SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " profit " 1,861 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
How To Start A Profitable B2B Business—And 11 Ideas Worth Exploring
From consulting to SaaS, these profitable B2B business ideas can help you build recurring revenue and long-term growth.
Springfield schools business manager: When bidding out bus fuel, it’s all about the markup
The sellers' profit margins are really what are up for bid.
Measles, landfill solar and a bridge over the Sound: CT Politics news
Plus: CSCU’s investigation, rural healthcare, utility profits, brownfields funding, and Chris Murphy's loneliness legislation.
Tech Investor Prosus’ Revenue Rises on Growth Across Businesses, Tencent
Core headline earnings are expected to increase between 19% to 28% reflecting strong revenue growth and profitability across its businesses, most notably Tencent.
Tech Investor Prosus’ Revenue Rises on Growth Across Businesses, Tencent
Core headline earnings are expected to increase between 19% to 28% reflecting strong revenue growth and profitability across its businesses, most notably Tencent.
Northwestern Medicine announces $35 million grant for new community health institute
Northwestern Medicine received a $35 million grant to launch a community health institute, it announced Tuesday. The grant, donated by the Schreiber Philanthropy foundation, will go toward the new John and Kathy Schreiber Community Health Institute. The institute will partner with nonprofit organizations and community-based providers to offer direct care to underinsured patients. It also...
South Tampa Chamber announces 2026 Business Award winners
South Tampa Chamber honored businesses, nonprofits and professionals during its 2026 Business Awards and named 13 winners.
Sony drops “PC”, adds “AI” to official PlayStation business strategy summary
Sony had made some conspicuous edits and updates to its description of PlayStation’s “business environment and strategy,” in a new annual report filed to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission today. These changes are part of a 379-word overview of Sony’s strategy for its Game & Network Services (G&NS) division, which is another name for PlayStation. The chunk about PlayStation strategy is part of a voluminous financial report filed by Sony each June. This year’s is 229 pages long. Differences to any part of the filing—word changes made from year to year, as Sony provides a breakdown of its business for investors—can be illuminating. For example: A line from 2025 about how the PlayStation team “aims to achieve sustainable and profitable business growth” has been changed in the 2026 version to “aims to achieve sustainable business growth.” Notice which word they cut? That’s a pretty clear tell about how Sony expects its profit margins to be squeezed this year, due to rising chip costs for its hardware, among other things. A line from 2025 that stated “Sony plans to continue its efforts to deploy its first-party titles to multiple platforms such as PC” had been cut from the 2026 version. That appears to be Sony’s admission by omission that it has backed off releasing its biggest games on PC. Bloomberg’s Jason Schreier reported in March and again in May that Sony’s big single-player marquee games are no longer planned for time-delayed release on PC.1 A whole new chunk has also been added about how “Sony is utilizing AI to unleash the creativity of studios and further enhance the PlayStation experience.” A full breakdown of the changes made from the 2025 version to the 2026 version is below. I’ve redlined them for you…
The MSG Sports business actually makes very little profit, says Jim Cramer
'Mad Money' host Jim Cramer talks if live sports entertainment play MSG is worthadding to your portfolio after the Knicks' big win.
Kansas City’s Black-owned businesses court World Cup visitors with a new shopping guide
Kansas City G.I.F.T, a nonprofit focused on growing Black entrepreneurship, will distribute a guide in June that features 30 Black-owned businesses. The hope is that the World Cup, predicted to bring in more prospective shoppers than Kansas City has ever seen at once, jumpstarts long-term growth.
Leidos (LDOS) Faces DHA Move To Replace It On Military Health Records
Defense Health Agency plans to replace Leidos Holdings (NYSE:LDOS) as lead systems integrator for the Military Health System electronic health record program. Change affects the company’s role in the multi year MHS GENESIS rollout across U.S. military treatment facilities. Decision introduces uncertainty for Leidos’ health segment and its position in the federal health IT market. Analysts have issued downgrades citing concerns about profit margins and organic growth alongside this contract...
FTC Sues Nonprofit Alleging Deception Over Youth Trans Care
The US Federal Trade Commission and several states sued the leading professional association focused on transgender healthcare Wednesday, alleging the group deceived parents about the medical necessity and safety of medical transitions.
US FTC sues transgender health nonprofit over youth care standards
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission and four states accused a nonprofit focused on transgender health of making misleading statements about the benefits of gender-affirming treatments for young people in a lawsuit filed on Wednesday.
Governor Sherrill Secures SBA Economic Injury Disaster Assistance for Businesses and Nonprofits Affected by Belleville Fire
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 17, 2026 Governor Sherrill Secures SBA Economic Injury Disaster Assistance for Businesses and Nonprofits Affected by Belleville Fire Business Recovery Center Opened June 16 in Belleville TRENTON – Small businesses and private nonprofit organizations affected by the devastating May 3, 2026 fire in Belleville Township may now apply[...]
Merchants of Doubt and the attacks on Extreme Event Attribution science
Last week, I attended a meeting at Columbia University on attribution science and climate law, hosted by the Sabin Center. It was a fantastic event, bringing together scientists and legal experts working at the intersection of extreme event attribution and climate law. Subscribe For those unfamiliar with it, extreme event attribution attempts to quantify the contribution of climate change to an extreme event. For example, several groups analyzed the impact of climate change on Hurricane Harvey’s enormous rainfall totals over Houston, Texas and they found that climate change increased rainfall by 15 to 38%. One thing that came up again and again was how terrified fossil-fuel interests are of extreme event attribution science. They are acutely aware that this research could land them in court. And losing those cases would leave them legally liable for billions of dollars in climate damages. Because the legal stakes are so high, the blowback has turned ugly. I spoke with several scientists at the meeting who are facing ongoing harassment over their work. This blowback is a coordinated campaign to make the entire field look suspect. The goal is to create the impression that attribution science is too uncertain, too political, or too conflicted to be useful in court or in public policy. The strategy is not based on actual science or evidence of misconduct, but on the generation of doubt. The new Merchants of Doubt We’ve seen this before. In fact, not that long ago: We only have to go back a year to the Department of Energy (DOE) Climate Working Group (CWG) report to see an example of using doubt as the tool to push back against well-established science. This strategy is laid out in an email from a member of the CWG, Dr. Roy Spencer, that was released during litigation over the Climate Working Group process. The key quote is: About all I can hope is that what we write will provide sufficient “reasonable scientific doubt” regarding the science claims in the 2009 TSD [technical support document], based upon almost 2 decades of new science, to call into question the original reasoning for the EPA Administrator’s decision that CO2 presents a threat to human health and welfare. This statement is strong evidence that at least some members of the committee were working to support a particular policy outcome: revoking the Endangerment Finding. The email also explains how they planned to do it: by attempting to generate “reasonable doubt”. This is going to be hard, Spencer implies. Despite falsely claiming that “2 decades of new science” weakens the case, Spencer explicitly acknowledges that the actual peer-reviewed science of climate change overwhelmingly rejects his position: But if the science argument is decided upon by a vote, or by the number of published citations, we lose the science argument. We can go back even further: This CWG email shares unmistakable DNA with the infamous 1969 tobacco memo that declared: “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” The tobacco memo also acknowledges the limit of this strategy: Like the CWG, they knew the science was not on their side. Share The new new Merchants of Doubt The people attacking the IPCC chapter on extreme event attribution are the newest iteration of the Merchants of Doubt. Their goal, like all Merchants before them, is to introduce doubt into the process. Because the report is not even out yet, they cannot attack its conclusions. So they are attacking the authors instead. Here is a press release from the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee: In the letter, the Chairmen express concerns about potential conflicts of interest involving members of the Attribution Committee, stating that “publicly available information suggests a troubling pattern” in which committee members are affiliated with nonprofits that support climate accountability lawsuits, “raising the appearance of impropriety and member bias.” To be clear, this is just innuendo. There is no actual evidence of bias. And given the robust process that these reports go through, including multiple lines of peer review, it seems very unlikely that significant bias can survive into the report. When the report comes out, critics will have the opportunity to make legitimate criticisms of the report — if any exist. If none do, however, they’ll still make criticisms, but they’ll be bogus, simply designed to generate doubt. We’ll see. A note to the press: Fix your frame To any journalists reading this: The public debate over extreme event attribution science is not going away. The science is simply too dangerous to fossil-fuel interests for them to stop fighting it. You very well might be assigned to write an article about this area of research in the future. When you do, do not automatically adopt the framing that climate misinformers want you to use. They want you to frame the story around questions like: Are climate scientists trying to put their thumb on the scale to achieve a predetermined, politically motivated result? Are climate scientists improperly letting their politics invade the science of the IPCC? That frame is a trap. Instead, you need to view this through the historical lens of the Merchants of Doubt. How does the ecosystem of doubt operate? Who funds it? What methods do they use to misrepresent science and slime researchers? What scientific results are they trying to keep people from understanding are legitimate? Ultimately, you instead need to focus your article on the generation of doubt as a way to maintain the fossil fuel industry’s social and legal license to keep burning oil, gas, and coal. If you treat the misinformers’ frame as a legitimate, good-faith scientific critique, you are helping them produce doubt. Don’t do it. Don’t be a Merchant of Doubt. Thanks for reading The Climate Brink! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work. Subscribe other stuff The Staying Curious Substack has an interesting post about the different flavors of climate sensitivity. This is crucial information if you want to understand how scientists think about how much warming the Earth will experience. I’d be grateful if you could hit the like button ❤️ below! It helps more people discover these ideas and lets me know what’s connecting with readers.
HAAM hosts 5th annual healthcare pop-up event
A longtime Austin music nonprofit hosted a free event offering healthcare and wellness services to local musicians on Tuesday, following a major fundraising effort earlier this month.
Main Line Health’s Paoli Hospital will get a new, 108-bed patient tower in a major expansion
The Paoli project is part of an expansion wave at the four-hospital nonprofit health system.
Sony: The Market Is Mispricing Its Entertainment Transformation
Sony’s record FY2025 shows Music & image sensors driving profits.
Roundup of third-quarter financial results for Philly-area nonprofit health systems
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia was the most profitable nonprofit health system in Southeastern Pennsylvania during the nine months that ended March 31.
Stop managing your business finances in spreadsheets — QuickBooks is $300 right now
Intuit QuickBooks Desktop Pro Plus 2024 is on sale for $299.99 (reg. $536) for one year. Built for small business owners, freelancers, and accountants, it handles invoicing, expense tracking, inventory, payroll hours, and project profitability reporting.
Who is Jennifer Siebel Newsom? First Partner and target of Newsom DOJ investigations
The DOJ probe appears to hone in on nonprofits connected to the First Partner.
Social media platforms spread hate music in India despite policy violations, new report says
The report, “Profiting From Hate Music,” documents what researchers describe as the first comprehensive mapping of hate music across India's digital landscape.
Dave & Buster's Entertainment Inc. (PLAY) Stock Falls on Q1 2026 Earnings
Dave & Buster's Entertainment Inc. (PLAY) reported first-quarter 2026 results with total revenue of $559.2 million, a 1.5% decline year-over-year, and gross profit of $479.4 million, down 1.3% versus the prior year.Total revenue: $559.2 million (-1.5% YoY)Gross profit: $479.4 million (-1.3% YoY)Operating profit: $46.9 million (-25.8% YoY)Net income attributable to common shareholders: $5.7 million (-73.7% YoY)Diluted earnings per share: $0.16 (-7
Juneteenth event to highlight mental health resources, history in Upper Burrell
Mental health struggles for Black Americans often go overlooked, according to the Rev. Vincent Ponder of Community Baptist Church in the Lincoln Beach section of Upper Burrell. It’s why he wants to bring more resources, awareness and education to his community. Community Revitalization Mission of Service, a Lincoln Beach-based nonprofit,
Your Big Moment Fades Fast With Just a Single Press Hit — Build This Engine If You Want Coverage (and Profit) That Lasts
Reputation is built through repeated exposure over time, and the companies that treat media as long-term infrastructure consistently outperform the ones treating it like a one-off campaign.
Community health screenings address obstacles to medical care
A local nonprofit has begun offering free clinics to screen vulnerable populations for potentially life-threatening conditions in Coastal Georgia.
French Quarter businesses discuss legal action against Sewerage and Water Board
Business owners say a lack of foot traffic is negatively impacting their profits.
The cafe that stopped charging and made a profit
Minneapolis venue made more money even though nearly half of its customers paid nothing
MarketInk: Health Care Communicators honor Mission Valley nonprofit’s PR director
The 2026 Communicator of the Year Award went to Anne Slate, director of public relations for LifeSharing, a Mission Valley nonprofit.
Then and Now: Purpose-driven business important to Jeff Clapper
Jeff Clapper believes business exists as a force for good in the world. “Business can balance profit and purpose,” he said. “Business can be purpose-driven and create benefits for all...
Things to do in Lancaster: explore and experiment at the Lancaster Science Factory
The Lancaster Science Factory, a nonprofit science center, continues to spark curiosity and creativity among children and families with its dynamic, hands-on approach to learning. Featuring more than 80 interactive
How 2026 campaigns are deploying creators to spread their message
With a growing number of adults using social media for political engagement, campaigns work with influencers on the platforms to advertise to new audiences. But are influencers profiting at the expense of voter transparency?
In Retrospect: Poland, Russia, Europe
In April I spent a few days with Zryw, a Polish non-profit organization that recruits young people to enter politics and public life. Their aim is to build a new generation of civic leaders in Poland. I’ve followed their evolution from the beginning; my son is one of the founders. (“Zryw” means “impulse” or “burst of speed” in Polish). Julie Chmielewska, one of Zryw’s leaders, interviewed me at the event. Here is the conversation, lightly edited for grammar and context: Julia Chmielewska: Assuming that culture shapes institutions, could we conclude that some cultures are more prone to authoritarianism? Anne Applebaum: I don’t think so. Every culture, every nation, and every country has the potential for change. When we look at history, we can see that nations do change. Poland has changed, for example, from the 1980s to today. There’s a completely different mentality here than the one I encountered when I first visited, in 1988. The current generation sees the world through a different frame. So no, I don’t believe that certain nations are doomed to authoritarianism, or to anything. Of course, there are political and cultural traditions, but they can always be challenged. JC: So do you think there’s something intrinsic in human nature that pushes people to democracy, freedom? AA: I think there is something in human nature, a deep instinct, that pushes people towards freedom, yes. People who live in authoritarian countries – and I’ve heard this from them over and over again – sooner or later find themselves angered by a feeling of helplessness. They can see the unfairness of crooked courts, irrational political decisions. They naturally dislike the fact that somebody has all the power while they have none. In those circumstances, people who have no political background at all sometimes are politicized just by that frustration. I’m thinking of Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, for example, who was a Belarusian housewife, until the circumstances of her husband’s arrest forced her to become a politician. I met a woman who is a Uyghur from China, and who had come to live in Turkey. After several of her family members were arrested, she too was propelled into a political role. These kinds of experiences make people interested in democracy or political reform, even if they thought they didn’t care. I also think that the opposite is true: some people instinctively prefer homogeneity, order, hierarchy. They don’t like the confrontation of opinions or the noise of debate, and they lean towards a single leader or a unified regime. I think that most of modern history is shaped by the clash between those two different sides of human nature. JC: Which force do you find more powerful today? AA: I think they both have a lot of power and there’s no way of predicting who wins. Even in countries that seem very shut off or stuck in an authoritarian system can change. We’ve seen that happen. And vice versa, I think democracies can also begin to fail and slide into authoritarianism. So it’s very important not to be complacent in either direction. JC: I want to go into your history and your experiences. You’ve lived in Russia during a time of incredible change in the late 80s, and then you came back to do research in post-Soviet Russia. AA: I was a student in Russia just before the collapse of the Soviet Union. I then traveled and worked there extensively in the 1990s, and I met people who really were full of hope. They hoped that Russia could become a democracy, or at least a place that guaranteed freedom of speech, freedom of the press. These weren’t ideas that came from Washington. Although now the narrative in the Kremlin is different, I met many people who were working towards exactly that kind of transformation. A friend of mine ran a series of seminars – once a year, and then later several times a year, in cities all over Russia – designed to get people to discuss politics in new ways. She invited young politicians and journalists, as well as foreigners. I went to many of them, in Moscow as well as Volgograd and Novosibirsk. Over two decades, hundreds of people came to these seminars, and all of them wanted Russia to be different. I remain convinced that many Russians still want Russia to be different. It’s just that the old system, in the form of Putin, a representative of that system, returned. The KGB reimposed their power. And this wasn’t because of something to do with culture, this was to do with money and politics, and who was in charge. JC: You’ve partially answered my question... I wanted to ask whether that excitement of the 1990s was an exception from the Russian historical norm which has been rather authoritarian? AA: Of course, if you look at the history of Russia since the 18th century, there have always been liberal groups, reformers and revolutionaries. There were the Decembrists, in the early 19th century, and the rural populists later on, who tried to organize the peasantry. A significant group of liberal Russians appeared at the turn of the 20th century, people like the father of the writer Vladimir Nabokov, who was a Russian politician before the revolution. These groups were small in number, but sometimes had a broader significance. The Russian dissident movement in the 1950s and 1960s actually invented the modern human rights movement. It was their idea to hold the leaders of the Soviet Union accountable for the language they used, to remind them of the treaties they had signed and the promised they had made. They created the Helsinki group, for example, that held Soviet leadership to the language of the Helsinki Treaty, which formally ended the Second World War and which contained guarantees of human rights, at least on paper. That idea spread to Eastern Europe, and similar tactics were used here in Poland. (Benjamin Nathans recently wrote a great book about the Soviet dissidents, To the Success of Our Hopeless Cause) JC: But seemingly, even if they do ever get power, they could never hold on to it. AA: We don’t know, because they have never really had power. But in any case, we also don’t know what will happen in the future. There is no reason to assume that Russia will forever be condemned to totalitarianism. Even during the first fifteen years of Putin’s regime there was some form of democratic politics. Only when the full-scale war began did he bring everything to an end: he shut down all remaining independent organizations and killed his most important opponent, Alexi Navalny. But does that mean he is popular, that he enjoys legitimacy? Even now, we don’t really know what Russians think about him, or about the war. There is no way of doing real polling in Russia because nobody will answer an independent pollster over the phone. JC: Do you think that the flock of young people, especially young men, who fled Russia after the start of the war represent a continuation of liberal movements that refuse to partake in the authoritarian state, or do you think they are moving for the sake of self-preservation – “I don’t want to go to the army, so I leave”? AA: I’m sure it’s both. I actually know many people who left Russia for political reasons either in the very last years before the war, or else just after the war began. JC: And do you see a change in the young generation versus the old one that have fled? AA: It’s hard for me to say because the people who I know were mostly already politicized. I do know some younger people who left, but most of them were already either active in the opposition, or working as journalists. Many of them very self-consciously think of themselves as maintaining Russian culture abroad, just as in the 20th century the Soviet dissidents or the anti-communist White Russians once thought of themselves as people who maintained the true Russian culture, outside of Bolshevik Russia. JC: Let’s move on to Poland. One of your first experiences with Poland was reporting on Margaret Thatcher’s first state visit, in the autumn of 1988. You followed her around the farmers’ market. AA: She was making a symbolic gesture. She wanted to welcome free markets, but the only one she could really visit was the farmers’ market at Hala Mirowska. JC: And I want to talk about this area because today you can look out of any window in that district, Mirów, and see rows and rows of skyscrapers. How does it feel to see a country built from the ground in such a short time, both politically and economically? AA: You know, when you’re living in a period of dramatic change, it’s always hard to know whether the change is positive or negative. The transformation in Poland created winners and losers, as well as new classes of people, new political movements of different kinds. At the time, it sometimes just felt like turbulence. Now, we can look back at the 1990s and early 2000s in Poland and see in retrospect that the country was headed in towards prosperity and European integration. In around 2009 or 2010, I remember speaking to a woman who worked cleaning government offices, and who asked me if her daughter should study in Amsterdam or in London. This seemed to me to be a real transformation, and it happened very fast: within a few years, Poles stopped feeling like second-class Europeans, and a generation of younger Poles appeared who had no qualms about crossing borders. JC: We again live in turbulent times. Do you think we’re heading towards positive outcomes? AA: I can’t make predictions, because everything that happens tomorrow depends on what people do today. Also, history doesn’t have a trajectory. It doesn’t move in a particular direction. You only think it does afterwards. As I said, you can look afterwards at Poland in the 1990s and you could say this was a period of great progress. But not everybody at the time saw that. Sometimes people are very wrong about a given country’s trajectory. I remember people writing about Ukraine in the 1990s, about how dangerous it was that Ukraine was independent, that this was going to be an anti-semitic state, that Ukrainian nationalism was going to come back... and although you can say many bad things about Ukraine, the country made many bad choices, actually it became a pretty tolerant state which now has a Jewish president and until recently a Muslim defense minister. JC: In the 1990s Poland’s and Ukraine’s GDP were roughly similar. Ukraine was even a bit richer. So the starting point was similar for both of these countries, but they’ve turned out very, very differently. Even if we stop in 2014. Why do you think Ukraine “chose East”? Was it external influence? AA: No, I think Ukraine was in a different position. First of all, central and eastern Ukraine had been part of the Soviet Union since the 1920s, and had therefore experienced a longer period of occupation, repression, Sovietization and even Russification. Ukraine did not have, as Poland did, an alternative elite: a large cadre of economists and politicians, who already had some experience in opposition politics and in independent thinking. In Poland, the transformative finance minister, Leszek Balcerowicz, had already thought about how an economy might be decentralized before he took office. We can argue about how successful he was, but at least he was prepared to try something new. In Ukraine, people weren’t prepared. For one, there hadn’t been much space even for an illegal opposition in the previous couple of decades. Ukraine was also in many ways still emerging from colonial occupation. For the previous couple of centuries, many of the most capable Ukrainians had moved to Russia, and the first generation of leaders in independent Ukraine tended to be former Soviet apparatchiks. They didn’t immediately seek to become closer to western Europe. Instead, they looked for some kind of economic and political “third way” and an accomodation with Russia. Ukraine became stuck in this position, half-in, half-out and became pretty profoundly corrupt. JC: The Polish alternative elite had a vision of where they wanted the country to go. I think the general perception now is that this vision ends with the next election, right? Is this a natural process of gaining power? AA: Their vision, and it was shared by the time by politicians who now call themselves both left and right, was that Poland should join the EU and NATO, as fast as possible. My husband (Radek Sikorski) was in the very first government that said it wanted to join NATO. At the time this was taken very badly in Washington: the demand for NATO membership absolutely came from Poland, not from the US. But even then, in the early 1990s, many Poles already understood that the Russian sphere of influence would grow once again, that it was important to become part of the transatlantic alliance and an integrated Europe as fast as possible: NATO, the EU, the Council of Europe, all of the trading and security alliances. That consensus lasted through several different governments and over many years, even governments containing former communists. For twenty years, right, left and center disagreed about many things, but they all agreed on the direction that the country should go. In retrospect, that consensus created the basis for prosperity in Poland. JC: And regarding the Polish-Ukrainian relations. We know that antagonisms, e.g. the myth of Wołyń [a massacre of Poles that took place in what is now Western Ukraine, in 1943] are increasingly used in Polish political discourse today. In Ukraine, nationalist historians make heroes out of UPA, the Ukrainian revolutionary army, which is held responsible for this tragedy. Where do you see a start for burying the hatchet? Is the reconciliation of our nations possible? AA: So here’s a strange thing: For more than a decade after they both gained independence, Poland and Ukraine participated in a number of projects that were designed to solve exactly these kinds of Polish-Ukrainian differences. Books were published that were jointly written by Polish and Ukrainian historians, monuments were built. These projects were successful: If you’d asked me this question in 2010, I would have said that there are no real historical issues between Poland and Ukraine, that the two countries had mostly reconciled. For a number of reasons, this began to shift. In Poland, children and grandchildren of victims of the Wołyń massacre felt their tragedy hadn’t been fully recognized. In Ukraine, nationalist groups wanted the UPA partisans who had fought against the Soviet Union recognized for their heroism, despite the fact that some in this broad and not well-defined group were also linked to Wołyń. In both eastern Poland and western Ukraine, the memory of the ethnic cleansing that took place there in the late 1940s - Poles were moved West, Ukrainians East - to accomodate new borders has left feelings of displacement and bitterness. The wave of Ukrainian immigration, which started before the war, may have provoked some of this. But don’t underestimate the role played by Russia, which has always wanted to create discord between Poland and Ukraine, and pumps out propaganda to that effect in both countries. Vandalism on both sides of the border, damage done to cemeteries and monuments, is sometimes carried out by provacateurs working for Russia, just to create bad feelings. The Polish-Ukrainian conflict also hides a different reality: although there are real grievances and bad memories, the truth is that the biggest tragedies both nations experienced in the twentieth century were inflicted by the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. That should unite these two countries, not divide them. JC: This week (19.04.2026 – Ed.) in Hungary we saw that using historical narratives to create grievance has no longer worked. Are you optimistic about the direction after Orban’s loss? AA: The Hungarian election was really important because it shows that people can actually resist powerful, dominant propaganda. The ruling party Fidesz controlled all of the TV, 90% of the newspapers, the constitutional court, the bureaucracy... and yet people had the nerve to vote against it and resist it. It’s also an important election because Hungary created a huge network of well-funded think tanks and foundations that were funding other far right groups and projects. So that loss is going to have a knock-on effect in other places too, maybe even in Poland. JC: What you’ve said about resisting propaganda reminds me of one of the interviews you did about talking to Russians in the post-Soviet era who claimed that people knew that the system was lying. Why do people choose to believe in these regimes anyway? AA: Because it’s useful. Stephen Kotkin, an American historian, once described how people would learn how to “speak Bolshevik”: It was just a language that you needed to use in order to get by in society. If you didn’t talk the way the regime wanted you to talk, then you might have problems, or lose your job, or your kids would not get into university. It was a way of getting along. Communist Poland was similar, at least in the early years. When I was writing a book about the Sovietization of Eastern Europe after World War II, I met a lot of people who wanted to talk a lot about the war, when many of them had done really heroic things. But almost nobody wanted to talk about the decade afterwards, between 1945 and 1956. This was when you had the short period of terror, violence and Polish Stalinism. To stay safe, people felt the need to just go along with what others were saying, or stay out of politics, or use communist jargon without necessarily believing it. I don’t judge them for it, and I wouldn’t describe all of those people as collaborators. It’s easy to feel moral certainty in retrospect, because we know that communism ended. But if you were living in 1949, it might not have been clear to you that communism was going to end. In very repressive societies, maybe about 10% of people who are really evil – collaborators, torturers. Maybe 10% of people are really brave and who find ways to resist. And then around 80% of people have kids, they have parents, they have to have jobs and they’ve had to get through it somehow. Strange though it may sound, I’ve found that the work I did on that book is now very useful in explaining some of what’s going on in the United States today. There are plenty of members of the Republican Party in Congress who know perfectly well that Donald Trump says many things that aren’t true. But they avoid criticizing him because it’s inconvenient, because they would get in trouble, because someone would attack them on the internet. So actually you don’t even need mass terror to get people to conform. JC: Is Gen Z reinventing agency? AA: We’ll see. In any generation you can find groups of people who want agency. If you live in a society that’s unfair, for example where a tiny number of people have captured most of the wealth, then at a certain point people rebel. This is always easier for younger people, who have you have less to lose. The question now is how the internet will affect the relationships between citizens and the state, and how it will change organizations. The “Twitter revolutions” people spoke about as early as 2008-9, mass protests organized online, have often proved to be very superficial. Although you can easily join something just by clicking, the work of creating a real movement requires physical participation. Successful mass movements of the past, for example the Civil Rights movement in the United States, were built by people who had spent many years together. They had participated in non-violent workshops together. They practiced and prepared. Just using the you can get everybody to show up at a certain moment, but then when the protest is broken up, nothing happens. It’s also true that the repressive regimes have more recently learned how to use the internet to undermine leaders and movements. Most of all, they now understand how to make people cynical. The form of propaganda that most modern authoritarians use - and I think the Russians really pioneered this - deploys sneering cynicism. Instead of praising the rulers, the regime propagandists mock the opposition movement leadership for being supposedly corrupt or sexually degenerate, with the goal of undermining any kind of idealism. JC: MAGA grew on the internet? AA: MAGA is a real grassroots movement. They had symbols, red hats, they showed up at rallies. But you’re right that the cynicism, the sarcasm and the distrust that the movement embodies came originally from the internet, and this is different. Fifty years ago, most European political parties had a social base in real organizations, in trade unions for Social Democrats, in church groups for Christian Democrats. As people stopped going to church and as the trade unions became smaller, the social base of these parties disappeared. Now people who wouldn’t have known one another in the past meet on the internet and create new movements, many of which don’t last. JC: Is history ending? Going in stale circles? AA: History never ends. In truth, human beings want contradictory things at the same time: order and freedom, stability and change. These things are never resolved, and when a society swings too far in one direction, people always push it the other way. But each time that happens, the result is different. Certainly it is true that we are now in a period when old philosophers and ideas from the 1930s are undergoing a revival. Carl Schmitt, who was a philosopher who was very influential on the Nazis, is back as an influence on both the far left and the far right, once again inspiring people to think that all politics has to be existential, that all politics is about defining and defeating enemies. In the US, some are also bringing back dominionism, the idea that we need a Christian and not a secular state. It’s also true that we are living through a more fundamental shift. The old left-right divide, which was mostly about the size of the state, is much less important now. Instead, we are arguing about more fundamental things: what are our rights, what protects our freedom. Or how much power do we want to give small elites, versus how much power to give ordinary people. In America a small group of very wealthy people now control information, because they control the social media platforms and AI, which means they determine what people will read and learn. Finding a way to preserve preserve zones of autonomy and independent thinking, this is going to be the main task for the next generation. JC: What is the one book that a person interested in Central Europe should read? AA: You could read my book “Iron Curtain: the Crushing of Eastern Europe” which tells the story of how the Soviet Union imposed its culture on the region. Or read Tim Snyder’s history of the region, “The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus 1569-1999.” And everyone should read “The Captive Mind” by Czesław Miłosz, which describes exactly the phenomenon we were talking about: why do people collaborate? I joined Scott Galloway and the brilliant Fiona Hill in a discussion about the wars in Ukraine and Iran, the future of global power, and what these conflicts reveal about America's role in the world. Scott told us that this was the 400th edition of his podcast, which is quite a number: My friend Francesco Chiamulera runs a brilliant series of literary events, Una Colline di Libri, A Hill of Books, in the Prosecco Hills, a region of vineyards and elegant hill towns in the Veneto, north of Venice. We did an event in Vittorio Veneto and also drove and biked around the countryside. Buy Autocracy Inc Buy Iron Curtain Open Letters, from Anne Applebaum is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe
Judge rules Trump can stage UFC fights on White House's South Lawn this weekend
The nonprofit Public Integrity Project had sued to challenge Trump's UFC Freedom 250 event
Judge rules Trump can stage UFC fights on White House's South Lawn this weekend
The nonprofit Public Integrity Project had sued to challenge Trump's UFC Freedom 250 event
Does Jeff Bezos benefit from a NH Business Enterprise Tax cut? - THE JOSIAH BARTLETT CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY
New Hampshire’s unique state tax structure is hard to understand, especially for people who don’t own a business. More than a third (36%) of the state General Fund and Education Trust Fund revenue comes from business taxes. The vast majority of that comes from the Business Profits Tax (BPT), but the lesser-known Business Enterprise Tax […]
Build a Forest-Related Business Fast: Free Sierra Commons Training in Auburn This July
Nevada City, Calif. — As demand grows for skilled forest management businesses across California, a Northern California nonprofit is helping entrepreneurs turn that opportunity into a livelihood. Sierra Commons, in partnership with the Sierra Business Council, will host a Forest Entrepreneurship Bootcamp July 18–19 in the Community Room at BriarPatch Co-op’s Auburn location. The two-day […]
Rice Business partners with Service to School to expand opportunities for veterans and service members
Rice Business has partnered with Service to School (S2S), a national nonprofit that helps veterans and service members access higher education, adding a new admissions and outreach partner to the school’s growing ecosystem of support for military-affiliated students.
Sacramento businesses prepare for World Cup excitement
Sacramento soccer fans will have no shortage of places to celebrate the World Cup, as local businesses and nonprofits team up to host watch parties, free clinics and community activities tied to the tournament.
Federal health care cuts threaten Michigan hospitals. It’s time for Medicare for All.
Community hospitals are there for us at our most vulnerable moments. They’re where our children are born. We rush our loved ones to the local ER, post-stroke, when every second counts. Unfortunately, the federal government has left communities across Michigan at risk of losing that lifesaving care. That’s why working people are joining forces to call for change, and to build a society that puts patients before profits, with Medicare for All.
Jeffrey Lewis and Herbert Lin join the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board
The Bulletin is honored to welcome nuclear proliferation and arms control expert Jeffrey Lewis and nuclear risk and disruptive technologies expert Herbert Lin to its Science and Security Board (SASB). As SASB members, they will provide their perspective on nuclear issues and technological threats, represent the nonprofit at public events, and participate in setting the time on the Doomsday Clock.
Kentucky leaders in Des Moines this week for intercity visit
A delegation of more than 150 business, education, government and nonprofit leaders from Commerce Lexington in Lexington, Kentucky, are in Des Moines today through Friday for its annual Leadership Visit, a long-running intercity program aimed at fostering regional development ideas. The agenda includes sessions on regional collaboration, talent development, agricultural innovation, executive leadership continuity and…
Federal small business loans open to local victims of drought
The U.S. Small Business Administration announced low-interest loans to small businesses and nonprofits affected by the drought that began April 28.
SpaceX Owns a Real Business That Makes Big Money
A simple view of SpaceX is that it’s a low-cost rocket launcher that created the profitable Starlink satellite business and which is now burning cash to build orbital data centers and colonize Mars. Starlink doesn’t have the lead role in SpaceX’s $1.8 trillion initial public offering. But it is the real business inside the company, and the telecoms industry and its regulators can ill afford to be complacent about the disruptive threat it poses.
New OMB rule could break science in the United States
The drug that saved your mother. The treatment your doctor recommended. The clinical trial that bought someone you love more time. None of it was inevitable. It required a system built to operate outside politics and sustained over decades, because science doesn’t operate on the timeline of a politician. That system is now under direct threat. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has proposed a new rule to regulate all federal grants, not just science, but housing, education, defense, NASA and everything in between, that would fundamentally change how research is conducted in the United States. There have been a lot of fires in the past 16 months, and if everything is an emergency, nothing is an emergency. But this is a very big deal. These rules would strip away the independence that has kept science from becoming a political tool. The good news is there’s still something we can all do. How the grant system was designed to work When I was a new faculty member, I was full of millions of ideas, so I sat down and wrote an NIH proposal. I worked on it for months and thought it was so good. Then I sent it to my mentor. It came back covered in comments. Places where my reasoning wasn’t as airtight as I’d thought, methods that could be stronger, gaps in my thinking that I had been too close to the work to see. It stung, as honest feedback always does, but peer review almost always makes the work better. In fact, it’s the backbone of how American science has functioned for generations. At NIH, submitted proposals go to a panel of scientists who have experience in the field. These are the people who can read research methods and spot their weaknesses, who understand when an experiment is designed well and when it isn’t. Applications are scored rigorously, and often only the top 3-20% of proposals receive funding. The people making funding decisions are required to justify them based on these reviews. To be clear: this is not a perfect system, and good science still goes unfunded more often than any of us would like due to limited resources. There is also criticism that peer review may undervalue bold ideas that are risky but could have high payoffs. But the peer review system is nonetheless a meaningful part of the grant selection process. While thoughtful and careful changes could improve the system, the changes being proposed by OMB will not make things better. The rule that could change everything Through this OMB proposal, the system that helps decide what gets funded is being dismantled. There are many troubling elements buried in this proposal, but three provisions stand out in particular. Each would be damaging alone. Together, they would change what kind of science gets done in America, and who it serves. 1. Political appointees would decide which science gets funded, and peer review would be explicitly sidelined or ignored. The guidelines your doctor follows, the standards that determine what’s in your air and water, the drugs that get approved for your family: all of it starts with a funding decision. Right now, that decision is made by scientists who can evaluate whether the work is actually sound and whether it could move the needle forward. Under this proposal, funding decisions could be made by political appointees. The careful, expertise-driven review process that shapes grant funding would be effectively sidelined. That means that a poorly designed study could get funded simply because someone in a political office liked the sound of it, while rigorous, important work doesn’t get funded because it no longer aligns with the administration’s priorities. In other words, critical work that benefits all of us could now be missed just because it has become politically inconvenient. 2. Grants could be canceled at any point, without warning, in the middle of ongoing work. Say your tax dollars have been paying for a cancer study for two years. The grant was awarded for five years, so the team is mid-experiment. There are three additional years’ worth of answers that could change how the disease is treated for hundreds of thousands of people. With this new rule, the federal government could cancel the remaining funding tomorrow, walk away from the commitment it made with your money, and have no legal obligation to finish what it started. This is a huge waste of money. There are rarely other sources of funding for this work, which means the team, the graduate students, postdocs, and research staff who have dedicated years of their careers to this project could lose their jobs. Patients who have contributed their time to studies may not see it turn into useful learnings for others. Every hour of work already completed could result in nothing useful. Science can take decades to get to tangible outcomes. It needs a stable funding system to flourish. 3. Researchers would have a harder time communicating their findings without pre-approval from the federal government. There is a saying from Sir Mark Walport: “Science isn’t finished until it’s communicated.” Science is no use to anyone if it is kept locked away in the labs that produced the data. The proposed rule could make communicating research findings harder in a number of ways: Make it harder for scientists to widely share their findings in scientific journals. Publication costs, including journal fees that allow for broad public access, could not be paid for by federal funds which is often how scientists pay these costs. Restrict researchers from engaging publicly about how their findings should inform policy or public health guidelines. This would restrict scientists from doing the work that transforms years of lab work into decisions that actually affect people’s lives. Make it harder for scientists to attend conferences. Conferences would now need to be approved by the federal agency at the time of grant award. This disadvantages conferences or publications that are not politically aligned. Conferences are a key way in which scientists learn about work happening in their field so they can collaborate and build on each other’s findings. What good is science with a muzzle? The long-term impact These changes could (and hopefully would) be reversed under the next administration. But by then, damage has been done. Once projects are halted or denied funding by political appointees, people leave their science careers for other paths or even leave the country to do their amazing science elsewhere. You cannot pause a scientific study the way you pause a subscription you decided isn’t useful anymore. You cannot freeze a research team that depends on salaries to feed their families, causing a scramble for replacement funding that, in most cases, simply does not exist. When the money stops, everything stops, and all the work in progress and its potential are lost. Despite all of the language about reducing waste, fraud, and abuse, this new proposed rule increases the administrative burden tremendously. Every researcher watching this unfold will make a rational decision: don’t start anything that will take a decade to finish. This includes not building a team around funding that could vanish, or asking the big questions that need patience and stability to answer. The most consequential science, the kind that produces the treatments and the breakthroughs that reach your doctor’s office twenty years from now, is exactly the science that would be abandoned first. This is still a proposal, so we can all do something Some worry this rule is already a done deal. But by law, OMB is required to open a public comment period. Those comments matter because they inform members of Congress, they can be used in litigation, and they create a public record. So here’s what you can do: Submit a public comment. The public comment period on this proposed change is open until July 13. Anyone can submit a comment, and OMB is required to respond to substantial ones. Each comment must be different to count as distinct; identical comments will be counted only once. Comment as an individual, not on behalf of your organization. Here’s a full resource to help you, with useful examples, but in general: Share a story about how science or federal funding has benefitted you or is involved in your work. Are you or someone you loved a cancer survivor? Do you know someone with Alzheimer’s? Have you received NIH/NSF or other federal funding? All of these can be stories you use to highlight why you care. Explain why you’re worried about these proposed changes. You can use the wording found here or in other resources to help you. Ask them to withdraw this proposed rule. Contact your elected representatives. Congress allocates money to federal agencies to spend, and it has oversight of how that process works. You can let your representatives know this proposed change concerns you and ask them to intervene. There are levers they can push that can help at this moment. Let others know why federal funding matters. This isn’t just about science, but ALL federal grants, including for education systems, defense projects, and more. The process, including the importance of federal funding, is invisible to many. We can all make it more visible by sharing how science benefits us and why we value it. You can also share this article, or any of the resources linked here, to help spread awareness! Bottom line We are quickly losing ground in scientific research in the U.S. More changes, like the proposed rule by OMB, would decimate our ability to conduct research here, leaving us all worse off: fewer treatments for pancreatic cancer, less research on pollution impacts, fewer answers for patients with rare disease, and more unaddressed health needs. The impact will be very real for all of us, regardless of where we stand politically. Using our voices for science is more important than ever. Love, LM Big thanks to Dr. Megan Ranney for reading this over and providing brilliant insights, as always. Dr. Liz Marnik, PhD, is Executive Director of The Evidence Collective at YLE and a science communicator and immunologist working at the intersection of public trust, science, and public health. You can find her on Substack, LinkedIn, Instagram and Threads. Your Local Epidemiologist (YLE) comprises a team of experts, ranging from physicians to immunologists to epidemiologists to nutritionists, working together with one goal: to “Translate” ever-evolving public health science so that people are well-equipped to make evidence-based decisions. The YLE suite of newsletters reaches over 475,000 people across more than 132 countries. This newsletter is free to everyone, thanks to the generous support of fellow YLE community members. To support the effort, subscribe or upgrade below: Subscribe
An Austin nonprofit wants to help food workers get health insurance
Good Work Austin's pilot program helped 25 food service workers get free health insurance this year. The organization's executive director wants to bring the benefit to more people in 2027.
Planetary Science Institute enters new era under Amanda Hendrix
The Planetary Science Institute is entering a new chapter under the leadership of Director and Chief Executive Officer Amanda Hendrix, who took over the Tucson-based nonprofit in May 2025 following
Chesterfield-based entertainment agency forms music education nonprofit
“(It’s) basically a proof of concept ... what we’re doing, who we want to help,” Harry said. “We’re going to lean preferably to nonprofit organizations in this space that are focused on kids. Getting them exposed to music at an early age.”
P. Terry’s redefines its business model; initiates employee ownership, profit sharing
The Employee Ownership Trust (EOT) will benefit 1,800 employees across 38 locations, allowing employees to share in the long-term values of the business.
Japan's Asics to spin off Onitsuka Tiger business
Japan's Asics Corp on Wednesday said it will spin off its high-end Onitsuka Tiger business, a key driver behind four straight years of record profit, in a bid to speed up decision-making and boost competitiveness.
Federal science agencies facing a ‘generational loss,’ nonprofit says
New research from the Partnership for Public Service finds that many science agencies were cut deeply in the Trump administration’s workforce overhauls.
Longtime CBS Chicago sports anchor Ryan Baker departing for new role in nonprofit sector
Longtime CBS News Chicago sports and news anchor/reporter Ryan Baker announced he will be leaving his role after nearly 20 years to enter a new chapter in the nonprofit sector.
McGuireWoods Ranked Again on American Health Lawyers Association’s ‘Top Honors’ List
The American Health Lawyers Association selected McGuireWoods for its annual “Top Honors” list. Serving more than 14,000 health law professionals nationwide, the AHLA is the nation’s largest nonpartisan, nonprofit educational...
Shepherd's Hope offers free sports and school physicals
The nonprofit is partnering with Nemours Children's Health and Who We Play For to provide physicals for uninsured youth ages 18 and younger.
We can create the future of science right now
Paul Litvak is the founder and Executive Director of the Robyn Dawes Institute and a Visiting Scholar at UC Berkeley. He has a PhD in Behavioral Decision Research from Carnegie Mellon where he studied emotions and the sunk cost bias. Over 15 years in industry, he solved a wide range of challenging technical problems. At Meta he created models optimizing the ad review process. At Google he ran experiments to measure social influence. At Airbnb, he was a product manager leading machine learning teams optimizing search ranking and price suggestions. He also co-founded and led product at Rhythmic Health, a venture-backed biosensing startup, creating an accurate low cost system using a color changing strip and a smart phone to measure salivary lactate. The bottleneck At this point, it is uncontroversial to say that science needs to stop using the PDF article as the unit of knowledge and currency. The unbearable slowness of scientific publishing, the profit motive and margins: I’m not saying anything new. The PDF also sucks because it’s hard to extract structured information, which makes it hard to do evidence synthesis. As a result, we do much less evidence synthesis than is needed. And evidence synthesis ultimately undergirds most policy and medical decision-making. I can see second-by-second real-time odds for any sporting or newsworthy event, but a school board can’t see the best evidence on whether their 8th graders should be taught algebra. As a society, we don’t treat this as an important problem. Again, not controversial. Not only is the problem well understood, but the solution has already been laid out. What we need is AI-assisted living evidence synthesis - (1) an open knowledge graph of atomic claims, (2) claims linked to evidence, (3) assessment and synthesis of each piece of evidence, and (4) continuous updating with new data. What few realize (yet) is that the technical capacity to build this vision for a significant portion of science already exists. Not only that, scientists and startup teams are already building many of these components. I know this because I’ve been surveying the space and talking to many of the builders. There are some missing pieces: for example, evaluations of how well some of the components work. But at this point, most of what’s missing is a fully end-to-end working integration of all of these parts. In the rest of this essay, I’m going to lay out all the parts of a working living evidence layer for science and who is working on them, and propose concrete next steps for building this system. What’s now possible The diagram above outlines the components of a living evidence synthesis platform, including some of the teams working on each component1. Scientific PDFs are processed into claims with associated evidence. The evidence is subjected to a forensic audit, methodological evaluation and robustness and reproducibility checks. Finally it’s given a weight in a continuously updating synthesis. What follows is a description and status of each component and a few of the teams working on them. Document understanding The first thing you need to be able to do is turn an article into structured data. Mostly that means parsing PDFs. There are often multicolumn layouts that confuse non-specialized PDF to text processing libraries. For scientific papers, there is the added complexity of parsing formulas and tables and figures. This is a really hot area - there are startups offering APIs, and it seems like a new open source package gets posted to Github every few weeks. What follows isn’t exhaustive. A package called GROBID was the state of the art for a while, they didn’t update their package for nearly two years until very recently. In the meantime reducto.ai released an AI powered PDF extraction API, PaddleOCR became popular, IBM released a model called Docling, and both Mistral and Gemini created models and libraries. I also know of at least one other well-funded psychology research group working on a paper parser. By contrast, there are few open evals in this space, with no extensive evals for complex table comprehension in particular. Nonetheless, I’m confident this will be a solved problem soon, given the combination of LLM advances and developer interest. Hypothesis level extraction There has been increasing interest in comprehending the extracted text of papers and linking information to evidence for each hypothesis. A lot of work has already been done. Trialstreamer (Marshall et al. 2020) and RobotReviewer LIVE (Marshall et al. 2023) demonstrated automated extraction of trial population, intervention, and outcome at scale on clinical RCTs. PaperQA2 (Skarlinski et al. 2024) and Ai2 ScholarQA (2024) extended this to retrieval-augmented question answering with citation grounding. Elicit, Consensus, and SciSpace operationalized claim-level extraction for end users. OpenEval (Booeshaghi et al. 2026) is the most recent and most ambitious: 1.96 million atomic claims extracted from 16,087 eLife manuscripts using Claude Sonnet 4.5, grouped into ~299,000 results, with LLM evaluations showing 81% agreement with human peer review on a 2,487-paper subset. None of these solutions link claims to test-statistics, as you would need to evaluate randomized controlled trials. This is why I built the evidence.guide API - to extract hypotheses and associated test statistics from behavioral science papers. The best public eval of this kind of extraction I’m aware of comes from the recent SCORE project - they had humans code thousands of psychology papers to extract their claims by hand. It would be extremely helpful to the world if all scientific PDFs were available as structured open data. I’ve been working to make this happen, both directly at Berkeley and through coordination with large entities I can’t yet speak of; as hard as it is to do, I think it’s possible2. Forensic audit A lot of work has been done on forensic audit, but some gaps remain. Of course, for biology papers that rely on images for evidence, there are a variety of tools (notably Proofig and ImageTwin) to spot anomalies. These are still well short of what sleuths like Elizabeth Bik can do on her own, but these tools are constant companions among fraud analysts. There’s someone working on auditing Excel files for anomalies, and a number of teams are automating numerical checks like GRIM and SPRITE, including Scrutiny project, the INSPECT-SR team as well as statcheck. The regcheck team is building a way to use AI to compare preregistrations to analyses in papers, to ensure there aren’t significant deviations. Nonetheless, there are many other kinds of anomalies to screen for, both public and less publicly known. And there are no formal evals for anomaly detection that I’m aware of. Still, there’s a lot to draw from in this space and I’m pretty certain we will be able to scan papers for most kinds of obvious anomalies in the near future. Methodological review This area has been white hot, though I fear for many of the startups in this space, because this capability may become commoditized. There are at least six different AI peer review companies, including Refine.ink, Reviewer3, ReviewerZero.ai, Q.E.D. Science, Paper Wizard, and Isitcredible. Coarse (a pun on refine) was also recently created as an open source alternative. These systems provide qualitative feedback on the content of papers, spotting methodological weaknesses and mathematical errors. They seem to work pretty well, and many academics report bitterly that they exceed the average quality of typical peer reviewers. But there are few evals here either. What evals exist so far involve using LLM-as-judge (circularity problems abound) or comparing against human reviews of questionable quality. What you’d ideally want is an eval that measures capturing known errors in papers3. Reproducibility and robustness Another active area has been using AI agents to automate computational reproducibility4 and robustness5 checks in papers that report numerical results. For more recent papers where data and code are available, AI agents can see whether they can re-run the analyses and produce the numbers reported in the published paper. In addition to a handful of individual academics who have been experimenting using Claude Code for this, the Institute for Replication is a leading group working on building an end to end system. The evals related to this problem are the most mature, with CORE-Bench (Siegel, Kapoor, Narayanan 2024) and PaperBench (OpenAI 2025) available to benchmark agents on this task. There is also work on getting AI agents to test alternative ways of analyzing the data to ensure the results are robust to small analytic design choices. Synthesis This is the most underdeveloped area where significant investment is required. Although some automated evidence synthesis systems exist — for example, otto-sr is building an AI agent to write systematic reviews — none of these incorporate the full range of paper level signals to weight evidence appropriately. Nor is there anything like an eval or a gold standard for a good systematic review. Arguably Cochrane reviews are the closest we have to gold standard human systematic reviews, though I’ve heard academics in the know complain about their uneven quality. A key question for a synthesis platform is how to weight anomalies and methodological issues in assessing the quality of a piece of evidence. This is an unsolved problem and one I’m very keen to work on. Continuous updating There are many pieces of basic infrastructure available for monitoring for new research and initiating updates. OpenAlex is the current open citation graph. Retraction Watch integrated into Crossref in October 2023. Scite tracks how citations support, contrast, or mention prior claims. The Living Evidence Network demonstrated continuous-update workflows in clinical guidelines. Engineering this is a relatively straightforward task. When you look over this technical architecture and all the progress being made, it’s hard not to be optimistic that a living guide to scientific evidence will be built. The stakeholders are ready The social infrastructure for this is starting to coalesce — it’s not just a pie in the sky academic exercise to imagine this coming into existence. Institutions like the Center for Open Science, the Institute for Replication, the INSPECT-SR, the Living Evidence Network and more are all working on scaling work to improve research quality. Funders are also aligned. The Sloan Foundation has funded living evidence work through COS. Coefficient Giving supports the Institute for Replication and COS. The Astera Institute and the Institute for Progress have shown interest in this space. NIH has established an Office for Replication and Reproducibility. Although there are (very unfortunately) serious headwinds in science funding generally, there is an active group of funders interested in metascience. A brief word about what I’ve been doing at RDI. First, as a Visiting Scholar at Berkeley I’ve been actively figuring out how a non-profit and a public university can conduct and make public the results of large-scale academic article data mining. With some of the money I raised from donors, I commissioned a legal analysis of recent case law and publisher text data mining (TDM) agreements in order to understand whether a massive open data mining of academic articles is possible (with caveats, it is). I’ve also been working to bring together stakeholders in this space, and identify gaps. I’ve also been doing some software development in this space, with more to come. A pilot proposal The assumption undergirding all of this is that an AI, given all this information, would make the right judgment about a scientific claim with lots of conflicting evidence, weighing all the factors appropriately. That’s the hypothesis we need to test. Randomized control trial research is the best place to focus on first. RCTs are used to make many of the important decisions in society - from medical trials to public policy changes. And they use a relatively uniform set of inferential statistics with lots of known and available diagnostics. Behavioral science experiments, within the broader realm of RCTs, should be first used as a testbed whose results can be generalized. Because behavioral science is at the vanguard of open science practices, replications abound (there are thousands of them) to serve as ground truth training data. Key Hypothesis Therefore the pilot would test, in behavioral RCTs that have been replicated, whether the quality of evidence for a claim can be used to accurately predict whether that claim will replicate. Secondary Hypotheses Compared to claims that replicated, non-replicated claims demonstrate a greater share of forensic anomalies in their source literatures. Hypothesis level claim and statistic extraction is accurate enough to scale living evidence without onerous human review costs. Replication prediction is more accurate than prediction markets6 or journal prestige. If all the different quality signals we gather do accurately predict which studies will replicate, then we can use that model to score evidence to power the living evidence layer. Why this is informative regardless of outcome If the pilot succeeds, the architecture extends to medical RCTs (where Living Evidence already operates and integration is mostly about claim representation), then to slices of basic biology with stable replication structure. If it fails, the field learns which quality signals are load-bearing and which ones metascience has oversold. Either result is a contribution to knowing what the literature supports. Implications for funders Because this burgeoning ecosystem of builders already exists, a well-informed philanthropic or government funder could play a crucial catalyzing role in bringing this future about. They could play at least three roles: creating open structured datasets, publishing open benchmarks and incentivizing the solving of key technical challenges. First, open archives of papers that the government maintains, like PubMed, could be turned into structured data amenable to large scale metascience and claim aggregation. I know the US government already has an interest in doing this, though some key open questions remain unanswered. How do you determine the best models and systems for accurately extracting information from papers? How can you establish a robust way to allow researchers to flag errors and correct them? And finally, how do you create a legal regime in working with publishers to maximize the scope of available papers? For the latter, a university or a private philanthropy may be better positioned to make structured data publicly available under journal subscription terms or fair use. Philanthropists or government funders could also coordinate to create or commission benchmarks that evaluate whether important problems have been solved. For example, an open benchmark for claim extraction from a range of different scientific article types would be extremely helpful. Ensuring the underlying data are accurate is vital for creating these evaluations. I’ve discussed opportunistically using various human-created datasets for this purpose, but a consistent problem is that errors in human data make it difficult for them to serve as a gold standard. Finally, with structured data and benchmarks available, the government or private philanthropy could use them to incentivize groups to develop machine learning systems that meet these benchmarks. Prizes are one potentially valuable tool for this. For example, you could establish a prize for a system that accurately updates a living meta-analysis for a small set of claims. Prizes are particularly useful as signals of problem importance, and can help create vibrant ecosystems of public and private research—see, for example the role the government played in kickstarting the current work on nuclear fusion. Conclusion The drawbacks of the current scientific publishing system are known. Scientists agree, metascientists agree, philanthropists agree: the published PDF plus citation graph isn’t the right substrate for maintaining a representation of the evidence base in science. The pieces needed to build the alternative either already exist or are rapidly taking shape. The community is forming around exactly this problem, with concrete partnerships and shared infrastructure. A pilot should start on behavioral science RCTs because that’s the slice of empirical science most amenable to legibility, where replication ground truth is richest, and where the failure modes are best documented. What’s been missing is the galvanizing mission to assemble these pieces into something that works. That’s what I’m proposing to build. *** 1 I have a broader field map that I’ll release publicly soon. This is me, building in public! 2 If this is something that you are excited about, please reach out and talk to me. 3 More on this very soon too! 4 This tests whether, given the code and the data, you can get the same statistics as reported in the published paper. 5 This tests whether the results are the same as a paper’s given alternative analytical decisions in conducting the analysis (like outlier omission). Closely related is the idea of a “multiverse” where you come up with many different ways of answering the same underlying research question with the same data, and test whether the results hold in all those alternative methods. There’s been work on the latter as well. 6 Some of the replications, e.g. those from the SCORE project, had paired the experiments with forecasts from prediction markets. So we get to look at this for free.
Sarah Shelke and Kyra Wagner Named 2026 Student Voice of Mental Health Award Recipients by The Jed Foundation
[June 9, 2026, NEW YORK CITY] — The Jed Foundation (JED), a leading nonprofit that protects emotional health and prevents suicide for teens and young
Main Line Health, United Healthcare contract dispute could leave 32,000 patients out-of-network later this month
The nonprofit health system's current UnitedHealthcare contracts for employer-sponsored insurance and Medicare Advantage plans expire June 30. The plans cover 32,000 Main Line patients.
Honeywell lifts annual profit forecast ahead of aerospace spinoff
Honeywell on Monday raised its annual adjusted profit forecast weeks ahead of the spinoff of its aerospace business.
China's global e-commerce push stalls as Iran war lifts costs, dampens demand
China's e-commerce export engine is faltering as surging jet fuel costs and weak demand from lower-income consumers in the West linked to the Iran war threaten profits for big online platforms like Temu , Shein and AliExpress .
Global airlines slash 2026 profit forecast on fuel shock from Iran war
The global airline industry nearly halved its 2026 profit forecast on Sunday, citing conflict in the Middle East that has driven up fuel costs, disrupted key air corridors and exposed the fragility of a sector operating on thin margins.
Windsor nonprofit working with various animals for mental health support
A woman in Windsor began a nonprofit in 2023 in hopes of relieving stress and improving mental health among her peers. She did it in a way that might not come to mind immediately, and that's animals.
The Pokemon Company posts its best numbers ever in latest yearly financial results report
A new report went up this week detailing The Pokemon Company’s latest financial results, and once again, records were achieved across the board. For net sales, The Pokemon Company recorded 531 billion yen for more than a 29 percent year-on-year increase. Operating profit came in at 144 billion yen, which was a 43 percent jump. Finally, net profit came in...
My 10-year-old started a vending machine business
Christina Nicholson says her son Landon launched a vending machine business at 10 and quickly learned lessons about profit and patience.
Hilda S Renteria
Scope of work: Renteria oversees the firm's audits and attestation engagements, focusing on governmental and nonprofit sectors. She is responsible for completing financial and single audits, implementing new financial reporting standards and driving the firm's audit services growth.Biggest professional win: In 2023, she was featured in Illinois CPA Society's Insight Magazine for her role in expanding the firm's audit practice, surpassing growth targets and introducing new technologies.Other contributions: Renteria co-founded the Prado & Renteria Foundation in 2014 to support Indigenous communities and first-generation college students. She serves on the Illinois CPA Society Government Report Review Committee and is a member of the American Institute of CPAs.
See the vintage hotel NYC is converting into affordable housing
Developers, nonprofit leaders, and New York government are partnering to convert Manhattan's Stewart Hotel into hundreds of affordable homes.
Denver sports nonprofit expands one year after facing possible closure due to funding loss
Sports nonprofit expands one year after facing possible closure due to funding loss
How America Broke The World Cup
The 2026 World Cup is shaping up to be the most profitable tournament for FIFA and the most expensive for fans in history. But why?
Norm Lewis to headline Studio Tenn’s ‘One Night Only’ gala
Middle Tennessee’s premier nonprofit professional theatrer company, Studio Tenn, welcomes the return of its annual fundraising gala, “One Night Only: Summer Starlight Serenade” to Liberty Hall at The Factory at
The Players Alliance announces 20-year sports business professional as new CEO
The Players Alliance, a nonprofit organization comprised of current and former professional baseball players aiming to “make the game more accessible through increased representation,” announced Friday the addition of Dr. Jamil Northcutt as executive director and CEO. He began his role in May, according to a release. Northcutt has spent
UNC Kenan-Flagler students work with NC nonprofits
Master of Science in Management students help with challenges like hurricane relief and workforce development.
American science and innovation are at risk. We need your help.
The American Physical Society is a nonprofit membership organization working to advance physics by fostering a vibrant, inclusive, and global community dedicated to science and society.
Business Incubator Center celebrates 40th anniversary
Nonprofit has supported launch and growth of businesses in Western Colorado for four decades
Business Incubator Center celebrates 40th anniversary
Nonprofit has supported launch and growth of businesses in Western Colorado for four decades
Exclusive: South Korea labour minister calls on tech firms to share excess AI profits with suppliers, staff
South Korea's labour minister called on the country's major tech firms to share the spoils of their massive windfall profits, warning that unprecedented chip-sector gains stemming from the AI boom risked widening a gap in inequality.
UCare paid CEO $1.28M during collapse, including a bonus
Hilary Marden-Resnik and a dozen top executives received incentive compensation last year as the nonprofit health insurer staggered toward its demise.
National Science Foundation grant puts Chicago at the center of an expanding water economy
A $45 million National Science Foundation grant will help nonprofit Current expand a Great Lakes program to turn wastewater into useful economic resources.
RFK Jr. Seeks To Peek at Americans’ Medical Records for Clues on Autism and Vaccines
To collect and scrutinize millions of Americans’ health data, U.S. health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. aims to work with state organizations that help health systems share medical records. In Nebraska, millions in federal dollars has flowed into one nonprofit cooperating with Kennedy’s project.
Macy's Lifts Sales Outlook; GameStop Collectibles Business
On this episode of Stock Movers with John Tucker: - Macy's (M) shares are on the move after it lifted its sales outlook for the year, a sign that the company's focus on growing its luxury business and improving its assortment is paying off. - GameStop (GME) shares are climbing after the video-game retailer reported a record quarterly profit driven by its collectibles business. Sales overall climbed 14% to $835.3 million. Net income of $389.6 million was the highest ever for a quarter in the company's history, GameStop said in a regulatory filing Tuesday. - Palo Alto (PANW) shares are dropping as the security software company reported results following a 61% year-to-date rally. The company reported third-quarter results that beat the average analyst expectation and raised its full-year forecast for key metrics, but failed to meet elevated buyside expectations.
Americans of all political stripes want to regulate ultraprocessed foods. Is anyone listening?
Leading scientists and nonprofits who say they — and the public — are fed up with regulatory inaction back a new movement to spur reform on ultraprocessed foods.
Franklin Templeton says Wall Street fears blockchain because it threatens its profits
Jenny Johnson, Franklin Templeton's CEO, said blockchain and crypto threaten a huge number of business models that exist today in traditional finance.
The AI industry's profit problem is getting bigger, Goldman Sachs says
Chip companies have captured outsized profits, while companies above them in the AI supply chain have yet to show comparable economic returns.
As Corporate Profits Surge, America’s Small Businesses Get Left Behind
Between Trump tariffs, rising gas prices and labor supply shocks, Main Street businesses are seeing declining profits and slower hiring. Is uncertainty their new normal?
Most Business Owners Are Leaving Money on the Table. This Bar Expert Figured Out Why.
How Bar Design Essentials author Tobin Ellis is helping operators stop prioritizing look over workflow to unlock peak-volume profits.
Coffee Conversation: Science Riot making science fun with comedy program
While science may not be the easiest or most entertaining subject to many, the non-profit Science Riot has made it their mission to put the fun back into STEM. The
Coffee Conversation: Science Riot making science fun with comedy program
While science may not be the easiest, or most entertaining, subject to many, the non-profit Science Riot has made it their mission to put the fun back into STEM.The organization's
World Cup cash grab: How politics, greed fuel FIFA's monopoly
Once a festival of affordable global fandom, the World Cup now is giving FIFA a prime opportunity to reap record profits from soccer fans.
'Toughest quarter yet:' Eagleville shop reflects challenges facing small businesses
Bank of America data shows small business profits hit a two-year low in April. Eagleville shop owners share how community support is key.
Soros-backed nonprofit accuses NJ Gov. Sherrill of spreading 'MAGA propaganda' on ICE detainees
A Soros-backed nonprofit organized a protest outside Gov. Mikie Sherrill's office, accusing her of spreading MAGA propaganda amid Newark ICE protests.
Barcelona ‘considering’ re-signing former attacker
La Liga giants Barcelona are mulling over the possibility of bringing Jan Virgili back to the club this summer.This would come with a view to selling the winger on for a profit over the weeks to follo...
Inflation continues to eat away at the profits of small businesses
Inflation remains a growing concern for Georgia's small businesses. This is leading some entrepreneurs in DeKalb County to seek additional ways to access capital, such as loans.
9 Stamford businesses, 1 nonprofit cited for serious April violations
Eight Stamford restaurants, a nonprofit and a catering business were cited for serious violations during April health inspections, reports show.
Deadline looms for Seminole County nonprofit serving kids in need of sports gear
A Seminole County nonprofit that supports youth athletes is calling on the community to help find a place to store and distribute sports equipment.
More than profit: Baltimore entrepreneurs blend business with community service
Black entrepreneurs in Baltimore are using their businesses as vehicles for community impact, offering resources that extend far beyond their products and services. From literacy initiatives and youth programs to mutual aid and criminal justice advocacy, local business owners are investing directly in the people and neighborhoods around them.
The Final Frontier Is Becoming Big Business. Here Are 3 Space Stocks to Buy Now.
The easy money on SpaceX was made before the IPO even happened. Here are three space stocks offering more potential profit.
Bankers association elects new board, nonprofit hires first-ever chief advancement officer
Take a look at some of the recent promotions and new hires announced at south Louisiana businesses.
Public Notice: Ashland City Council Business Meeting Agenda - Ashland News - Community-Supported, NonProfit News
Ashland City Council Business Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 2, 2026Council Chambers, 1175 E Main Street Live stream via RVTV Prime at rvtv.sou.edu or broadcast on Spectrum 180. Public comment is welcome on
Des Moines nonprofit launches program to support diverse entrepreneurs
A Des Moines nonprofit has introduced the E-3 Program to help diverse small business owners address systemic gaps and foster growth.
Ravens and CareFirst offer a $50,000 grant for health
The Baltimore Ravens and CareFirst are offering a 50000 grant to a Maryland nonprofit for mental health support.