SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " often " 1,445 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Birdbrained Science: My God, it’s full of stars
I’ve been a casual stargazer ever since high school when I first watched a meteor shower with some of my friends. The stars often (and rightfully, in my opinion) get romanticized; countless people …
Unfounded Health Concerns Are Powering a Solar Backlash
Across the U.S., critics are pressuring public officials to stop or stall new solar projects, often citing unfounded health concerns.
The local news crisis is also a public health crisis
Health and science reporting is often treated as optional coverage. It is anything but.
The local news crisis is also a public health crisis
Health and science reporting is often treated as optional coverage. It is anything but.
“Us versus them”: How political propaganda polarises beliefs without providing any news
Political polarisation is often attributed to misinformation, echo chambers, or biased news. But new experimental evidence suggests that merely making a social conflict salient – without providing any information at all – is enough to sharply increase disagreement on both factual and normative questions. This column discusses how politicians and media can ‘artificially’ amplify societal tensions by strategically choosing which conflicts to highlight, and why this mechanism is harder to counter than standard misinformation.
Here's What's Coming in the 2026 Apple TV
There are a lot of folks waiting for a new version of the Apple TV because the set-top box hasn't been updated since 2022. There is an update coming this year, but people will need to wait a bit longer because Apple is holding the next Apple TV until the new version of Siri comes out this fall. Design Apple TV design updates don't happen often, and that's not changing in 2026.
Republicans often ignore Trump’s socialistic moves. Spirit Airlines could test that
For more than a year, Republicans in Washington have largely stood by as President Donald Trump staged a series of remarkable government interventions into private business.
Angi cofounder describes what it's like to be the face of a company
Angie Hicks says appearing in ads for her business, formerly called Angie's List, means she often gets recognized. It's also her leadership strategy.
Meet Jenni Peters, one of the Capital Region 500
Jenni Peters, a former USA Track & Field athlete and a competitor in the first-ever Olympic Marathon Trials in 1984, turned her passion for running into a thriving business. She launched Varsity Sports in 2000 near the Perkins Road overpass, growing it into a beloved local chain with four locations. The stores, often set in […]
SPONSORED How small businesses help power Huntsville's growth
Huntsville, Ala.'s global reputation for aerospace, biotech and defense often grabs headlines. But the region's continued growth depends just as much on local entrepreneurs — and access to capital that helps them launch, hire and scale.
CBL Scholars Program Opens Pathways to Business Law Careers - UC Law San Francisco (Formerly UC Hastings)
First-year law students and 2026 CBL Scholars Deniz Masjedi, Alvaro Flores, and Tavia Pappaly gain mentorship connections with leading industry professionals as they prepare for careers in business law. Created by the UC Center for Business Law San Francisco (CBL), the CBL Scholars Program aims to develop the next generation of business law leaders, supported by contributions from individuals and corporate sponsors. The highly competitive program provides funding along with academic and professional mentorship to students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Scholars gain exposure to the Bay Area’s technology and venture capital ecosystems and access to UC Law SF’s broad network of senior legal professionals. Now in its sixth year, the CBL Scholars Program provides a scholarship and academic and professional mentorship to students entering the business law community from disadvantaged educational, economic, social, or physical backgrounds. The program is generously sponsored by the law firms Gunderson Dettmer and Goodwin Procter. Meet this year’s CBL Scholars: Deniz Masjedi, Alvaro Flores, and Tavia Pappaly. All three have secured summer associate positions at prestigious law firms. Deniz Masjedi: A Passion for Helping Founders Grow Companies Deniz Masjedi, who was born in Iran and moved to Southern California as a teenager, traces her interest in law to her family’s immigration journey and her desire to advocate for herself and her family. She earned a bachelor’s degree at UC Berkeley, where she studied political science and sociology. At UC Law SF, she serves as a 1L representative for the Iranian Law Students Association and is active in the Business Law Society and Technology & Law Society. Next fall, she will serve as director of mentorship for the Technology & Law Society and director of professional development for the Business Law Society. She will join Sidley Austin this year as a 1L/2L summer associate. Q: What draws you to business law? A: Prior to law school, I worked in Cooley LLP’s Private Companies practice group as a corporate paralegal for three years, supporting over 100 venture-backed startups and venture capital funds. I found purpose in helping founders transform their vision into successful companies. It was incredibly rewarding being part of their journeys—from company formation and initial financing to major transactions such as M&A deals. What excites me most about this field is the potential for a small, innovative company to become the next Google or Zoom, shaping how people communicate and access information. I hope to continue supporting entrepreneurs and investors as a corporate attorney. Q: What does it mean to you to have been awarded this scholarship? A: As the first person in my family to attend law school in the United States, receiving this scholarship is a tremendous honor. My parents and I left everything behind so that I could enjoy the freedom to practice my religion without persecution and pursue a career in law as a woman. This award is an acknowledgment of my dedication to business law and motivates me to continue pursuing excellence in this field. It also recognizes years of hard work—learning a new language, navigating the college and law school application process, and ultimately building a career in the legal profession. Q: How will this scholarship help support your future goals? A: This scholarship will provide access to mentorship from leaders in the field, enabling me to develop the skills necessary to offer practical advice and effective representation to future clients. It also eases the financial burden of law school, letting me focus on my coursework and deepen my commitment to corporate law. As an immigrant, breaking into the legal profession has not always been easy, and the time that mentors have invested in me has been instrumental to my progress. This scholarship will allow me to continue building those relationships while positioning me to one day mentor others pursuing similar paths. Alvaro Flores: Inspired by Entrepreneurs The son of Mexican immigrants raised in San Antonio, Texas, Alvaro Flores says he has long been interested in how policy, markets, and culture shape society. He studied international relations and global economy at the University of Southern California, with minors in business finance and legal studies. His experiences span local political organizing, venture capital and startup work, and teaching entrepreneurship. At UC Law SF, he is involved in the Business Law Society, Technology & Law Society, and the Latinx Law Student Association. He will join Perkins Coie as a 1L/2L summer associate with the firm’s Emerging Companies & Venture Capital practice. Q: What draws you to business law? A: I’m drawn to stories of entrepreneurs whose simple ideas become companies that shape the economy and society. Spending time in venture capital and working directly with founders has shown me that many important decisions in the scaling process are ultimately legal ones, particularly how companies are structured and how capital is raised. Business law sits at the intersection of innovation and equity. It offers a way to stay close to the pace of technological change while also helping expand who gets to participate in it. There is something special about being part of that process here in the Bay Area, where the American Dream feels like it is reimagined in real time. Q: What does it mean to you to have been awarded this scholarship? A: I am truly grateful for the support and belief this scholarship represents. I see it not just as recognition, but also as alignment. The CBL Scholars Program’s focus on developing individuals who engage deeply with the business and technology ecosystem reflects the path I have been intentionally building. More than anything, it feels like an investment in that journey. I have been thoughtful about each next step–whether teaching, working in venture capital, or building multidisciplinary experiences–and this scholarship reinforces that those efforts come together in a meaningful way. Q: How will this scholarship help support your future goals? A: It allows me to focus more on developing as a business lawyer, without the distraction of financial constraints. Beyond that, the mentorship and access to the Bay Area network are just as valuable. I’m especially interested in working with early-stage companies and investors, so the opportunity to learn directly from people operating at a high level in that space is huge. Tavia Pappaly: Working in the Wine Industry Sparked Interest in Business and Law Tavia Pappaly spent five years in the wine industry before deciding to pursue law school with a goal of becoming a corporate transactions attorney. Pappaly says she wants to use her legal skills to help business grow and thrive. A first-generation law student from Fairfield, California, she is a member of the Legal Education Opportunity Program (LEOP) and will serve as vice president of social planning for the UC Law SF Sports Law Society in her 2L year. She plans to work as a summer associate at Gibson Dunn in San Francisco after her 2L year. Q: What draws you to business law? A: Business law brings together many of my interests and personal experiences. As the daughter of immigrants who grew up around a family-owned small business, I saw firsthand both the opportunities and challenges of building something from the ground up. That perspective, combined with my experience in the wine industry, solidified my interest in helping businesses of all sizes tackle evolving legal challenges. I’m excited to grow within the corporate law space and develop the skills and experience to support businesses at every stage. I’m deeply motivated to give back to immigrant communities and small business owners, whose experiences often intersect. By building a strong foundation in corporate law, I hope to support those working to create generational stability and to contribute in a meaningful way to the communities that have shaped me. Q: What does it mean to you to have been awarded this scholarship? A: Receiving this scholarship is incredibly meaningful to me. I take great pride in my background as a first-generation student and a woman of color, so being recognized for my potential in a field that has historically underrepresented those communities is both affirming and empowering. This program will help connect me to the resources and committed mentors that will help me succeed. Beyond that, it is no secret that law school is a significant financial commitment. This scholarship helps ease both the financial burden and the stress that comes with it, allowing me to focus more on my education and long-term goals. I am incredibly grateful! Q: How will this scholarship help support your future goals? A: This scholarship has already connected me with an incredible network of faculty, business law professionals, and like-minded students. The community fostered by the Center for Business Law is deeply supportive, and I’m excited to grow alongside my cohort. I truly believe this network will play an important role in helping me thrive in law school and position me for success in business law. As I have seen firsthand how impactful both financial scholarship and mentorship are, I hope to give back in this same way later in my career.
CARE Court should refocus on mentally ill homeless people, the hardest to help
California's mental health initiatives sometimes bypass individuals with schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders, often the most expensive to treat.
From Donald Trump to Jacob Frey — has politics lost its profanity filter?
If there was ever a set of rules for politicians interfacing with the public, steadfast avoidance of profanity might have been at the very top of such a list. Robert’s Rules of Order, which are often invoked in political spaces, certainly prohibit personal insults, including profanity. But these are new times. Just last week, President Donald Trump […]
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
Letter to the Editor: We can’t let politics obscure the promise or the peril of psychedelic therapy
Over the weekend, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled, “ACCELERATING MEDICAL TREATMENTS FOR SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS,” intended to hasten access to psychedelic treatments. The signing was certainly a spectacle, as it often is, but so was the heterogenous group in attendance: President Trump was joined in the oval office by MMA-commentator, podcaster, and...
4 things athletes know that business often ignores
Sustained, long-term performance requires recovery to come back stronger.
The Death of Public Health
During the recent measles outbreak, the largest in more than 30 years, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. refused to clearly recommend the measles vaccine, saying instead that it was a “personal decision,” and that parents should “do their own research.” Similarly, during her recent confirmation hearing for United States Surgeon General, Casey Means was questioned by Senator William Cassidy (R, La). “You’re the nation’s doctor,” said Cassidy. “Would you encourage [a mother] to have her child vaccinated!” “I’m not an individual’s doctor,” Means said. “And every individual needs to talk to their doctor before putting a medication in their body.” In June 2025, Marty Makary, Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), said that COVID vaccines for pregnant women should be a “personal choice”, even though every other country in the world recommended the COVID vaccine during pregnancy due to a higher risk for severe disease. It doesn’t end there. On January 5, 2026, RFK Jr. reduced the number of routinely recommended vaccines from 18 to 10. For vaccines that protected against influenza, COVID, and rotavirus, parents were urged to speak with their doctors—to make an individual choice. (On March 16, 2026, in a ruling by a federal court in Boston, RFK Jr.’s revised schedule was invalidated.) What’s happening? Why are public health officials moving away from making recommendations for the public? The origin of this change might be rooted in the first two years of the COVID pandemic. In 2020, during the first year on the pandemic, we didn’t have anything to stop a virus that was killing hundreds of people a day and could be spread asymptomatically. We didn’t have antivirals until October, monoclonal antibodies until November, and vaccines until December. All we could do was restrict travel, close businesses, shutter schools, and mask, isolate, quarantine, test, and social distance. During the second year of the pandemic, when we had vaccines to prevent COVID, people couldn’t go anywhere without their vaccine cards. They couldn’t go to their favorite bar or restaurant or sporting event or place of worship without proof of vaccination. Some people were fired from their jobs for refusing to get vaccinated. For many, this was seen as massive government overreach and energized what has been called the “medical freedom movement.” Indeed, a headline in the New York Times declared, “How Health Freedom Became a Winning Rally Cry.” As expressed in the comments of RFK Jr., Casey Means, and Marty Makary, the medical freedom movement focuses on the individual not the community—the opposite of public health. In an article titled “Ethics and Social Value Judgments in Public Health,” ethicists from Yale University distinguished public health from medical freedom. “Public health policies,” they wrote, “are population oriented. Because individual health affects the health of others, public health measures regulate individual behavior to achieve population health goals. All raise questions about how individual autonomy and freedom should be balanced against public health interests…which respects individuals’ sovereignty over their bodies and actions as long as their actions do not harm others.” The medical freedom movement fails to recognize that it often limits the freedom of others. For example, a parent who is afraid to send a child to school where many of the students are unvaccinated. Or immune compromised children who depend on those around them to for protection. The question then becomes “Freedom for whom?” Is it your right, in the name of medical freedom, to catch and transmit a potentially fatal infection—and in so doing, take away the freedom of others? In Four Essays on Liberty, Isaiah Berlin sums it up best. “Liberty for the wolves,” he wrote, “is death to the lambs.” Thanks for reading Beyond the Noise! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Subscribe
Five tips for managing small business employee recruitment and hiring
Commentary: Small businesses are feeling the squeeze, as big corporations often have deeper pockets and endless resources to attract top talent. But competing isn't about money, it's about strategy.
New Online Tool to Help People Find Naloxone Launched by the Wyoming Department of Health - Wyoming Department of Health
The Wyoming Department of Health (WDH) is excited to announce the Community Naloxone Resource Map. This new online tool makes it easier for people to find naloxone at no cost in their local communities. Naloxone, often known by the brand name Narcan®, is a life-saving drug that reverses the effects of an opioid overdose. Given […]
Political tolerance on campus is lacking
Drake University prides itself on its diversity initiatives. Liberal arts emphasize well-rounded education, including exposure to multiple perspectives. Students are often part of several organizations, attend classes with people from...
Elon students inducted into Phi Beta Kappa Society
“What’s so brave about being sick?” It’s a question Prosanta Chakrabarty often asked himself in the early days of his ongoing fight against cancer. It wasn’t until initial treatment...
Scoggins: Transferring runs against what we love about high school sports
A student transferring can be a good thing. Often, though, it’s a jab at the story lines we love.
Chatbots often offer 'problematic' cancer advice, study finds
Popular artificial intelligence programs told users where to find alternative, potentially dangerous treatments for cancer and other health scenarios.
Gibbs-White the 'catalyst' for Forest again
Former Nottingham Forest midfielder Andy Reid praised "catalyst" Morgan Gibbs-White for a "fantastic" second-half performance against Burnley in which he scored a hat-trick in 15 minutes. It has been him more often than not.
Great Women of Science Go Missing: The Matilda Effect
It’s now been two years since Great Women of Science debuted, featuring women who have made notable contributions to science, technology, or health and have largely gone unnoticed, often with Nobel prizes they deserved awarded to the men with whom they collaborated. There’s a name for this phenomenon - it’s called “the Matilda Effect.”
‘Sport as a Public Good’ talk spotlights gaps in youth sports education, access
There’s little that people enjoy more than play. Unfortunately, when it comes to our youth, we often fail in nurturing that love, former President of the U.S. Tennis Association and Chief Medical Officer of the NCAA Brian Hainline said. On Wednesday, April 15, Hainline spoke at the University of New Mexico Physics and Astronomy Interdisciplinary Science Building and said sports should be a public good to an audience including local sport leaders and athletes. He highlighted what he called an inadequate systemic support for sports in the U.S. Hainline’s lecture was hosted jointly by the UNM School of Medicine and Alumni Association.
OPINION: Tribal and rural healthcare at risk in Gov. Stitt’s attack on Medicaid
Oklahoma leaders often visit Cherokee Nation’s Health System and celebrate our progress and tout our unmistakable impact on the health and economy of rural communities.
Indiana defensive coordinator Bryant Haines calls out Ty Simpson for remarks, tells Alabama fans to 'grow up'
Bryant Haines took offense to Ty Simpson's recent podcast remarks and responded with receipts -- and no interest in softening the message after his unit delivered one of the worst losses in Alabama history
Curing U.S. Health Care, Part I
In 2008, much to their own surprise, leading Democrats unified around a program of major health care reform. Policy wonks had spent years developing the concepts behind what eventually became Obamacare; big Democratic victories in the 2006 midterms and the prospect of controlling both Congress and the presidency made it possible to imagine turning those ideas into reality. During the Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama advocated similar plans, based on those ideas, for expanding insurance coverage. And it happened! The Affordable Care Act was enacted in 2010. When it was fully implemented in 2014, millions of Americans got health insurance: Impressive as the raw numbers are, they don’t tell the whole story. Before the ACA, even upper-middle-class Americans often found it impossible to get health insurance if they had pre-existing medical conditions. Many Americans were trapped in jobs they wanted to leave but couldn’t for fear of losing their employment-based coverage. Meanwhile, dire predictions from the usual suspects about runaway costs proved wrong. In fact, overall U.S. medical spending has grown much more slowly since the ACA was enacted than before. But the U.S., alone among advanced nations, still falls far short of providing universal health care. As you can see from the chart above, 8 percent of the population was still uninsured in 2024, a number that is set to rise over the next two years as a result of Republican policies. True, many of the uninsured in 2024 were undocumented immigrants, who we don’t try to cover. But there are still a lot of uninsured. Moreover, a significant number of Americans who have health insurance are in fact underinsured. As a result, they are at risk of incurring devastating healthcare costs and are sometimes forced to forgo needed care. This number is set to rise sharply in the next two years as a result of Republican policies adopted under Donald Trump. And not only is the U.S. unique among advanced countries in its under-provision of health care coverage, it also incurs by far the world’s highest healthcare costs per capita. So now may well be a good time to get behind a new push for major health reform — an effort, if you like, to finish the job begun under Obama. Today’s primer is devoted to the economics of health reform. During his failed effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act, Donald Trump famously complained, “Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated.” Actually, we did know — and it’s not that complicated. Health economists understand the principles very well. And because health policy varies greatly among advanced nations, we know a lot about what works and what doesn’t. This will be the first in a series about health reform. Beyond the paywall I’ll address the following: 1. Why markets can’t be trusted to deliver healthcare 2. Routes to universal healthcare 3. What works? In a follow-up post I’ll discuss the pros and cons of different approaches, and possible paths forward for the United States.
Think AI "knows" what it’s doing? Scientists say think again
Calling AI things like “smart” or saying it “knows” something might sound harmless, but it can quietly mislead people about what AI actually does. A new study shows that news writers are more careful than expected, rarely using strongly human-like language. When they do, it often falls on a spectrum—sometimes describing simple requirements, other times hinting at human traits.
What New Graduates Need To Know Before Starting A Business
Each year, college graduates leave with ideas about what they want to build, but they often do not know how to begin.
How Islamophobic rhetoric leaves an impact on the mental health of Muslim Americans
Negative portrayals of Muslims shape public attitudes and lead to increased discrimination, often resulting in hate crimes and psychological harm.
New Online Tool to Help People Find Naloxone Launched by the Wyoming Department of Health - Wyoming Department of Health
The Wyoming Department of Health (WDH) is excited to announce the Community Naloxone Resource Map. This new online tool makes it easier for people to find naloxone at no cost in their local communities. Naloxone, often known by the brand name Narcan®, is a life-saving drug that reverses the effects of an opioid overdose. Given […]
Why Promising Cancer Drugs Failed: Scientists Uncover the Missing Piece
A new study helps explain why a promising class of cancer drugs has often failed to meet expectations in clinical trials.
What’s the Buzz about Binge Drinking? – Expert Advice from RWJBarnabas Health
When we talk about binge drinking, it’s often in the context of college-aged adults. However, Alexis LaPietra, DO, FACEP, Medical Director of the RWJBarnabas Health Institute for Prevention and Recovery (IFPR) and Director of Addiction Medicine for Emergency & Hospitalist Services at RWJBarnabas Health, shares that while binge drinking is most common in adults aged 18-25, it is a concern for all ages.
What Rochester's small business owners miss by separating strategy, wealth
Commentary: Nicole Newman highlights how small business owners in Rochester often separate business strategy from wealth planning, limiting long-term financial flexibility.
Report: Health care costs rising faster than wages in Wisconsin
Ananth Seshadri, director and co-author of a report on health care costs, said increasing costs hurts Wisconsin's economic competitiveness because insurance is often tied to employment.
Only the champions might be happy with Minnesota’s student-athlete transfer system
Inside an imperfect system: Because the high school league is “not an investigative body,” athletic directors own the burden of enforcing Minnesota’s trust-based transfer process. Coaches are often caught in the middle, too.
Yankees news: Rehab news on Gerrit Cole, Anthony Volpe
Yankees lay out Volpe’s rehab plan; Chivilli promoted; Will ‘Bombers’ bunt more often?
The value of free health insurance: Evidence from Mexico’s Seguro Popular
Expanding free health insurance is central to universal health coverage, but its impact depends on how households value it. This column examines Mexico’s Seguro Popular and shows that households value the programme less than its fiscal cost. This helps explain why its effects on labour markets were modest and suggests that overall welfare gains may be smaller than often assumed, despite the programme’s large expansion in coverage.
'Show me the money'
What happens when a former senator, a prior governor, a previous representative, and a political advocate talk about corporate money in politics? The exact scenario played out at the MSU-hosted discussion titled “Money, Transparent Elections and the Montana Experience,” at the end of last week. Audience members experienced a bipartisan glimpse into corporate influence, how it is built, spent on campaigns and challenged by voters. A candid conversation emerged between guest speakers former Montana U.S. Senator Jon Tester, former Attorney General and Governor Marc Racicot, previous state senator and representative Jeff Mangan, and political advocate Michel Beckel. The conversation between the four guests circled back to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a landmark 2010 Supreme Court ruling allowing corporations, unions, and associations to spend unlimited amounts of money influencing elections. The decision concluded independent political spending is a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment, directly leading to the rise of massive political action committees and ‘dark money’ in U.S. elections spending. Tester was the first to address the ‘black elephant’ in the room. Responses to moderator questions are edited for clarity and brevity. “We are seeing unbelievable sums of money being put out trying to influence people on how to vote,” Tester said. “Oftentimes the truth goes out the window before the campaigning even starts.”
Packers mock draft: All pre-draft visitors edition
The Packers take pre-draft visits seriously, and visitors often end up in Green Bay. So why not an all-visitor mock draft?
FDA to weigh easing limits on unproven peptides favored by RFK Jr. and other MAHA figures
Peptides are unproven chemicals often pitched as way to build muscle, lose weight, look younger.
High school sports top performers from Monday left the yard often
Big flies were the name of the game Monday. Our 25 high school sports top performers left the yard and posted milestone moments and huge days.
You can order your own bloodwork now. Interpreting the results is another story
Firms like Function Health and Oura market regular blood tests to people wanting to take their health into their own hands. The process often raises more questions for patients than it can answer.
10 Reasons to Wait for the iPhone 18 Pro
Apple's iPhone development roadmap runs several years into the future and the company is continually working with suppliers on several successive iPhone models at the same time, which is why we often get rumored features months ahead of launch. The iPhone 18 series is no different, and we already have a good idea of what to expect for the iPhone 18 Pro and iPhone 18 Pro Max.
B2BINPAY Rolls Out Partner Program With Direct Earnings on Referred Transaction Volume
SAN SALVADOR, El Salvador, April 14, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- In B2B payments, new business often comes through trusted professional networks lo...
Just kidding about the separation of church and state?
You may recall the old truism the three things you shouldn’t discuss at a cocktail party are religion, politics, and, well, that last one often depends on the situation. But those first two tend to be commonly warned against as topics for conversation in polite society. So, guess what we are going to talk about […]
In the West, businesses can only watch, not stop drone threats
With few options available, businesses and the wealthy in the West are buying drone detectors, a technology used often in Ukraine, to spot threats.
From curiosity to conservation: How citizen science is teaching children and adults to see, experience nature
It often starts with something small, such as a new bird in a branch, a vibrant butterfly in a yard, a colorful plant growing through a crack in the sidewalk, or as part of a lawn. Suddenly, you are engaged and can't help ...
Consumer Reports: Keeping your kids in the game
Consumer Reports has some important advice for parents on how to help prevent common and often avoidable sports injuries.
CU Boulder lab researching science of avalanches
Colorado has seen how deadly avalanches can be. Vriend has been studying avalanches for more than a decade. While we often see the dramatic images of avalanches, not much is known about what really ...
From curiosity to conservation: How citizen science is teaching children and adults to see, experience nature
It often starts with something small, such as a new bird in a branch, a vibrant butterfly in a yard, a colorful plant growing through a crack in the sidewalk, or as part of a lawn. Suddenly, you are engaged ...
Stanford HAI 2026 AI Index: AI posts gains in science and medicine while often struggling to read a clock
Stanford HAI’s 2026 AI Index paints a split-screen picture for R&D. In the report’s science chapter, “frontier models outperform human chemists on average on ChemBench,” yet “score below 20% on replication in astrophysics and 33% on Earth observation questions.” In medicine, the report reaches a similarly mixed conclusion, saying AI is transforming clinical care, but…
From Jurassic Park to dreams of AI doom, pop culture shapes science more than we like to admit
The relationship between science and pop culture often looks like a one-way street: scientific discoveries inspire films, television and novels, particularly in science fiction. But the relationship really ...
Charlie Crist's humanity laid bare by, wait for it, the Tampa Bay Times
Crist is shown as something he’s not often been accused of: entirely relatable.
10 Vintage Plates That Are Worth a Small Fortune
Vintage dining ware from these 10 makers has become highly collectible, often selling for thousands. See which creators' pieces are most valuable today.
April baseball means snowflakes and very brave parents
Attending spring sports games in upstate New York often means cold weather. Here's how to stay warm and entertained.
Your wishes, your voice: Ochsner doctors encourage families to plan ahead for National Healthcare Decisions Day
Every year on April 16, National Healthcare Decisions Day serves as a reminder that medical emergencies rarely arrive with warning. When they occur, the decisions surrounding treatment often must be
Tribal and Rural Healthcare at Risk in Oklahoma Gov. Stitt’s Attack on Medicaid
Guest Opinion Oklahoma leaders often visit Cherokee Nation’s Health System and celebrate our progress and tout our unmistakable impact on the health and economy of rural communities. Now, Governor Stitt is putting us on a path that will damage that very system. Recently the Oklahoma legislature passed Oklahoma HB 4440 and HJR 1067 to reverse […]
Chelsea Star Speaks On Exit From Manchester United
Garnacho, Chelsea Move Signals Reflection After Man United ExitThere is often a moment, quiet and uncomfortable, when a young footballer begins to understand that talent alone does not carry a career....
“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.
San Jose faces legal heat over mental health crisis calls
A group of civil rights organizations is ratcheting up the legal pressure on San Jose over longstanding complaints that too often mental health-related emergency calls receive a police response — rather than assistance from mental health professionals.
A longshot, upset bid and a few quick takes
It is hard to keep up these days. The flow of news often seems overwhelming. Let’s focus today on an unusual congressional race before moving on to a few quick, supplementary observations. Since its creation 54 years ago, Congressional District 5 has been represented by a grand total of five people – Bill Armstrong, Ken […]
Bielema, Gies, associate athletic director share insights on world of college sports
Alumnus and donor Larry Gies, who first “fell in love” with UI by attending a football game with his father, said that athletics often serve as a university’s “front door”
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (K-12)
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math—often called STEM—help students understand how the world works and how to shape what comes next.
Here's two words employers deserve to hear more often
Businesses create jobs, build housing, and a community partners. Are we appreciating what they bring to WA?
Searching for Truth Inside Viktor Orban’s Media Machine
In Hungary, politics often splits along generational lines. The election result may hinge on how many voters still trust what they see on state television.
Healthy Petaluma’s Ben Spierings named to North Bay Business Journal’s Forty Under 40
“The scale of need often far exceeds the capacity of local funders, and the idea of shifting the responsibility entirely to philanthropy is neither sustainable nor equitable.”
Health Physicists: The Quiet Experts Keeping Radiation Risks in Check
When radioactive materials are involved, whether at a former nuclear weapons site, a decommissioned reactor, or a legacy industrial facility, the goal is simple: protect workers, safeguard communities and reduce potential radiation risks to levels that are demonstrably safe. At the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), health physicists are the professionals responsible for making that happen. Their work is often behind the scenes but always with consequences that matter deeply to the public.
I'm one of 48 million unpaid caregivers. Health care collapses without us.
Caring for my mother isn't just physical. It's emotional, relentless and often invisible. I constantly anticipate risk while trying to save dignity.
Data & Business Process Services Stocks Q4 Teardown: Verisk (NASDAQ:VRSK) Vs The Rest
Earnings results often indicate what direction a company will take in the months ahead. With Q4 behind us, let’s have a look at Verisk (NASDAQ:VRSK) and its ...
Scientists discover spice synergy that boosts anti-inflammation 100x
Chronic inflammation often works quietly in the background but can fuel serious diseases like diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. New research reveals that everyday plant compounds—like menthol from mint, cineole from eucalyptus, and capsaicin from chili peppers—can team up inside immune cells to dramatically boost their anti-inflammatory power. While individual compounds showed modest effects, certain combinations amplified results hundreds of times over by activating different cellular pathways at once.
Scientists discover spice synergy that boosts anti-inflammation 100x
Chronic inflammation often works quietly in the background but can fuel serious diseases like diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. New research reveals that everyday plant compounds—like menthol from mint, cineole from eucalyptus, and capsaicin from chili peppers—can team up inside immune cells to dramatically boost their anti-inflammatory power. While individual compounds showed modest effects, certain combinations amplified results hundreds of times over by activating different cellular pathways at once.
WATCH: Vance says 'ceasefires are always messy'
The vice president, who is set to participate in negotiations in Pakistan this weekend, said “ceasefires are always messy” and often feature “a little bit of choppiness.”
Kentucky lawmakers lean on fast-track tactics as session nears end
With two days left in Kentucky’s session, lawmakers are advancing bills quickly, often with final changes made outside public view.
Science often ignores menopause. These researchers are changing that.
Menopause is a long understudied and under-discussed part of women’s health. Northeastern researchers are working to change that.
In Search of Health Care Options for Real Estate Agents
Real estate professionals who work as independent contractors often face expensive health care choices, but brokers and associations are finding new ways to expand access and support agents’ financial well-being.
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 […]
JD Vance's mom to speak at county GOP fundraiser
Beverly Aikins has become a public speaker since her son took office, often sharing her story about recovering from substance use.
Mayor Mamdani appoints 'mom and pop czar' to reduce red tape for NYC small business owners
Delia Awusi was hired to reduce the runaround mom and pop small businesses often face in dealing with permits, inspections and fines.
Viewpoint: FP10 should remain open, excellent and secure
Europe is right to worry about research security. Foreign interference is real. So is the misuse of sensitive knowledge. Universities working in sensitive areas such as AI, quantum, semiconductors and advanced materials cannot afford to ignore the geopolitical environment around them.But Europe is in danger of drawing the wrong conclusion, one that would increase, not reduce, its strategic vulnerabilities.If the EU applies an “EU preference” logic to the next Framework Programme for research and innovation (FP10), it will weaken one of its greatest strategic assets: a research system built on openness, excellence and international collaboration. In the name of security, Europe could end up advancing science more slowly, innovating less effectively and making itself less attractive to global talent and partners in advanced science and technology.That would be a serious mistake.The EU preference included in Article 10 of the proposed European Competitiveness Fund may make sense in some industrial or deployment contexts, but is far harder to justify when applied to collaborative research in advanced science and technology, where excellence and global connectivity are crucial. Research is not procurement. It does not thrive when isolated. It advances through access to the best ideas, the best people, the best facilities and the best data, wherever they are found. This is why FP10 should not simply absorb industrial policy logic by default. Doing so would risk importing instruments that are ill-suited to research and that ultimately increase vulnerability rather than resilience.For universities of science and technology, the issue is especially acute. These institutions sit at the frontier of knowledge and technology creation in the very fields Europe sees as critical for its future competitiveness and resilience. They know better than most that security risks are real. But they also know that openness and security are not opposites. In practice, they have to be made to work together. Research security is not about closing doors. It is about building resilience through collective responsibility, trust, proportionate safeguards and better governance. That is a fundamentally different approach from default restriction.The risks of non-collaborationThe real danger in the current debate is that Europe talks too much about the risks of collaboration and not enough about the risks of non-collaboration. Those risks are strategic too. Cut researchers off from international networks and Europe loses access to knowledge, data, infrastructures and talent. Slow down global collaboration in critical technologies and Europe slows down its own progress on cutting-edge science. Make participation rules unpredictable and Europe weakens its attractiveness to researchers and investors alike.In other words, over-restricting collaboration will create strategic vulnerabilities, particularly in advanced science and technologies.This point is often underestimated in policy discussions that frame openness mainly as a value to be defended. Europe’s scientific strength, technological development and long-term competitiveness depend on remaining connected to the best research ecosystems in the world. For a continent that wants to accelerate deep tech, strengthen industrial capacity and reduce strategic dependencies, weakening the excellence base would be self-defeating. That does not mean ignoring risk. Quite the opposite. Universities are already strengthening due diligence, internal governance, awareness-raising, screening procedures and compliance support. Across Europe, institutions are working to manage risks linked to foreign interference, sanctions, export controls and the misuse of research. The right response is not complacency. It is better risk management. But that means targeted, evidence-based and proportionate measures, not blunt top-down restrictions with wide spillover effects. In the daily reality of universities, openness and restriction often coexist. The real challenge is how to apply safeguards without sliding into securitisation that damages academic freedom, open science and international cooperation. Restrict partners, not nationsMore restrictive treatment of collaborators from European Economic Area members Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, or from Switzerland and the UK, is strategically very difficult to justify. These are deeply embedded partners in Europe’s research and innovation ecosystem. Beyond that, Europe should still resist default exclusion and instead rely on case-by-case assessment. The relevant question is not nationality in the abstract. It is the actual risk profile of a collaboration: the institution, the affiliations, the field, the knowledge involved, the intended use and the safeguards available. Screening should focus on institutions and affiliations rather than nationality alone. Related articlesParliament ‘misreads’ link between Horizon Europe and ECF, Commission official saysFrustration grows at governance gap in next Horizon EuropeIf EU preference logic is imported into research without careful calibration, the likely result is a chilling effect. Researchers may step back from legitimate and beneficial collaboration, even where risks are manageable. International partners may see Europe as less predictable. And Europe may end up undermining the very excellence base it needs to compete, scale up and lead in strategic technologies, thereby increasing its dependence on others.FP10 should do the opposite. It should remain open by default, with restrictions used only exceptionally, and then on the basis of clear evidence. It should integrate research security into open science and research integrity frameworks, not set them against each other. And it should recognise that academic freedom, scientific excellence and responsible international collaboration are not obstacles to Europe’s security, they are part of it. Europe needs stronger tools to protect itself. But it also needs the discipline to avoid measures that would weaken it and increase its strategic vulnerabilities in the process. In FP10, that means staying open, excellent and secure.Louise Drogoul is senior advisor for innovation and sustainability at the Cesaer university association.
Unexplained shoulder pain could signal dangerous health condition, doctor warns
While shoulder pain is often the result of rotator cuff problems, injuries, arthritis, nerve problems, or other orthopedic and muscular issues, it can also signal a dangerous health condition.
The Boundless Deep: Young Tennyson, Science, and the Crisis of Belief by Richard Holmes
Pantheon Review by Walter Cummins The image of Alfred Tennyson I’ve carried for decades goes back to the childhood card game of Authors that depicts him with a stately continence sharpened by a jutting black beard. He’s formidable, his aura superior. Holmes opens his biography of the youthful Tennyson by describing the similar formality of the imposing Tennyson statue at Trinty College Cambridge, sharing the honor with other Trinity greats, including Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, and Thomas Babington Macaulay. Holmes doesn’t want to chip away at that statue but rather reveal its inner youthful core of the man—tall, handsome, and talented but unformed, emerging from a disturbed family of addicted or insane male siblings and four unusual sisters struggling under a violent alcoholic clergyman father. Alfred was certainly statuesque, but would he end up a block of unformed stone like his equally promising brothers? He was youngest of three equally regarded Tennyson brothers at Cambridge, all bright, handsome, and talented, in fact Alfred regarded by some as less promising than his elders who also wrote poetry. Yet Alfred wrote one of his major poems, “The Kraken,” at twenty, revealing both his talent, his interest in geological forces, and the haunting creature that embodied his anxieties. While Holmes focuses on Tennyson of the 1830s and 1840s, he can’t tell his story without exploring his involvement with the Victorian intellectual upheaval. Tennyson was fascinated by new scientific perspectives, following the latest findings as soon as books and articles were published. He was especially taken with Charles Lyell’s deep studies of geology and the discovery of fossils and a timeline of the planet’s development that did much to question fundamental religious assumptions. The impact of these discoveries is reflected in Tennyson’s poetry and led to the crisis in belief he shared with so many contemporaries. He was especially taken by the cycles of destruction and renewal that informed the struggles he confronted in In Memoriam, Maud, and Idylls of the King. Tennyson was only one of the eventual major figures at Cambridge at the same time, young men just beginning to realize their potential. Charles Darwin was at Christ College, although there is no evidence that he and Tennyson even met as students or later in life. Yet evolution became significant in Tennyson’s thinking and the issues of his poetry. One of Tennyson’s best and most important Cambridge friends was Edward FitzGerald, who became the translator of The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám and in their on and off relationship served as Tennyson’s harshest critic. FitzGerald was also a friend of the novelist William Makepeace Thackeray, the two of them partying in Paris as undergraduates. That connection led to a friendship between Thackeray and Tennyson. Others who came to play significant roles in Tennyson’s life were Thomas Carlyle, the Brownings, and the Pre-Raphaelites. Tennyson’s deepest friend at college was Arthur Hallam, who at twenty wrote a glowing review of Tennyson’s first poetry collection, travelled on European adventures with him, and fell in love with his sister Emily. Hallam was also regarded as one more very promising Cambridge student. His sudden death at twenty-two in Vienna from a stroke while travelling with his father devastated many friends, but perhaps Tennyson most of all. He did not write immediate poems of grief but took years to compile those collected in In Memoriam A.H.H., published in 1850, almost twenty years after Hallam’s death For all of Tennyson’s early poetic successes and successes, Holmes reveals him as an often troubled young man suffering periods of depression, fearing planetary upheaval, concerned about supporting himself, disappointed in romances, and worried that he would inherit the family’s mental illness tendencies. Yet despite his seeming withdrawals, he was always writing poetry that he kept private and would not let go, constantly revising. 1850 became a transformative year for Tennyson. He finally consented to publishing In Memoriam with a last-minute prologue that acknowledged God and perhaps convinced the religious Emily Sellwood to marry him after years of pursuit.. He opened up to Emily, revealing his struggles with fears of depression and “weird seizures.” The devastating event of that time was the stillborn death of his unnamed first son. It shook him, but Emily’s faith brought them closer and convinced him to believe in an afterlife. Two later sons survived. With the death of William Wordworth in April of 1950, Tennyson was named poet laureate at age forty-one, reluctantly accepting. It’s as if Tennyson’s life split in half in that year. He lived another forty years, now a recognized success, with the prestige of being an official poet writing patriotic verse, wealthy and revered, no longer the insecure young man seeking an outlet for his immense talent. He earned a place in the Authors deck, now dignified and in 1884 elevated to the peerage as Arthur, Lord Tennyson. Richard Holmes is the author of twenty previous books on the Romantics and Victorians, several of which received awards. The Boundless Deep was shortlisted for the 2025 Baillie Gifford Prize for Non-Fiction. He captures the complex vicissitudes of Tennyson’s youth, illustrated by frequent excerpts from the poetry, placing that life in the full context of the shattering discoveries that led to an upheaval of thought in the Victorian age.
College Football Playoff contenders' most irreplaceable players among non-QBs in 2026
Quarterbacks are often the most valuable players, but a handful of stars at other positions are truly irreplaceable
Affordability and Preventive Public Health Policy
Affordability pressures increasingly shape health risk in the United States, influencing both the upstream conditions that sustain health and the downstream ability to access health promoting resources. Financial stability is a key driver of health, affecting patterns of health, health care use, and the tradeoffs people must make among competing needs. The economic policy landscape aimed at improving financial security for Americans is expansive, complex, and often difficult to organize, making it challenging to discuss how different policies influence financial resilience and population health. We propose the Earn–Keep–Grow framework as a practical way to organize and guide discussion of these policies in population health research and policy decision-making.
Why You Should Stop and Smell a Flower For Just 30 Seconds
The scents around you can slow your heart rate, shift your mood, and trigger vivid memories—often in seconds.
My life is better after college; made friends and traveled more
After a disappointing college experience, I decided to reclaim my life postgrad. Now, I travel often and have a great community of friends.
MAGA Is Winning Its War Against U.S. Science
Source: NBER With all the other terrible news right now, you may not have noticed that Donald Trump is in the process of killing American science. OK, that’s an exaggeration — but not that much of an exaggeration. The Trump administration’s latest budget proposal calls for a gigantic increase in military spending combined with severe cuts to social programs. But as the chart above shows, it also calls for debilitating reductions in research funding. Furthermore, Trump appointees have already been strangling science by sharply reducing the rate at which research grants are approved. Here, for example, is the number of new grants approved by the National Science Foundation: Source: Nature Large numbers of existing grants have also been frozen or terminated, especially in the study of infectious diseases. Add to this a sharp drop in visas issued to foreign students, who often play a direct role in research and who help support academic departments that do research: Put all of this together, and much U.S. scientific research is set to come to a screeching halt — not a few years from now, but over the course of the next year or two. This new assault on U.S. science is taking place at a time when the role of American science in the world has already been greatly eroded. The chart below, based on research recently reported by the National Bureau of Economic Research, measures national strength in science by the share of publications in highly ranked journals. In the 1990s the United States had more such publications than the rest of the world combined. Since then we’ve dropped into third place — well behind China and slightly below the European Union. And this was before the Trump administration’s attack on science had time to take its full effect. Source Some erosion in U.S. scientific preeminence was inevitable given China’s growing sophistication and wealth. But we’ve also fallen behind Europe, even though everyone says that Europe is lagging economically and technologically. Claims about Europe’s underperformance are, in fact, dubious if one looks hard at the data. But it’s still striking to see America lagging. What’s going on? There are presumably multiple factors behind America’s scientific lag. But even before Trump II the growing hostility of the U.S. right to science surely had some negative effect. And since the rise of MAGA G.O.P. attitudes toward science in general have become overwhelmingly hostile. This is true even for the Republican rank and file: And while I haven’t been able to find good survey data, it’s obvious that the anti-science turn has been even more pronounced — and began earlier — among the Republican political elite. Chris Mooney published The Republican War on Science in 2005, and even then was describing a longstanding trend. Why have Republicans turned so anti-science? Part of the answer is that they believe that scientists don’t support them. And they’re right! A study of who scientists give money to shows that only a small percentage gave money to Republicans even 20 years ago, and that almost none of them donate to Republicans now: Social scientists have always been strongly pro-Democratic, while there used to be a significant number of physical, “hard” scientists supporting the GOP. But these days physicists are almost as uniformly Democratic, or at least non-Republican, as sociologists. Why are there almost no Republican scientists? It’s not a mystery. GOP political orthodoxy includes positions that are at odds with the scientific consensus on multiple issues, ranging from the validity of the theory of evolution, to the reality of climate change, to the efficacy and safety of vaccines. In each case the scientific consensus is solidly grounded in evidence. But even before the rise of MAGA the U.S. right was increasingly hostile to evidence-based policymaking — especially, of course, where the evidence is unfavorable to fossil fuel interests or quack medicine, both financial mainstays of right-wing politics. So scientists don’t support Republicans, and the feeling is mutual. Today’s Republican Party doesn’t like science or scientists. It doesn’t like having its preconceived views challenged by appeals to evidence. It knows that very few scientists are on its side electorally. In general, it sees scientific research as a threat to its grasp on political power. Add in MAGA’s combination of rabid anti-intellectualism and allergy to any hint of criticism, and one has the makings of a drastic anti-science turn in policy. “Ignorance is strength” might was well be an official MAGA motto. And as I said, we aren’t talking about something that will happen over the course of multiple years: The U.S. scientific enterprise is threatened with severe damage, even collapse, over just the next year. There are many reasons to find this prospect horrifying: Think of all the beneficial advances, affecting almost every part of life, that won’t happen because U.S. science — still crucial to the world — has been eviscerated. But think, also, of America’s international standing. Can a nation that has forfeited its role as a leader, or even a contender, in global science, still be a Great Power? No. MUSICAL CODA
How much emphasis on politics? And to what end?
People today expect politics to give more than it can, often to the point of secular utopianism. There are two basic reasons for that. The first is a decline in transcendental faith. People need an […]
Pellegrini: “We must get back on track ASAP.”
At San Siro, Roma swept Inter 5-2, complicating their race for fourth place. Mancini and Pellegrini scored the goals that softened the Giallorossi’s defeat. After the match, the midfielder spoke to ...
When hospitals become corporations, what happens to patient safety?
In many medical malpractice cases, the public imagines a careless doctor making a single catastrophic mistake. In reality, serious medical errors are often the result of systemic pressures that pus…
Why more small businesses are adding credit card surcharges — and what it means for your wallet
They're paying massive processing fees for card transactions. Often, you’ll end up footing the bill.
How the loneliness of working from home can affect mental health: ‘The lab coat mentality is dangerous’
If the office is the place where friendships most often arise, people who work remotely, especially freelancers, are the most vulnerable to isolation, with all that this implies for their wellbeing
Commentary: When stars’ plastic surgery is played for your entertainment
Often when I’m scrolling through Instagram, hypnotized by the stream of videos, an actress’ face will cut through the noise. This isn’t a typical clip from a press junket or red carpet. Instead, it will feature side-by-side images of the star, one younger and one more recent. Then a content creator – perhaps a doctor or an aesthetician, sometimes wearing scrubs – will walk me through what cosmetic procedures they think the actress has had. (It’s much rarer that men get this kind of analysis.)
'My head feels clearer': How citizen science can improve people's health
The two of us can often be found in a patch of scrubby bushland, phone in hand, slowly scanning for plants. Or crouched behind a tree trunk with binoculars, pausing mid-breath to find the source of a ...
Gun sales at Academy Sports questioned in new report
Straw purchasers often supply guns to criminals through the firearms black market.
Scientists discover hidden gut signals that could detect cancer early
A new study reveals that gut bacteria and metabolites may hold the key to detecting serious digestive diseases earlier and more easily. Using AI, scientists found that biomarkers linked to one condition can often predict others, showing these diseases are more interconnected than previously thought. This cross-disease insight could lead to faster diagnoses without invasive procedures.
Executive order aims to limit NCAA athletes to 5 years, 1 transfer
An executive order signed by President Donald Trump Friday limits NCAA athletes to a five year playing window and how often they can transfer between schools.
The Happy Accident: How Benetta MacAuley Found Her Joy in Materials Science and Music
Benetta MacAuley didn't know materials science was a major when she applied to UC Davis. Now the senior investigates sustainable cement alternatives and leads the viola section of the Video Game Orchestra, proving that the best paths are often unplanned.