fields of candidates, one would expect more racially-polarized voting in voters’ top rankings, not less, because more voters would have someone on that ballot who represents their racial or ethnic identity and more freedom to vote for their real first choice. By encouraging more diverse candidates and eliminating the spoiler effect, RCV facilitates voting for a favorite candidate of your own race and then selecting a second choice with the best likelihood of winning. The real measure is what voters do with their additional rankings – do they consider other candidates and vote “for the best of the rest”? This study didn’t tell us anything useful about that. But readily available data shows this is common in real RCV elections, and candidates act on this knowledge by engaging with voters outside their racial group. So the authors of this study failed to consider or account for what actually happens in real-world elections, and their conclusions are tainted by this failure. New America has contributed a great deal over the past 2.5 decades to our understanding of many policy areas, including politics and political reform (full disclosure: Steven Hill, one of the authors of this article and of the “Shaky Political Science” research paper and series, is a former senior fellow and former director of New America’s political reform program, 2005-2010). So it was especially disappointing that New America funded and published such a large batch of dubious studies about ranked choice voting. The stated praiseworthy goal of its Electoral Reform Research Group was to inspire new academic research about ranked choice voting that would shed light and help the public better understand the impacts of RCV. Instead, the ERRG research did just the opposite. It produced dubious research that created more confusion and misinformation. In so doing, New America’s political reform program contributed to “shaky political science.” Steven Hill and Paul Haughey Share Upgrade to $5 subscription Thanks for reading DemocracySOS, a reader-supported digital portal for the pro-democracy movement. Subscribe for only $5 per month to receive full benefits and to support our work. Subscribe
Washington County high school spring sports scores for April 20-25
Here are the Washington County high school sports scores for the week of April 20-25.
Legislation that could lead to faster election results advances
The Pa. House State Government Committee has advanced a bill that would allow election officials to begin opening and tallying mail-in ballots before Election Day, speeding election result reporting.
This is the decades-old Gmail trick I still use every day
This small change completely cleans up your inbox
Statehouse beat: Ethics in West Virginia politics are dead and gone
We are witnessing an appalling, perhaps unprecedented decline in ethics in West Virginia politics.
Kathy's #Mailbag, April 17, 2026
From restaurants to railroad crossings to radio, it's another busy week at Mailbag Central.
Gigs turns your concert history into a personal live music archive
New iPhone app Gigs uses AI to turn old tickets, screenshots, and emails into a personal concert archive with stats, memories, and more.
Venture capitalist and former marine Larry Lawrence, GS ’69, Business ’71, named School of General Studies 2026 Class Day speaker
Larry Lawrence, GS ’69, Business ’71, venture capitalist, chair emeritus of the School of General Studies’ board of visitors, will serve as the General Studies Class Day speaker for the class of 2026, General Studies Dean Lisa Rosen-Metsch, GS/JTS ’90, announced in a Thursday email to the school’s students.
ChatGPT maker OpenAI shifts its focus to business users amid Anthropic pressure
The same ChatGPT chatbot that gave OpenAI’s chief financial officer Sarah Friar a tilapia recipe for a recent Sunday night dinner at home is also now doing her most mundane tasks at work like summarizing her emails and Slack messages.
Entertainment calendar
Please email entertainment listings to entertainment518@digitalfirstmedia.com. Thursday, April 16, 2026 PALACE THEATRE: 19 Clinton Ave., Albany. Fetty Wap, 8 pm. www.palacealbany.org. THE EGG: 1 Empire State Plaza, Albany. Marty…
A new approach to brain health, one neuron at a time
Neuroscientist Paul Nuyujukian likens the brain to a stadium full of people. To eavesdrop on the crowd you could put a microphone in the middle of the stadium. But to understand the conversations you need to record individual people. He thinks about the brain the same way. To understand brain disease, he studies neurons—one at a time. And his insights are shedding light on a big global issue—stroke. The World Health Organization predicts one in four adults will have a stroke in their lifetime. Strokes can cause death, or lead to paralysis or speech problems. But there’s still a lot researchers don’t know about how the brain recovers from an event like a stroke. Nuyujukian directs a lab at Stanford University that studies how the brain controls movement, including after neurological events like stroke. We get into how he does this, and why he hopes his research could eventually help people who’ve been paralyzed. Email us your questions about the brain – or anything else to do with science at shortwave@npr.org. We may turn it into an episode in the future!Listen to every episode of Short Wave sponsor-free and support our work at NPR by signing up for Short Wave+ at plus.npr.org/shortwave.
Apple Launches New All-in-One Apple Business Platform for Device Management, Email, and Customer...
Apple today launched its new all-in-one Apple Business platform, debuting the refreshed Apple Business web portal and accompanying app. Apple Business aggregates several of Apple's prior business-focused products, like Apple Business Essentials, Apple Business Manager, and Apple Business Connect. The service offers organizations a unified platform for managing devices, employees, communications, and customer engagement across the Apple ecosystem.
Postal Service union launches ad campaign promoting mail voting as Trump seeks to limit it
The 30-second message features a variety of voters, among them a busy farmer and a flight attendant, explaining why they cast their ballots by mail.
What happens to the California governor's race after Swalwell's exit?
In a crowded race with no clear leader in the heavily Democratic state, Rep. Eric Swalwell's exit presents an opportunity for his one-time rivals to pick off former supporters just weeks before mail ballots go to voters.
Olympia couple charged after $10,000 health department check mailed to wrong address, cashed
Google brings its Gemini Personal Intelligence feature to India
The feature lets users connect Google accounts like Gmail and Photos to get personalized answers
Postal Service union launches ad campaign promoting mail voting
The 30-second union ad features voters explaining why they vote by mail and will start airing in Ohio this week
Washington County high school sports scores for April 13-18
Here are the Washington County high school spring sports scores for the week of April 13-18, to be updated as the week progresses.
Justin Bieber’s YouTube Coachella set had nothing to do with who owns his music
“The Daily Mail is wrong about that.”
Microsoft Shuts Down Outlook App For Android Users In 6 Weeks
Outlook Lite is no more — here's what you need to do before you lose access to your emails.
Extra half-mile added to some runner’s course during Covenant Health Knoxville Marathon
The email said the lead vehicle took participants approximately a half mile longer than the advertised distance at the turnaround on Neyland Drive.
DHS investigating claim about Swalwell nanny filed by conspiracy theorist
Joel Gilbert, who mailed anti-Barack Obama film to voters in 2012, accuses congressman of violating immigration law
Google is now letting you change that awkward Gmail address
Google started quietly rolling out the change late last year in India, and it has now announced it’s available for all Google Account users in the U.S.
Postal Service, Under Pressure, Now Faces Trump’s Mail Ballot Order
President Trump’s executive order, which has been challenged as unconstitutional, would limit the Postal Service to sending only the ballots of voters deemed eligible.
I changed my embarrassing Gmail username without losing anything, and you can too
Google now lets Gmail users switch to a new address while keeping the old one as an alias — here's how!
“AI polls” are fake polls
A few weeks after Donald Trump’s second presidential win, I took the train up from London (where I was living at the time) to Oxford to attend a conference on polls and forecasts of the 2024 election. Most of the attendees were pollsters or academics, but I also watched presentations from Aaru and Electric Twin, two companies that do what is interchangeably called synthetic sampling, silicon sampling, or synthetic audiences. Stripped of startup jargon, that means they use large language models (LLMs) to simulate responses to public opinion polls by having AI agents take on the role of survey respondents. I had already heard of Aaru thanks to some articles with eye-catching headlines like “No people, no problem: AI chatbots predict elections better than humans” in the months leading up to Election Day. The founders were making some big, some might even say far-fetched claims, such as: “within two years, we will simulate the entire globe — from the way crops are grown in Ukraine to how that impacts production of oil in Iraq, trade through the strait of Malacca, and elections for the mayor of Baltimore.” When Semafor asked Aaru’s cofounders — Cameron Fink and Ned Koh — about my boss, they said “we respect all those who came before us.” Nate (as he so often does) shared his thoughts on Twitter: Fink and Koh were relatively good-natured about this back-and-forth when we spoke at Oxford. They even offered to mail me one of the t-shirts featuring Nate’s quote they apparently had made. I never took them up on the offer, which I now somewhat regret. These synthetic sampling companies fell off my radar for a while, but they do still exist. In fact, Aaru recently received a $1 billion valuation. Is what they’re doing anywhere close to the most important frontier in AI development? Not by a longshot, especially when Anthropic just developed a model so adept at exploiting software vulnerabilities that it’s only being released to 40 companies. Still, silicon sampling is increasingly finding its way into public polling. Axios reported in March that “a majority of people trust their own doctors and nurses” based on findings from Aaru — without mentioning that the “people” in that sentence were actually LLMs. Around the same time, the Public Sentiment Institute “boosted” their online sample of 373 real survey respondents with 114 AI agents.1 (Spoiler alert: even the co-founder of Electric Twin doesn’t think that’s a particularly defensible approach.) Polling companies like Qualtrics and Ipsos are also developing synthetic data panels. So, what should we make of these … “polls”? Let’s get one thing out of the way: whatever they are, they’re not polls in the way that term is usually defined. Subscribe You can’t replace polls with AI On one hand, using LLMs to essentially make up fake survey respondents sort of sounds like the dumbest idea ever, one that will at best imperfectly replicate real polls while introducing all sorts of biases. On the other hand, with LLMs improving at a remarkable, perhaps even alarming rate, maybe that means I’m a dinosaur at the ripe old age of 24 because I still want to rely on polls that talk to actual people. I’m not going to argue that synthetic samples are completely useless. In fact, as I’ll return to later, there is evidence that some techniques can replicate topline survey results quickly and cheaply. But the marketing from certain companies can be slightly optimistic. “No traditional poll will exist by the time the next general election occurs,” said Fink in 2024. We’re just 206 days away from the midterms, and based on the fact that I still have to collect a bunch of polls every day, I’d say he should have run that prediction by a sample of AI agents before the interview.2 To see why synthetic samples can’t replace polls, here’s a quick primer on how they work. The simplest version of these models involves taking a LLM (like ChatGPT or Claude), giving it a demographic profile (e.g., a white, college-educated woman who lives in Utah and makes $70k a year), and then asking it to respond to a survey question. You repeat that process a few thousand times using different demographic profiles and end up with a sample of synthetic survey responses. The actual models used by private companies are more sophisticated than this, usually because they incorporate more hypothesized demographic characteristics for each agent and provide them with extra information. Aaru, for example, feeds agents a diet of news and information they’d be likely to consume, while Electric Twin incorporates their customers’ proprietary data about the audience they’re trying to replicate. The way Ben Warner, the co-founder of Electric Twin, explained it to me was “we have a large amount of data on […] for instance, 5,000 people. Can we make an accurate prediction of how they would respond to another question?” Still, it should be obvious why synthetic samples can’t replace polls. Polling is fundamentally a data collection process. We might use surveys to make predictions by feeding them into election forecasts, but the main purpose of a poll isn’t prediction, it’s gathering new data about what people think and how they feel. Silicon sampling, on the other hand, produces no new data. It’s simply a model: you input LLM training data, demographic prompts, and a bunch of other information, and it spits out a prediction for what a poll would say. We love models here, but models aren’t polls. That difference is an important philosophical sticking point for most pollsters I talk to. “I think politics should stay away from [synthetic sampling], because we’re trying to […] represent the voice of the people,” said Natalie Jackson, a vice president at GQR Insights. Democratic pollster John Hagner told me: “I think I’m just incredibly skeptical of this idea. I don’t think it’s research. At that point, you’re asking the machine to tell you what you already believe.” Hagner has seen some presentations of early synthetic sampling experiments, but so far, “if it’s being used in a campaign, people are keeping it incredibly quiet.”3 But Eli, I hear you saying, aren’t polls themselves increasingly governed by modeling decisions? Indeed they are: pollsters’ choices on which sampling method to use, how to define their likely voter models, and how to weight their samples can and do lead to dramatic differences in the results they publish. Aaru even referenced these limitations in the methodology statement included with that maternal mortality “poll” — although I’m using the term “methodology statement” loosely here, because it doesn’t really explain how the model works at all. We can ignore the (frankly preposterous) implication that synthetic sampling isn’t subject to a separate set of biases. The important point is that there’s still a meaningful difference between using weighting and other statistical techniques on actual polling data and using a model to predict what a poll would say. The latter is far closer to election forecasts or techniques like MRP — potentially useful models, but not a replacement for polls.4 To be fair, other synthetic sampling companies are perfectly happy with the distinction between polls and models. Warner compared polling and synthetic sampling to different tools in a toolbox. “The mistake I think we make is we think that these new tools should either work in exactly the same way or somehow replace these old tools,” he said. “Rather than thinking of it as, okay, so we’ve always had the hammer, we’ve always had the screwdriver, now we’ve got a saw. But don’t use a saw to try [to] do the job of a hammer.” A quick comment from Nate Eli didn’t ask me for a comment — rather rude of him, don’t you think? But since I’m editing this story, I figured I’d add a few quick thoughts rather than putting words in his mouth. Beyond the frequently misleading marketing, what bothers me about the AI “poll” hype is that as AI tools make statistical inference cheaper and/or better (note that these are not synonyms) that actually increases the comparative value of collecting original data. You might be able to train a model to make a reasonable estimate of what some hard-to-reach poll respondent would say — say, a young Black man who voted for Trump. (Such a person checks a number of boxes for a voter who is usually hard to reach in surveys.) Indeed, this is closely related to what models like the Silver Bulletin forecast already do. They essentially smooth out the kinks in noisy survey data by making inferences based on past voting patterns or national polls or surveys of other states. But you don’t actually know what these voters think unless you’re reaching them directly. If there’s a shift in opinion among this subgroup, you’re not going to detect it. So if I were running a campaign, I’d invest more in going the extra mile to find a representative sample of those voters. And then I’d hire some smart quants — or Claude? — to figure out the implications for campaign strategy based on proprietary data that my competitors didn’t have access to. -Nate Silver Are these models any good? If synthetic surveys are just a new type of model, the next obvious question is whether the models are at least accurate. The answer very much depends on who you ask. On one end of the spectrum, you have the maximalist argument that synthetic sampling is more accurate than actual polls. “It’s an incredibly challenging problem to go to someone and say ‘hey, we’re going to be more accurate at predicting human behavior than you, even when you talk to your customers directly’,” Koh recently told CNBC. In his view, synthetic sampling isn’t a saw to polling’s hammer, it’s “magic.” There’s certainly evidence that synthetic samples can replicate certain survey toplines. But if Aaru does have any examples of their approach outperforming the polls, they’re keeping those to themselves.5 Aaru’s 2024 election model, for example, had Kamala Harris leading in Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin on November 4th. And although they’ve since taken down their forecast page, they gave Harris a 50.5 percent chance of winning the race on November 2nd.6 After the election, Fink told Semafor he was happy enough with those results because they were “within margin of error,” a term that is completely meaningless when applied to a “sample” of AI agents. And of course, Aaru says their models have improved since 2024, so supposedly now they’d be more accurate than the polls? Still, their stronger argument is on cost: “We are significantly faster and cheaper than traditional polling, and still more accurate,” said Fink. The first two claims are undeniably true, but the third brings us to the opposite end of the spectrum. Both Jackson and Hagner are skeptical that these models are reliable for anything beyond replicating common survey toplines. “I just […] don’t think the machines are what we want when we’re looking for nuanced views. My example on this is people in Arizona and Nevada in 2024 who voted for Trump and voted for expanding abortion in their states on ballot initiatives,” said Jackson. Hagner identified another issue. Maybe the synthetic respondents, like sycophantic LLMs, are inhuman in one important way: they’re too nice. “The reports that have come through at the meetings that I’ve been at are that the early experiments on this, they cannot get respondents to be as racist or sexist or, frankly, as negative as human respondents,” he said. Academic research mostly agrees on this point. While there are some papers that show promising results when using LLMs to replicate polling data, most show that LLMs suffer from various quirks like producing too few “don’t know” responses and can seriously overpredict the favorability of politicians like Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. They also seem to struggle with too little variation between demographic subgroups, so the difference in predicted opinion between Democrats and Republicans, for example, is too small. When I asked Warner about these studies, his response to these papers was that just because academics can’t get synthetic sampling to work doesn’t mean that the technique doesn’t work in general. “Actually, the argument is, okay, yours does not [work]. That does not mean […] for this complex set of machinery, which uses a lot of investment, a lot of time, a lot of money, you can’t get it to work.” Cards on the table, I’m somewhat sympathetic to this argument because academics aren’t exactly great at making election forecasts. Usually, the people with skin in the game are the most accurate. Warner’s argument is that the approach Electric Twin takes — which includes, for example, making multiple predictions for each synthetic respondent using different models and prompts and subsequently averaging those to get a final prediction in a sort of ensemble forecast — produces better results than the simpler academic models. Warner shared a comparison between his method and the method from a recent academic paper with me, and Electric Twin was indeed able to get more accurate replication. But even still, he acknowledged that synthetic sampling “is not a crystal ball.” “If you asked me, do I think using other data sources will be more accurate than asking somebody who they will vote for, I would probably say no. But if you asked me ‘would your system be useful for our turnout modeling today?’ I would say yes.” For better or worse, it looks like the method is already getting more popular in the market research world. Most of the clients Aaru touts these days are businesses like EY and McDonald’s. And AI will probably begin to pop up in other parts of the political polling process. Pollsters are already using it to code open-ended survey responses, and some firms, like YouGov, are testing using LLMs to ask survey respondents questions. More worryingly, one danger to actual polls is that AI agents can be used to infiltrate online surveys. Most online polls use various checks to prevent that from happening, but there’s conflicting evidence on how effective those filters are and how prevalent AI agents currently are in online panels. If those agents ever become impossible to detect, it might spell the end of online polling, but the solution isn’t to replace all of your respondents with ChatGPT. Silver Bulletin is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a subscriber. Subscribe 1 That particular poll obviously doesn’t meet Silver Bulletin standards for aggregation. But we exclude all Public Sentiment Institute polls from our averages because we classify them as an amateur polling firm. 2 You could argue that Fink meant the next presidential election, but (a) I’m also confident we’ll still have real polls in 2028 and (b) in that case he should have asked an LLM to define “general election.” 3 Quick caveat: that’s reporting from a Democratic pollster. It’s possible that Republicans are more willing to use AI in political campaigns. 4 Indeed, Silver Bulletin does not include “polls” produced by MRP in our forecasts or averages, and we think it’s extremely misleading when their practitioners describe them in a way that suggests original data had been collected among a large number of states or Congressional districts. 5 A recent report from Aaru and EY did show two examples of a synthetic estimate being closer than a survey to a real-world benchmark — but I’d take those findings with a grain of salt because the report reads more like an ad and didn’t involve any sort of prediction being made ahead of time. 6 For comparison, our odds for Harris on the same day were 48.2 percent.
Best of Your Hometown Community’s Choice Awards business spotlight: Pracht Law Firm
We’re in the final stretch! Ready to recognize your favorite local businesses? Submit your nominations for Best of Your Hometown Community’s Choice Awards today.
Job hunter emailed company after getting ghosted post-interview
After multiple interviews and weeks of silence, a job seeker says she emailed the hiring team to push for better communication.
In praise of popular science
As a kid, I was enthusiastically and unreservedly in favor of a manned space program. Our destiny lay in the stars, I figured. Get people out there. We need Star Trek here and now. As I got older, I became rather disenchanted with the idea. Humans are expensive, fragile, and inefficient as space cargo. We could flood the solar system with 100 robotic probes for the price of any single manned mission and get back just as useful data. Besides, it turns out space travel is dangerous. Tusk is a reader-supported publication. To support this work, please become a paid subscriber. Subscribe When it came to the recent Artemis II mission, my cynical side didn’t really see the point. Flying around the Moon and back is literally something we did before I was born, and I once owned a Members Only jacket. Apollo 8 circled the Moon ten times and returned to Earth safely the same month that “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang” was released. What was the point of repeating a feat that far braver people once did with tin foil and slide rules? Yet I’ve surprised myself with how moving I’ve found the Artemis II mission to be. The photos have been stunning. The crew has been professional and engaging. There have been modest but important milestones — the farthest humans have travelled from Earth; the first woman, person of color, and non-American to leave low-Earth orbit; innovations in communication, and more. One thing that really stood out is that this is really NASA at its finest. Not that this is the most important mission they ever pulled off, but they did this in a competent way that celebrated the achievements and kept the crew and the science at the forefront of the project. This wasn’t some billionaire throwing celebrities or cars into orbit as a vanity project — this was a collective effort to send experts in to do a job and come home safely. We don’t see that sort of thing much these days. I’m guessing few people would describe many government agencies as inspiring, but this one counts for me. We’re living through a profoundly anti-science era, in which pathbreaking, lifesaving discoveries like mRNA vaccines are routinely downplayed or even vilified. As I’ve noted previously, this era is something like that of the Red Scare in the 1940s and 50s, in which “egghead” professors were portrayed as out of touch or even hostile to regular Americans. One of the things that helped break that spell was Sputnik — the Soviet communications satellite that demonstrated that the United States was falling behind in crucial scientific research and applications. Its launch triggered a new appreciation for American science and goaded the federal government into supporting research universities and labs. I’m not saying that Artemis is the equivalent of Sputnik, but it potentially reminds people that there’s some value to scientific endeavors and the human faces attached to them. Despite my love for the show “For All Mankind,” I’m far from convinced that there’s any real value to putting colonies on the Moon or Mars that would justify the capital investment and the massive health risks to the astronauts. But sending scientific good will ambassadors on a trip into space once in a while? Bring it. Share
Google’s Gmail Upgrade Decision—2 Billion Users Must Act Now
You have been warned — do not lave this "overwhelming" decision until it's too late.
Google rolls out Gmail end-to-end encryption on mobile devices
Google says Gmail end-to-end encryption (E2EE) is now available on all Android and iOS devices, allowing enterprise users to read and compose emails without additional tools.
Kristin Eschenfelder named interim dean of UW College of Letters & Science
Professor and Academic Associate Dean Kristin Eschenfelder was appointed as interim dean of the University of Wisconsin College of Letters & Science by Provost John Zumbrunnen, according to an email sent to UW students Thursday. The appointment will be effective May 17, when current Dean of UW L&S Eric Wilcots begins his term as interim chancellor,...
Gmail finally offers end-to-end encryption for email on Android and iPhone
Your data will be more secure, provided you're with the right company.
Avec's Tinder-styled email app allows you to swipe through your inbox
Users can use the in-built voice transcription tool to reply to emails
Secretary of State warns Montana businesses of deceptive mailing
Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen warned business owners Wednesday of a company engaging in “a new deceptive mailing."
Amazon Pulls Support for Perfectly Fine Older Kindles
In an email to customers, Amazon announced that it would be ending service for Kindle devices older than the 2012 edition. Those devices will lose access to the Kindle Store.
Alarm in health service over Palantir staff being given NHS email accounts
Exclusive: Sources believe AI tech company’s engineers have been granted access to directory of up to 1.5m staff
Notre Dame mailbag: Do the Irish have more ‘dudes’ than Ohio State, Alabama and Georgia?
Plus: A reader question about how the Irish might honor the memory of Lou Holtz next season.
Amazon is cutting off support for older Kindles
Amazon has sent out emails to some of its users, with a warning that it’s discontinuing support for Kindle ereaders and Fire tables released in 2012 or earlier.
Update, safeguard Colorado’s mail ballot with voter ID
By Chuck Broerman and Suzanne Taheri Coloradans often refer to our state as a leader for accessible and secure elections. We have led on all-mail ballots, automatic voter registration, and same-day registration, turning Colorado into a model for modern elections while also increasing turnout and lowering costs. But leadership also means staying ahead of the […]
Washington County high school sports scores for April 6-11
Here's a list of Washington County high school sports scores for the week of April 6-11, to be updated as the week progresses.
Direct mail company to eliminate 106 Portland jobs
Direct Marketing Solutions said it’s expanding elsewhere. It also has operations in Illinois and Pennsylvania.
Josef Launches ‘Rapid Ingestion Engine,’ Using AI To Turn Messy Business Inputs Into Structured Legal Workflows
Josef, the Australia-based legal automation platform, has launched a new capability it is calling the Rapid Ingestion Engine, which uses AI to convert unstructured business inputs — such as email thre...
Infighting among Knox County Republican operatives lands in DA's office
Tennessee election officials say prosecutors should take a look at a mailer from GOP donor Scott Davis criticizing Erik Wiatr.
Ballots cast Tuesday, counted later: Surfside mayoral runoff results pushed to April 28, Judge rules
A Judge’s ruling creates a three-week window for additional mail-in ballots, allowing voters to request and submit them well beyond Election Day.
Column: Trump's cries of cheating on mail-in ballots defy logic
President Trump and MAGA Republicans are hallucinating or outright lying about widespread election fraud.
Protein is personal. Here's how to calculate your optimal intake
Protein is having a moment. Coffee chains are adding it into lattes. Many snack companies are labeling their products as high-protein. But how much protein do you really need? Host Marielle Segarra talks with NPR health correspondent Allison Aubrey about the different factors to consider when planning your protein intake.Follow us on Instagram: @nprlifekitSign up for our newsletter here.Have an episode idea or feedback you want to share? Email us at lifekit@npr.orgSupport the show and listen to it sponsor-free by signing up for Life Kit+ at plus.npr.org/lifekit
All 13 members of SEVENTEEN renew contracts with Pledis Entertainment (VIDEO)
SEOUL, April 6 — In a full-team move that solidifies their long-term future, all 13 members of the globally renown...
Why the controversy with mail-in ballots?
Most Coloradans enjoy the right to vote “by mail” at election time. Most Americans favor this process. But U.S. President Donald Trump is trying to federalize (nationalize) this practice and shift the supervision of voting from county clerks to the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Postal Service. He issued an executive order to […]
On plant health and embracing new plant-breeding techniques in South Africa
The major challenge currently confronting South Africa’s agriculture is the spread of foot-and-mouth disease. For many farmers across the country, the most urgent tasks are both securing sufficient vaccines and rolling them out quickly in the coming months, particularly as the beef and dairy industries continue to suffer big losses. There is also pressure on sheep, goats, and other livestock to prevent the disease from spreading. As efforts to get the country through this monumental challenge continue, I believe it is important to sharpen our focus on the broader task at hand: strengthening biosecurity. This covers both animal and plant health. In recent years, we haven’t focused much on plant health, except a few times, such as when we had a goss’s wilt scare in the maize industry, a few cases of citrus black spot, or cases of sclerotinia in sunflower seeds. But the fact that South Africa managed to control the outbreaks of these particular diseases when they occurred a few years ago was due to organized agricultural and government scientific capabilities, and, most importantly, the availability of crop protection or agrochemicals necessary to address some of them. Therefore, as the animal health division in the Department of Agriculture focuses on the pressing challenge of the day, the foot-and-mouth disease, there is an opportunity for the plant health division to assess if they have all the requirements to tackle any outbreak that may occur on fruits, vegetables or crops in future. The challenge with crop diseases is that they can spread quickly and cause much more rapid damage in the field than we typically see with livestock. Therefore, speed is everything in ensuring the appropriate controls are available. I raise this as an important area, particularly given the drastic climate variation we observe across the country. The production conditions in some areas have changed noticeably over time, which may introduce new risks. The other essential part is ensuring that South Africa has access to the best crop protection technology available in the market. Many technology developers worldwide have operations in South Africa. Therefore, the Department of Agriculture, along with the Agricultural Research Council, must continuously interact with technology developers to assess the various crop protection technologies they are releasing globally and determine their suitability and need in South Africa. This will require a proactive approach from the government, unlike the current approach, in which technology developers typically approach regulators with new technologies. The government, recognising the food security risks, must take a proactive approach to ensure that South African farmers have access to the latest crop protection technologies, thereby safeguarding the country’s food security. Beyond crop protection, we must never forget that South Africa’s agriculture is key to ensuring that the country is the most food-secure country at the national level in sub-Saharan Africa. South Africa is also the only African country in the top-40 global agricultural exporters, having more than doubled since 1994 on the back of the adoption of high-yielding seed cultivars. South Africa has been the only African country to adopt a bold approach to embracing science and adopting genetically engineered seeds for grains and oilseeds in the early 2000s. Since then, we have seen crop yields improve noticeably, contributing to the gains we mentioned above. But ensuring that South Africa improves further is not a given. The key lies in South African regulators’ attitudes towards new technologies. We have to maintain a progressive approach and not give in to the politics of non-food and non-scientific voices that shout on the sidelines. Food security is national security, and the government must ensure we progress, leaning on science. Therefore, the registration of high-yielding new genomic techniques is required. South Africa cannot afford to fall behind the EU, the USA, South America, and many of its competitors in global agriculture. The Department of Agriculture’s crop science division must adopt a progress-and-science-embracing approach for the good of the country. Thanks for reading AgriView! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Subscribe Share
Google Changes Gmail After 22 Years—Why You Need A New Email Address
Google's upgrade means 2 billion Gmail users must now decide what to do next.
Google Changes Gmail After 22 Years—Why You Need A New Email Address
Google's upgrade means 2 billion Gmail users must now decide what to do next.
Business Email Compromises: Current Legal Trends and Key Strategies
Businesses have for years suffered from a sophisticated, targeted cybercrime that exploits trust, human relationships, and our reliance on digital communication: the business email compromise (BEC).
N.Y. attorney general, other AGs sue over Trump mail-in voting executive order
It calls for the Social Security Administration to prepare a list of verified eligible voters and requires absentee ballots to only be sent to each state's approved list.
Voting by mail in midterms? Democrats' suit could impact how it works
A coalition of Democrat-led states filed yet another court challenge to President Donald Trump's executive order restricting mail-in voting.
Apple issues warning to millions of iPhone users over sophisticated attack stealing data: Act NOW
Apple has issued an emergency update for millions of iPhone users, urging them to act now to prevent their data from being stolen.
Colorado sues Trump administration, calling new election order ‘unconstitutional’
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser has joined a multistate coalition suing President Donald Trump over a new executive order on elections, arguing the directive unlawfully intrudes on states’ authority to run their own voting systems and threatens access to mail ballots for millions of voters. The lawsuit argues that Trump’s executive order is unconstitutional because […]
WA to sue Trump over national voting list, vote-by-mail restrictions
The lawsuit argues that the Constitution places states in charge of administering elections and says Trump's order violates the separation of powers.
Moon-bound Artemis II astronauts get help for Microsoft Outlook glitch
A day into their historic 10-day journey around the moon, astronauts told Houston they had a problem: They couldn’t open their email.
Gemma 4 and what makes an open model succeed
Having written a lot of model release blog posts, there’s something much harder about reviewing open models when they drop relative to closed models, especially in 2026. In recent years, there were so few open models, so when Llama 3 was released most people were still doing research on Llama 2 and super happy to get an update. When Qwen 3 was released, the Llama 4 fiasco had just gone down, and a whole research community was emerging to study RL on Qwen 2.5 — it was a no brainer to upgrade. Today, when an open model releases, it’s competing with Qwen 3.5, Kimi K2.5, GLM 5, MiniMax M2.5, GPT-OSS, Arcee Large, Nemotron 3, Olmo 3, and others. The space is populated, but still feels full of hidden opportunity. The potential of open models feels like a dark matter, a potential we know is huge, but few clear recipes and examples for how to unlock it are out there. Agentic AI, OpenClaw, and everything brewing in that space is going to spur mass experimentation in open models to complement the likes of Claude and Codex, not replace them. Especially with open models, the benchmarks at release are an extremely incomplete story. In some ways this is exciting, as new open models have a much higher variance and ability to surprise, but it also points at some structural reasons that make building businesses and great AI experiences around open models harder than the closed alternatives. When a new Claude Opus or GPT drops, spending a few hours with them in my agentic workflows is genuinely a good vibe test. For open models, putting them through this test is a category error. Something else to be said about open models in the era of agents is that they get out of the debate of integration, harnesses, and tools and let us see close to the ground on what exactly is the ability of just a model. Of course, we can’t test some things like search abilities without some tool, but being able to measure exactly the pace of progress of the model alone is a welcome simplification to a systematically opaque AI space. Share The list of factors I’d use to assess a new open-weight model I’m considering investing in includes: Model performance (and size) — how this model performs on benchmarks I care about and how it compares to other models of a similar size. Country of origin — some businesses care deeply about provenance, and if a model was built in China or not. Model license — if a model needs legal approval for use, uptake will be slower at mid-sized and large companies. Tooling at release — many models release with half-broken, or at least substantially slower, implementations in popular software like vLLM, Transformers, SGLANG, etc due to pushing the envelope of architectures or tools. Model fine-tunability — how easy or hard it is to modify the given model to your use-case when you actually try and use it. The core problem is that some of these are immediately available at release, e.g. general performance, license, origin, etc. but others such as tooling take day(s) to week(s) to stabilize, and others are open research questions — with no group systematically monitoring fine-tunability. In the early era of open models, the days of Llama 2 or 3 and Qwen pre v3.5, the architectures were fairly simple and the models tended to work out of the box. Some of this was due to the extremely hard work of the Llama, Qwen, Mistral, etc. developer teams. Some is due to the new models being genuinely harder to work with. When it comes to something like Qwen 3.5 or Nemotron 3, with hybrid models (either gated delta net or mamba layers), the tooling is very rough at release. Things you would expect to “just work” often don’t. I’ve been following this area closely since we released Olmo Hybrid with a similar architecture, and Qwen 3.5 is just starting to work well in the various open-source tools that need to all play nice together for RL research. That’s 1.5 months after the release date! This is just to start really investing more into understanding the behavior of the models. Of course, others started working on these models sooner by investing more engineering resources or relying on partially closed software. The fully open and distributed ecosystem takes a long time to get going on some new models. All of this is lead-in for the most important question for open models — how easy is it to adapt to specific use-cases? This is a different problem for different model sizes. Large MoE open-weight models may be used by entities like Cursor who need complex capabilities in their domain, e.g. Composer 2 trained on Kimi K2.5. Other applications can be built on much smaller models, such as Chroma’s Context-1 model for agentic search, built on GPT-OSS 20B. The question of “which models are fine-tunable” is largely background knowledge known by engineers across the industry. There should be a thriving research area here to support the open ecosystem model. The first step is to understand characteristics of different base and post-trained models to understand what they look like. The second step is to tune pretraining recipes for open models so they’re more flexible. Interconnects AI is a reader-supported publication. Consider becoming a subscriber. Subscribe For The ATOM Project and other Interconnects endeavors, we’ve put in substantial effort to measuring adoption trends in the open ecosystem. Everything takes a long time to unfold after a model is first publicly available — and adaptability is why. What we know for sure now, when Qwen has been going from strength to strength with its releases, is that technical staff across the industry has gotten comfortable working with Qwen models. Countless research methods and datasets were made to work with Qwen. It’ll take patience for any other model family to get to this point — a patience I’m not sure many open model builders have. This takes us to Gemma 4, Google’s latest open models. Gemma 3 was released more than a year ago, in March of 2025, and is a bit underrated. Gemma 4 comes in 4 sizes for now, with a bigger, MoE model of over 100B total parameters rumored but not released yet. The models we have today come in sizes of ~5B dense, 8B dense, 26B total 4B active MoE, and 31B dense. I’m most excited that they’re finally adopting a standard Apache 2.0 open source license. This’ll massively boost adoption. The standard of better licenses for strong open-weight LLMs was set by mostly Chinese open model labs in the last 1-2 years, and now U.S. companies are following suit. I will personally be so happy if the horrible Llama licenses and Gemma terms of service were an ~18-month transient dynamic of the industry being nervous about releasing strong open models. The Gemma 4 scores look very solid, the small models have incredible benchmark scores (especially in general domains like LMArena) and the 31B model rivals the recent Qwen 3.5 27B, which is the leading member of that class. The ~30B size range is an important one, as it’s accessible both to researchers and to enterprises looking to deploy the model in real use-cases. Where the 7B model scale is the default for tinkering and research, a 30B model is the default for seeing if an open model can unlock substantial value in your specific workflow — a good mix of intelligence, low price, tractability for downstream training, etc. This takes us back to the above adoption criteria I mentioned for open models and the bigger question — do I think Gemma 4 will be an overwhelming success? Previous Gemma models have been plagued by tooling issues and poorer performance when being finetuned. Gemma 4’s success is going to be entirely determined by ease of use, to a point where a 5-10% swing on benchmarks wouldn’t matter at all. It’s strong enough, small enough, with the right license, and from the U.S., so many companies are going to slot it in. I’m cautiously optimistic that Gemma 4 is going to work better here. Winds are shifting for open models built in America. We saw GPT-OSS go through a bumpy launch to become an overwhelming success. There’s a collective energy around the likes of Reflection, Arcee, Nemotron, Gemma, Olmo, and peers that show substantial demand for building new stacks around open models. There’s capital to be spent on AI stacks across the economy by those who want more ownership of everything, including the model. After launching The ATOM Project 240 days ago, the conversation is shifting into the next stage. Summer of 2025 was a crisis moment where the U.S. AI scene realized it can’t wait and figure out open models after building AGI. The two markets will capture different areas and proceed in parallel. Now that more companies in the U.S. are releasing strong models, we need to improve the ecosystem so that these models are easy to use, understand, and build value around. It’s the hard work to build another inflection point in these adoption plots I’ve been updating consistently, but that’s the work to be done. Join me in it. More data coming soon! Here’s a sneak peek:
Oregon sues to challenge Trump’s executive order restricting mail-in voting
If the order were to stand, it would have significant impacts on Oregon’s pioneering vote-by-mail system.
Democratic-led states sue to stop Trump's mail-in ballots executive order
President Donald Trump signed an executive order Tuesday to create a national list of eligible voters and limit mail-in ballots
Exclusive: US upends global supply program for malaria and HIV amid warnings of gaps
The U.S. is upending the way it delivers medical supplies for diseases such as HIV and malaria to lower-income countries, according to seven sources and an internal email, risking a second dislocation of life-saving services in just over a year.
Gmail finally makes major change users are thrilled about: ‘Long, long, long overdue’
Some people won't be able to change their Gmail, according to the Google Help Center.
Never had the flu? Scientists may know why
Scientists estimate somewhere between 5%-35% of people do not get sick from the flu despite being exposed to the virus that causes it. Now, researchers may have figured out why. The team looked at mouthwash samples from 19 healthcare workers who, despite frequent contact with infected patients, report never getting flu symptoms. Today on Short Wave, we talk about how what they found could help scientists develop treatments and strategies to protect people who do get the flu. If you liked this episode, check out our show on an effort to map the entire immune system.Interested in more health science? Email us your question at shortwave@npr.org.Listen to every episode of Short Wave sponsor-free and support our work at NPR by signing up for Short Wave+ at plus.npr.org/shortwave.
Jim Bob Duggar scolds son Joseph for ‘terrible decisions’ in jailhouse email: ‘Pray that God would have mercy on you’
'19 Kids and Counting' star Jim Bob Duggar had some advice for Joseph, his second son to be charged with a sexual crime related to children: "You have made some terrible decisions, but God has already forgiven you if you have asked him.'
Democrats sue to block Trump's executive order targeting mail ballots
Democrats sued Wednesday to block President Donald Trump's latest executive order restricting mail voting, arguing that the U.S. Constitution empowers states and Congress, not the president, to determine who is eligible to vote by mail. The lawsuit marks the second round of battles over the president's power to control elections. Trump's opponents handily won the first round last year, blocking his initial executive order intended to reshape election procedures by convincing multiple federal judges that
Morehead State names Dr. Steve Fenster as dean of College of Science & Engineering
An academic leader with a track record of over 20 years of student success in the sciences will now take on a key role at Morehead State University. Dr. Steve Fenster, dean of the School of Arts and Sciences at Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colorado, will serve as the next dean of the College of Science & Engineering at MSU, succeeding Dr. Ahmad Zargari, who will retire on June 30. To learn more about programs in MSU’s College of Science & Engineering, email dsci@moreheadstate.edu or call 606-783-2626.
NASA astronauts prove that sending an email really is rocket science
NASA Artemis II commander Reid Wiseman faced the most earthly possible conflict while in outer space: his Outlook wasn't working.
NASA astronauts prove that sending an email really is rocket science
NASA Artemis II commander Reid Wiseman faced the most earthly possible conflict while in outer space: his Outlook wasn't working.
The democratisation of business email compromise fraud
This week, Martin tells the story of a crime he encountered and how it shows that the threat landscape is changing.
Even Artemis II Astronauts Have Microsoft Outlook Problems
The mission commander’s email inbox failed during the journey to the moon. Have they tried turning the computer off and back on again?
Goodbye mrbrightside416: Google allows users to alter quirky Gmail addresses
Those in US given chance to have more professional usernames without losing access to account
Democrats sue to block Trump's executive order targeting mail ballots
Democrats have sued to block President Donald Trump’s latest executive order restricting mail voting
Goodbye ‘Geeky Hunk’? Gmail Users Can Now Change Their Usernames.
Users who have been saddled with now-cringe email handles since the mid-2000s can now change them without losing any data under a policy Google announced on Wednesday.
SAVE plan: New email going to millions of student-loan borrowers
The SAVE student-loan repayment is dead, and borrowers will have to find a new plan by the fall. Trump is advising them to switch as soon as possible.
Colorado leaders say Trump’s executive order targeting mail voting violates state election authority
Colorado leaders swiftly condemned President Donald Trump’s new executive order issued Tuesday, arguing that its creation of a national voter‑eligibility list and new limits on mail voting violate states’ constitutional authority to run their own elections. Jefferson County Clerk Amanda Gonzalez called the order another attack on Americans’ access to the ballot but was confident […]
WA eyes legal challenge to Trump’s mail-in voting executive order
Washington state leaders argue Trump's latest order infringes on state's constitutional right to administer elections.
CO Secy. of State warns Trump is attempting to “unconstitutionally take control” with new mail-in voting executive order
South Dakotans React to Daily Mail Article on Bryon Noem: ‘It Just Tears Me Up’
In the tiny town of Castlewood, S.D., where everyone knows the Noems, the prevailing sense was that people can’t help but feel sorry for Bryon Noem.
Trump Signs Order Seeking Federal Control of Mail Voting as He Promotes False Claims
Election experts and Democratic officials called the order legally invalid, and Arizona and Oregon pledged to immediately challenge it in court.
Trump signs executive order limiting mail-in ballots; California leaders say they'll fight
President Trump signed an executive order Tuesday purporting to place new federal controls on voting by mail in states such as California.
Trump signs order asserting federal control of mail-in ballots
Trump has suggested for months that the federal government could nationalize the voting process, generating bipartisan pushback.
Trump signs executive order to crack down on mail-in voting
President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order that the White House says is aimed at cracking down on mail-in voting.
Trump signs order on mail ballots, escalating election overhaul push
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday aimed at tightening mail-in voting rules nationwide that would direct his administration to create a list of confirmed U.S. citizens eligible to vote in each state.
Is Your Gmail Username Embarrassing? You Can Finally Change It
A new feature allows Google Account users in the US to update their Gmail address.
You can finally change the goofy Gmail address you chose years ago
All your data remains intact, and you can go back to your original address at any time.
How to Change Your Gmail Address
You’ve probably had the same Gmail address for years. Now, it's easy to make a name change without worrying about the transition.
Read the email Oracle is sending to laid-off employees
Oracle began global layoffs on Tuesday as it tries to curb costs. Read the email it sent to affected employees.
Google officially launches ability to change your Gmail address, available to ‘all’ in US [Video]
Months later, Google has officially announced the ability to change your Gmail address and says it has widely rolled out in the US.
Google is now letting users in the US change their Gmail address
Users will be able to change their username only once every 12 months. Plus, they won't be able to delete their new email address for that period of time.
Slowjamastan: The new 'nation' hiding in the US
More than 25,000 self-proclaimed citizens have pledged their allegiance to this faux dictatorship, where Crocs and reply-all emails are forbidden.
Alera Group sues former producer for allegedly stealing client data
The filing alleges she emailed protected client lists before joining a direct competitor
Political group attacks South Anchorage Assembly candidate from both left and right with contradictory mailers
Both mailers were paid for by the same political group, Friends of the Good Guys.
Panicking scientists, canceled experiments: Federal funding cuts turn research dean to crisis management specialist
Fielding frantic faculty emails and panicked texts was not how I had hoped my 2025 would begin. Little did I imagine that my role as a research dean at a medical school would be taken over by navigating ...