SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " meth " 2,316 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Nokia, SAP and Microsoft Enter Strategic Multi-Year Agreement to Advance Cloud- and AI-Driven Business Transformation
Nokia will accelerate its enterprise transformation using RISE with SAP Methodology, with SAP S/4HANA hosted on Microsoft Azure.
Samsung hints the Galaxy Ring 2 could do something no Galaxy wearable has done before
A senior Samsung executive has revealed that the next-generation Galaxy Ring will bring a promising compatibility upgrade.
Simon Says... Buy This OpenAI Mechanical Keyboard Thingy
It's a collaboration between OpenAI and Work Louder. It does something or other with Codex.
Gaining biological insights through supervised data visualization
Nature Computational Science - This study introduces RF-PHATE, a supervised visualization method that preserves data structure while revealing biological patterns, enabling insights into disease...
Woman says popular oil change business left her engine in the backseat
“What they pulled out of my car looks like something from a sci-fi movie.”
UNC sports give you the chance to be a part of something bigger
"The more I thought about it, the more I realized how deeply sports are woven into the culture of this university. Being a UNC student means inheriting a lifetime of 'we get to’s' through sports."
Supreme Court won't revive Alan Dershowitz's $300 million suit against CNN
Dershowitz had urged the court to reconsider New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. The landmark First Amendment case that made it harder for public figures to win libel lawsuits because it requires proof that an outlet knowingly published something false, or showed a reckless disregard for the truth.
Supreme Court to review the legality of mass voter purges in the weeks before an election
The Supreme Court will review the legality of mass voters purges in the final weeks before an election, as part of a larger case the justices are taking up examining the methods Arizona uses to keep non-citizens off the voter rolls.
Wendy Schmidt: Three centuries of science is something to celebrate
George Washington Died Not Knowing Dinosaurs Existed. Three Centuries Later, Science Has Never Needed More Defense.
Wendy Schmidt: Three centuries of science is something to celebrate
George Washington Died Not Knowing Dinosaurs Existed. Three Centuries Later, Science Has Never Needed More Defense.
Something Is Very Wrong with Modern Longevity Science
A new book argues that many of the world’s oldest people aren’t so old after all.
This Baker’s Business Is Booming (and It’s Not Just Because of the Cannon Fire)
Justin Cherry’s breads are in demand this semiquincentennial, as is his knowledge of historical baking methods.
Orlando Magic Have Something to Prove After Latest Power Rankings
New head coach Sean Sweeney faces immense pressure to transform Orlando's talented core into postseason contenders and silence doubters following a mediocre mid-pack ranking and trade rumors.
Lux and Samira announced for 2XKO
After the finals for 2XKO at Evo 2026 today, the developers decided to treat us to something special — namely a full reveal of the remaining characters for the game's first season.It was shown that Lux, the Lady of ...
AI As Conscious As That Toy Bird Is Thirsty
OpenAI and the like are using our fantasies about technology to bilk investors, if we want to protect the public we need to establish the difference consciousness and something mimicking it
Scratching bug bites feels good – but science says don’t do it
You’ve likely heard it since childhood: Don’t scratch that bug bite or rash, you’ll make it worse. But why would something that feels so good be bad?
3 Traps Health Systems Fall Into When Trying to Improve Their Culture
Cultivating a positive culture is a priority for hospital leaders, but many are making avoidable mistakes. Myra Gregorian, Seattle Children's chief people and transformation officer, outlined some of these common blunders — such as not involving frontline staff in decision making and assuming that simple communication methods are sufficient.
6/27 Gamethread: Giants vs. Braves
Logan Webb vs. Bryce Elder.
Gunnar gives back: O's shortstop surprises local kid with specialized cleats
BALTIMORE -- The story of 11-year-old Declan Lefevre’s youth baseball career is inspirational. When Declan was about 4 years old, a doctor noticed his legs were different lengths. And it wasn’t something he would grow out of, either, which is something his parents -- father Jeff Lefevre and mother Nichole
AI Is Helping Small Businesses Get More Done, But It’s Far From The Only Productivity-Booster Helping Them Expand
Getting more done in less time is easier than ever for solopreneurs and small business owners, thanks to the ease of hiring contractors, using QR codes, touchless technology and other affordable methods.
Scratching that bug bite might feel good at first but science explains why it's a bad idea
You've likely heard it since childhood: Don't scratch that bug bite or rash, you'll make it worse. But why would something that feels so good be bad?
GameThread: Detroit Tigers vs. Houston Astros, 6:40 p.m.
Detroit Tigers (35-46) vs. Houston Astros (40-44) Time/Place: 6:40 p.m., Comerica ParkSB Nation Site: The Crawfish BoxesMedia: Detroit SportsNet, MLB.TV, Tigers Radio NetworkPitching Matchup: LHP Framber Valdez (4-5, 3.91 ERA) vs. RHP Kai-Wei Teng (4-6, 4.03 ERA)
Amazon Prime Day Is Over, but Our Editors Found 131+ Best Deals Still Live
We don’t know how long these discounts will last, so if something catches your eye, add to cart and checkout ASAP.
Brewers Continue Testing Jacob Misiorowski's Limits
After touching triple digits with a record-shattering 105.5 mph heater, the Milwaukee Brewers flamethrowing ace escaped a bases-loaded jam to prove his elite resilience and Cy Young caliber endurance.
Maliq Brown Arrives In San Antonio & Finds Something Familiar
Brown is in a great situation, but it should also seem familiar
Yellowstone’s supervolcano may be fueled by something unexpected
Scientists have uncovered a new explanation for what powers Yellowstone and other supervolcanoes. Instead of a deep plume rising from near Earth’s core, a broad “mantle wind” may push hot rock beneath Yellowstone, generating magma closer to the surface. This process helps create a massive underground magma network and may explain how supervolcanoes remain active for long periods.
Scratching that bug bite might feel good at first but science explains why it’s a bad idea
WASHINGTON (AP) — You’ve likely heard it since childhood: Don’t scratch that bug bite or rash, you’ll make it worse. But why would something that feels so good be bad? A lot of things can cause itc…
Stenberg Excited To Join Sharks, Believes He’s NHL-Ready
Ivar Stenberg says he is ready to be in the NHL next season. After being drafted No. 2 overall by the San Jose Sharks, he becomes yet another another big-name, highly-skilled player in their under-23 group. “They have something really good going on, so super happy to join a special group,” Stenberg said. The 5-foot-11 […] The post Stenberg Excited To Join Sharks, Believes He’s NHL-Ready appeared first on San Jose Hockey Now.
Hightower president leaving after less than three months
Roberto Stewart, who was named president in April, had been tapped to lead the improvement of the firm's technology platform.
His Fortune’s From the Trash Business. His Basquiats Are Priceless.
In the last few years, waste-management billionaire Patrick Dovigi has become one of the biggest art collectors on the scene. But he’s still under the radar—maybe the shots fired on his home have something to do with that.
After 80 Years, Mathematicians Give Famed ‘Erdős Method’ an Upgrade
Decades ago, Paul Erdős used randomness to illuminate the vast and weird world of networks. Now mathematicians are making his technique even more powerful.
Making Our Own Luck
We are cross-posting a piece that former NIH official Kris Willis wrote for Macroscience. Kris is now the President and Founder of the Woodley Park Institute, for which I’m a board member. Picking winners or hedging bets? Federal science agencies have long wrestled with the question of how to ensure their billions of dollars of grants and contracts result in maximum benefits for Americans. On the surface, it might seem that a goal-oriented, interventionist style of management would be the best policy: prioritize our most pressing problems and distribute funding accordingly.This top-down strategy creates a unique hazard, though: bad choices can send resources in the wrong direction, resulting in slow progress that impedes the delivery of tangible benefits to citizens. Moreover, if decision makers pursue an applied advance when the underlying scientific principles remain poorly understood, they risk costly failures and a loss of support for the research enterprise at large. Examples include Nixon’s 1971 War on Cancer, undertaken on the premise that a cure could be achieved in less than a decade, the drive to build an operational commercial fusion plant by the mid-1990s, and the National Plan to Address Alzheimer’s Disease, which failed to produce the effective treatments and prevention strategies promised by 2025. The contrasting laissez-faire approach is to hedge your bets. If the path to an advance is impossible to predict, then the wisest choice might be to distribute funding to as widely as possible. The main risk of this strategy is that spreading funding thinly may limit the resources available to the most promising research, resulting in the same negative outcomes as the interventionist approach: limited support for the most promising topics, slow progress, and delayed returns. In reality, at science agencies like the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health, program managers navigate between these two extremes, setting some funds aside to target high-priority areas and using the rest to cover the widest possible range of meritorious proposals. This middle path seems like the most rational way to proceed, but it still requires making choices. How much should be set aside for high priority topics? What should those topics be? How should we define merit? Expert opinion can provide a helpful guide, but leading experts can have remarkably different opinions about what matters and what should be prioritized. Moreover, experts and administrators alike can be risk averse, giving an edge to high-profile, well-established concepts. What’s really needed is a data-driven framework to help guide decision-making, one that doesn’t simply repackage prestige or incumbency. Recognizing breakthroughs years in advance Many breakthroughs fail to attract funding or recognition at the earliest stages of development. Katalin Karikó, for example, spent years struggling to win grants for work on mRNA that would eventually win her and Drew Weissman a Nobel Prize. Similar stories can be told about Jim Allison’s groundbreaking studies leading to the development of cancer immunotherapy, Stan Pruisner’s demonstration that prions can self-replicate without DNA, or Robin Warren and Barry Marshall’s proof that Helicobacter pylori, not stress, causes ulcers. Yet at some point, the scientific community recognizes and responds to transformative breakthroughs like these. How does that change happen? And what if science funders could identify the areas that are on the cusp of a breakthrough? Those questions led my collaborators and me to study how scientists responded to past breakthroughs. Based on patterns in that data, we developed a means of predicting future breakthroughs, using biomedicine as a proof of concept. It’s worth taking a moment to describe how our approach works. Briefly, our prediction process begins by grouping the 18 million or so peer-reviewed papers in PubMed, the authoritative database of biomedical research, into roughly 50,000 unique topics. A small subset of these topics are so widely acclaimed as breakthroughs that they have been recognized with a major prize like a Nobel or a Lasker Award. We theorized that studying the development of these outliers over time, especially before they gained acclaim, was the key to identifying future instances of them. After defining topics, we chose 21 representative breakthroughs and asked what they looked like before they won prestigious prizes. To answer that question, we re-ran our topic-mapping algorithm repeatedly, winding back the clock one year each time, stringing together the years to follow the progress of each field as it grew and advanced. We found that in each case, the years leading up to a discovery followed a pattern: a burst of papers on a new, rapidly evolving topic, many of which quickly became influential. These characteristics—the percent of papers that are new, the percentage of papers that are brought in from other topics, and the influence of each individual paper—can all be measured separately for any given topic. Together, they act as a predictive signal that is detectable an average of five years before a transformative discovery is made, and up to thirty years before the discovery receives a major prize. Scanning the current research landscape for topics that display this signal allows us to predict what work will likely produce a future breakthrough. Each year we analyzed includes four or five signals, a number that appears to have remained constant across a twenty year time frame. In their classic work on the sociology of science, Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar established that the desire to participate in a major discovery is an important motivator for scientists as they consider whether they should take up (or abandon) a research problem. Although further work is needed, the simplest explanation for our results is that this behavior is widespread enough to detect at scale. A foundational advance, or something like it, draws the attention of scientists and causes them to change the direction of their research. They vote with their feet, staking their own reputation and careers by publishing on and citing the new idea. That upswell of interest is the foundation of our breakthrough signal. What kind of research does our model identify as a breakthrough? After building a model based on the patterns in our 21 preselected breakthroughs, we tested it by identifying all early signals of discovery from 1994 through 1997. Of the 18 signals we found in that time period, 17 can be traced forward in time to a breakthrough. Examples include super-resolution fluorescence microscopy (see the image above), the directed evolution of proteins and enzymes (Chemistry Nobel, 2018), and sequencing the human genome (National Medal of Science, 2008). The discovery of the role of leptin signaling in obesity is a particularly interesting case study. Around 1950, scientists noticed the existence of a type of lab mouse that suffered from a unique inherited form of obesity. When given the freedom to choose their own diet, these mice ate more than normal and preferred food that was high in fat. Researchers had few clues as to why the animals overate; early experiments pointed to the existence of a soluble ob factor found circulating in the bloodstream that regulated appetite, but its identity was unknown. In 1994, Jeffrey Friedman and colleagues identified and sequenced the ob gene, noting that the protein it encoded appeared to fit the profile of a circulating factor. A year later, a trio of high-profile publications demonstrated that ob was a hormone that regulated body weight and fat deposition by regulating appetite. One of these was co-authored by Friedman, who christened it leptin from the ancient Greek word for thin. Using our model, the data from 1996 make it clear this advance would become a breakthrough. Scientists had flocked to study the biology of the new hormone, generating the flurry of new papers and citations required to produce a signal. One of these demonstrated that serum leptin concentrations reflected the amount of adipose tissue in the human body, providing clinical validation of the earlier mouse studies. Before the identification of leptin, scientists were unable to point to a specific molecule that controlled appetite and adiposity, so that it was impossible to rule out non-physiological causes of obesity; its characterization fundamentally changed our concept of weight gain. In 2010, Friedman and fellow pioneer Douglas Coleman were awarded a Lasker for the discovery. Our work also identifies breakthroughs in clinical practice and behavioral and social sciences, even though these areas are less likely to draw the attention of major prize committees. One example that falls into this category is the introduction of endovascular aneurysm repair, a minimally invasive surgical procedure for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm, a leading cause of death among Americans over the age of 65. Relative to the previous standard of care, it reduces in-hospital mortality by almost four-fold. In 2017, Timothy Chuter received the American College of Surgeons’ prestigious Jacobsen Innovation award for his multiple refinements to the technique. Another under-recognized breakthrough identified by our model is the development of standardized survey instruments to assess the quality of life for HIV+ patients. The antiretroviral cocktails introduced in the mid-1990s reduced AIDS mortality, but treatment came with serious side effects. The new evaluations showed that patients whose disease progressed had worse physical functioning than Americans with other chronic diseases, while those who were asymptomatic maintained a health-related quality of life on par with the overall US population. This evidence made it possible for patients and activists to argue that even in the absence of a total cure, and in spite of the side effects, alleviation of symptoms was a worthwhile priority for clinicians. My colleagues and I have failed to identify any significant recognition for the physicians and health policy experts who pioneered this advance, although in 2016, researchers called for the World Health Organization to set targets for good health-related quality of life as part of its framework to end the AIDS pandemic. From forecasting to funding How should science funders use our predictions? Any serious discussion of what we should do with this new capability needs to begin with an understanding of its limitations. We can’t (and shouldn’t) invest all of our resources in the small number of topics predicted to produce breakthroughs. Innovative new fields are born from existing ones; they rarely arise de novo. If funders don’t maintain a diverse portfolio, the breakthroughs of tomorrow will have no antecedents. Think of this as eating the seed corn, or killing the goose that lays the golden egg. There are also multiple goals of funding beyond basic scientific discovery, including translating discoveries into clinical practice, developing new technologies, supporting economic development, and training new scientists. The investments needed to accomplish these goals are likely different from those required to support emerging breakthroughs. Finally, we must be aware that we may not capture every instance of a breakthrough. The concept is fuzzy, and not every significant discovery is recognized with a major award. Further, breakthroughs are rare, meaning that our dataset is, by necessity, small. This makes formal estimates of accuracy challenging. Although our overall success rate appears to be high, any one signal may turn out to be a false positive. We found one apparent example: the development of the third generation COX-2 inhibitors, Vioxx and Celebrex, which were much celebrated in the early 2000s as effective but non-addictive pain relievers, meets all the algorithmic criteria of a breakthrough. Five years after it received FDA approval, researchers demonstrated that Vioxx was associated with serious cardiovascular complications, and the manufacturer voluntarily pulled the drug from the market. Celebrex remains available, although like other NSAIDs, it carries an FDA warning for increased cardiovascular risk. Decision makers who were overly focused on the breakthrough potential of this research might have wasted substantial resources nurturing an area that ultimately proved to be a failure—but so would those who relied on expert opinion at the time. That said, the potential benefits of funding the next mRNA vaccine or cancer immunotherapy years earlier than we might have are large. When we can’t assume the outcome of an action, it’s worth conducting an experiment. Can targeted support for areas that are poised to produce a breakthrough increase the return on scientific investment without cannibalizing future advances? With the necessary administrative infrastructure in place, conducting this experiment would be straightforward. First, identify all the breakthrough signals between 2018 and 2023, select half at random, and commit to a decade of investment. For biomedicine, a six year window should yield about 30 topics with the potential to produce a breakthrough. Providing strong support to half of these might be accomplished for $300 million a year. That’s roughly half of the recent annual budget of the NIH Common Fund or around 20% of the fiscal year 2025 budget for ARPA-H. After five years, then again at ten, compare to see which group — the one that was actively managed, or the control — produced more breakthroughs, and on what timescale. Although we used biomedicine as an example, the same experiment could just as well be run for physics, materials science, or any other discipline. Any attempt to undertake such an experiment should keep three points top of mind. First, we can predict the topic of future breakthroughs, but the people and vision for how to move the work forward are still important. In practice, this means success requires active program managers with the expertise to develop the science and the authority to do so, including by recruiting investigators. Second, we would be wise to learn from the failures of past attempts to fund transformative research. High among these are funding modestly repackaged work, confusing the genuinely novel with the merely unfamiliar, and relying too much on incumbent investigators. All of these risks can be mitigated by thoroughly and intelligently integrating high quality data into portfolio management. Finally, we need to have patience. Even with strong funding support, producing a breakthrough takes time. If supporting breakthroughs is the best way to nurture the birth of new fields, we also need to accurately describe and properly manage the other two stages, so that we invest wisely throughout the productive lifetime of ideas and divest once they reach the point of diminishing returns. We would benefit from more study of all of these phases, especially the transition from one to another. More research could answer questions like: When does a breakthrough become an established field? How do the availability of funding, the size and characteristics of the available workforce, and the accumulation of evidence that disagrees with prevailing models affect a field’s decline? Exactly how do old ideas give birth to new ones, and can we speed up the process? The more we understand about the dynamics of scientific progress, the better we can maximize the odds that our curiosity leads to results. I’d call that finding a way to make our own luck.
Check politics at the door? Not at many workplaces, researcher says
When people think of workplace segregation, they usually think of race or gender. Yet Americans are also sorted at work by something employers rarely measure: how they vote.
Rubio’s spin on the Iran MOU sounds different from Trump and Vance
For more than a week, America’s top diplomat was conspicuously quiet about something that would have seemed very much in his wheelhouse: a nascent agreement with Iran. But now Secretary of State Marco Rubio is speaking.
How should European scientists respond to the US AI kill switch?
Earlier in June, Europe’s worst fears of technological dependence were confirmed when the White House ordered the AI firm Anthropic to stop non-US citizens using its leading models. This kill-switch moment crystalised anxieties in Brussels that the continent, lagging the US on the creation of leading-edge AI models, is now a technological of vassal of Washington. The shock has specific implications for European scientists and universities. Some governments are now worried that with AI being integrated into labs, Donald Trump now has his finger hovering over an off switch for European science. “Having restrictions on this tool, it can have an impact on our own research,” said France’s research minister, Philippe Baptiste, at the VivaTech conference in Paris on June 18.Baptiste, himself a former academic, said that colleagues in mathematics had recently warned him they were now cut off from leading-edge US models, risking their work. “This model is not available anymore now because of the US restriction, and for the first time this had an impact on mathematics,” a field where large language models (LLMs) are making a significant contribution, said Baptiste. So, should European scientists avoid relying on US models in the future? Or would this be a self-harming overreaction? And how is AI being used in science, anyway? What happened?On June 12, it emerged that Washington, citing cybersecurity concerns, had ordered Anthropic to stop non-US citizens using two models: Claude Mythos 5, and Claude Fable 5, a version of Mythos but with guardrails to prevent abuse. Anthropic said Washington’s concerns were overblown. But forced to follow the order, yet with no way to check who was using the models, the company suddenly shut down access for everyone, US citizens included. There’s still no agreement on how to restore broad access. But last week, Bloomberg reported that select US companies, and the US government, still had access to Mythos despite the ban, but the EU’s cybersecurity agency Enisa had been shut out. Class division of researchersIn the longer term, access outside the US should be restored, said Marcel Salathé, co-director of the AI centre at the Federal Polytechnic School of Lausanne (EPFL), because a permanent restriction would be financially ruinous to US AI firms. “Even Trump will eventually budge to economic pressure,” he said.However, US AI firms might end up operating rather like banks, doing due diligence on users of their leading-edge AI models, he went on.European scientists are unlikely to fall foul of such checks, he said. But having a Chinese postgraduate in their lab, or doing a type of research the US disapproved of, could potentially result in access being denied. “It will create a sort of class division of researchers,” he said. More than frontier modelsHowever, successfully deploying AI in science is about far more than just having access to leading LLMs such as Mythos.Instead, many science-specific tools, most famously Alphafold, which predicts protein folding structures, require “far less” computing power to train than frontier models, well within the capabilities of European supercomputers, according to a recent analysis by the Arq Foundation, a Brussel-based AI think tank. Instead, tools such as Alphafold are possible because certain fields, like protein folding, weather prediction or astronomy, have large, clean, standardised datasets that can be used to train predictive models. Rather than compute, “data is the central constraint for AI for science,” the report says. For example, a less powerful physics model trained on CERN’s data “will be more valuable than the best model without certain data,” said Bengüsu Özcan, author of the report. European advantage?Europe could therefore steal a march by using its scientific data and infrastructure to create models US digital giants cannot. “They might actually match or go even beyond what these big [US] companies are doing,” said Özcan.Indeed, some European start-ups hope to create automated testing labs to create the kind of standardised data that could speed up the discovery of new materials. Materials scientists say there’s currently too little data to train models. AI scientistsHowever, even if the bottleneck for AI in science is often data, rather than compute, being at the mercy of the US for LLM access could still become a problem for European scientists. A new class of “AI scientists” based on leading LLMs is also emerging, Özcan’s report says.Unlike domain-specific tools like Alphafold, these try to automate day-to-day scientific work, by providing an overarching tool that coordinates specific models to synthesise existing literature, generate hypotheses or run analysis of data. The problem for Europe, however, is that these tools are sometimes based on US leading models. Google Deepmind’s AI Co-Scientist, for example, is built on Google’s Gemini LLM. Systematic failureThese scientific automation tools are still in their early stages, and still exhibit “systematic failures on scientific tasks,” Özcan’s report says. One of the problems is that the messy, day-to-day process of scientific discovery is largely not documented, meaning LLMs don’t have a good source of data to learn how scientists actually work. Meanwhile, some tasks, such as literature synthesis, don’t typically require access to leading edge models.However, the performance of AI scientific assistants could improve as companies such as Google pour resources into developing them. Rely on US“Unfortunately, for scientific assistants, there is not much we can do right now except rely on US frontier AI,” said Antoine Bosselut, a natural language processing expert based at EPFL. Chinese-built open models, which can run on local computers, lessening the risk of a shutdown, are touted as one alternative to US dependence. There’s also Mistral, once seen as Europe’s main AI hope, but the Paris-based company has seen its recent models fall behind in performance. But the Chinese alternatives are generally not as capable as US frontier AI models, said Bosselut, unless paired with fiddly, custom tools that allows them to act as independent agents. “Most scientists do not have the time,” he said. Don’t jump ship yetAlthough the kill switch moment is seen a warning shot for European scientists, it doesn’t mean labs should abandon US AI tools immediately. “I do not think the right response is simply to abandon US-based models and systems under the banner of sovereignty or independence,” said Mattias Björnmalm, secretary general of the Cesaer university association. “That would be an overreaction.”Related articlesEuropean sovereignty in AI requires ‘ugly trade-offs,’ say experts Robotic lab start-up makes case for €500M EU-funded materials testing facilityAI in science: is it useful? Instead, European researchers need to ask themselves whether they’re becoming dependent on technology that could be turned off in Washington, said Özcan. “They might not see this today, but they should really start asking this question,” she said. European researchers need a plan B, said Salathé. “I would recommend to every researcher, very proactively explore alternatives.”Own toolsIn addition, Björnmalm and others want European research institutions to develop their own scientific AI tools.Instead of signing AI deals with US digital giants, European universities should be using this money to create their own models, which may end up being superior for research, said Sabine Leonelli, an expert on the use of AI in science at the Technical University of Munich. “Universities in Europe seem to be happy to sign commercial contracts with US companies on the assumption [their AI tools] are better,” she said. But US frontier LLMs are typically opaque, and have been developed without independent scientific input, she said. “This is not good enough for science.”Last year, Swiss researchers released Apertus, an LLM designed to be completely transparent, from its development methods to its training data. The idea is that this makes scientific tools built on top of the model far more reproducible than with closed, commercial alternatives.“Europe needs more of this: serious capacity-building that gives researchers, universities and companies credible options,” said Björnmalm.
Another roadblock for DOJ campaign against trans health
New bill proposes expanding methadone access, $5.7 trillion on U.S. health care, and more health news from Morning Rounds
Scientists have just unlocked the secrets of an ancient scroll torched by Mount Vesuvius
After a centuries-long struggle, scholars managed to read five feet of text, using machine-learning methods they hope can unlock further discoveries.
Walmart Business Targets the Invisible Work Slowing Small Business Down
Running a small business can take up a big chunk of its owner’s time. Even something as simple as ordering the breakroom snacks each month can add up, and
Can Bardella learn the Meloni method?
Also, in Thursday’s edition: Spain sues Commission, EEAS sec gen, Taliban
Pinky’s restaurant owner inks distribution deal for startup cheesecake business
“It’s a new challenge. I’m learning a whole new industry with something I’m familiar with, which is food,” said Steve DeRaffele, who launched Rio Cheesecakes earlier this year.
Trump kicks off the Great American State Fair after musicians pulled out
A number of musical acts backed out of the event on the National Mall last month, concerned about being part of something that appeared political.
Houston Methodist receives $110M donation, largest in health system’s history
The donation, made by The Brockman Medical Research Foundation, is the largest in the hospital system's history.
Bears are working on a bill for an Illinois stadium
Indiana keeps waiting for something that may never happen.
2026 Short Course: Putting Social Science in Motion: Concept and Method (QMMR) -
Putting Social Science in Motion: Concept and Method (QMMR) Half Day Short Course | Register here 2026 APSA Annual Meeting & Exhibition — Boston, MA 1:30 pm – 5:30 pm This short course addresses both [...]
Startup’s strategy challenges EV industry assumptions
A new EV startup led by a former Amazon executive is betting that a low-cost, highly customizable pickup starting at just under $25,000 could help it achieve something that has eluded many EV startups: profitability, CNBC reports. The central goal for Slate Auto and CEO Peter Faricy is to make a full-size, practical truck accessible […]
A NASA satellite caught a giant tsunami doing something no one expected
A Pacific-wide tsunami triggered by a magnitude 8.8 Kamchatka earthquake gave scientists their first detailed satellite view of a major tsunami in motion. The observations revealed unexpected wave behavior and helped uncover a larger earthquake rupture than earlier models predicted.
Record profits, terrible service: something’s got to give for US consumers
Experts say consolidation and market power have left consumers paying more for less
Underground methane gas leak leaves a dozen Owasso businesses displaced, stranded
A sudden environmental scare has left a popular Owasso shopping center wrapped in caution tape and at least 12 local family-owned businesses completely stranded
Lincoln County Fair offers week of family entertainment
STANFORD, Ky. — From rodeo action and demolition derbies to monster trucks and fireworks, organizers say this year’s Lincoln County Fair will offer something for nearly everyone while continuing a […]
Cheap stuff that doesn’t suck and is under $25 for Prime Day
Everyone loves something affordable that’s actually good.
Roku May Help Fox Avoid Aggregeddon
(Welcome to the “Most Important Story of the Week”, my bi-weekly strategy column analyzing the most important (but often not buzziest) news story of the last two weeks. I’m the Entertainment Strategy Guy, a former streaming executive who now analyzes business strategy in the entertainment industry. Please subscribe.) Scrolling through links over the last week, I stumbled across this fun headline: Wow. Formula 1 (the sport, not the docu-series) is the perfect “dog not barking”. As a reminder, each week in my Streaming Ratings Report, I call out the shows that miss every viewership chart. I dub them “dogs not barking”—like the Sherlock Holmes mystery—because without any data, we forget they even exist. This is in contrast to something like, say, a film flop—cough The Mandalorian and Grogu cough—where even underperforming at the box office is widely discussed here, there and everywhere. In the US, Formula 1 is now in “no public viewership data, so not discussed” territory. After moving to Apple TV from its former home of ESPN, basically no one talks about it. Apple did publish an initial, unsourced, unsubstantiated, (dare I say unserious) datecdote claiming more folks are watching Formula 1 on Apple than ESPN, but we haven’t gotten any updates since. This stands in contrast to when the sport streamed on ESPN, and ESPN PR provided weekly viewership figures. Formula 1 was, at best, a niche sport in America—averaging 1.3 million viewers in the Big Data Plus era—but now it’s basically anonymous. (And yeah, after moving to Apple, I very, very, very much doubt its ratings increased.) Unfortunately, that story isn’t quite big enough to warrant a section in today’s “Most Important Story of the Week” column, but I wanted to call it out, because otherwise, no one else will! Certainly, no one will write articles about the silence/ratings decline, unlike when they wrote breathless articles connecting the rise in viewership to Netflix’s Drive to Survive, including Reuters just last month. (This is a topic I’ve tried to provide a moderate/nuanced/non-hyped take since 2022.) Anyway, on to this week’s issue. I was a bit worried I didn’t have a juicy topic, then the Murdochs went out and did their Murdoch thing: buying Roku. So that’s the story of the week, and it happens to touch on quite a few themes of the streaming wars and the disruption therein. I’ll cover that, plus why more consolidation in Hollywood media looks likely, more good news on the Hollywood labor front, whether we’ll see an uptick in production in Los Angeles, some Broadway and theme park news, cellphone prices going up in the third world (and possibly everywhere), and more. Subscribe Most Important Story of the Week - Another Big Media & Entertainment Merger The story of the week is clearly Fox is buying Roku for $22 billion. I read a lot of good strategy takes on why Fox bought this streaming TV device maker—and I’ll have mine below—but what fascinates me more is how this deal connects to quite a few themes of the streaming wars, linking to everything from the pace of M&A to “aggregeddon” to Netflix’s recent M&A actions/inactions to the shift to advertising from pure play streaming and more. The only topic I can’t really connect it to is my old theory, “never bet against Rupert Murdoch” because he isn’t the one who did this deal; his son Lachlan inked it. (Do I think he provided advice, even at his 95 years of age? Sure.) That plus I have one additional piece of strategy for all entertainment players, inspired by this deal. So let’s dive into all those topics, starting with why I like this deal. Roku is a Great M&A Buy
Mediterranean-inspired diet with added methionine extends healthy lifespan in mice
A plant- and fish-based, low-protein diet paired with small amounts of an amino acid commonly found in eggs, meat and dairy increased healthy lifespan and decreased frailty and fat mass in mice, according ...
Something in space may be changing alien signals before they can reach Earth. Scientists have a solution.
New research suggests that alien radio signals may be transformed by plasma from their home stars — and scientists on Earth could be overlooking prime evidence of alien intelligence.
Amino acid-supplemented ‘longevity diet’ linked to longer healthy lifespan
USC study finds low-protein diet paired with small amounts of amino acid methionine increased healthy lifespan, decreased frailty in mice.
Opinion | Covid Politics Don’t Have to Be Toxic
Nirav Shah is something that would seem anathema in contemporary politics: a public health technocrat who became a household name during Covid.
GameThread: Detroit Tigers vs. New York Yankees, 6:10 p.m.
Detroit Tigers (33-44) vs. New York Yankees (46-30) Time/Place: 6:10 p.m., Comerica ParkSB Nation Site: Pinstripe AlleyMedia: Detroit SportsNet, MLB.TV, Tigers Radio NetworkPitching Matchup: LHP Framber Valdez (3-5, 4.09 ERA) vs. RHP Gerrit Cole (2-1, 2.57 ERA) Lineups YANKEES TIGERS Amed Rosario – 3B Kevin McGonigle – 3B Ben Rice – DH Dillon Dingler – C Paul Goldschmidt – 1B Kerry Carpenter […]
Start Building With 30+ Prime Day Lego Deals on Star Wars, Minecraft and Botanical Sets
Save some cash on popular Lego sets with these Prime Day steals. We've found something for everyone, from Marvel fans to car enthusiasts.
National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association et al. v. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. et al.
The National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA) and its member, the Family Health Council of Central Pennsylvania (FHCCP), sued the Trump administration to protect the integrity of the Title X family planning program. Title X is the country’s only dedicated federal program for family planning services. For more than 55 years, the program has provided access to effective contraceptive methods, cancer screenings, testing and treatment for STIs, and other preventive services, with priority given to patients with low incomes.
Wicks working to show he's ‘worthwhile' for Eagles with a bet-on-himself deal
It might not be receiver by committee in Philadelphia after all. That’s if newly acquired Dontayvion Wicks has something to say about it.
The Salsa Wanderosa review: I misunderstood this bike completely
With full suspension, a Class 3 motor and 2.35" tyres, Salsa's Wanderosa looks like a drop-bar e-MTB. After weeks of riding, I discovered it's something far more interesting
Watch 'Legally Blonde' prequel 'Elle' first trailer
Throw on something pink because Elle Woods and Bruiser Woods are back.
Digital Health Institute welcomes French delegation to explore pathways to collaboration
The Houston Methodist-Rice Digital Health Institute recently welcomed Frank Marchetti, Consul General of France in Houston, and his team to discuss health care innovation and avenues for international collaboration.
Why Dan Levy wanted to do something very different from 'Schitt's Creek' for his next show
Dan Levy is all about grounding his latest TV comedy, 'Big Mistakes,' in reality, consulting with an expert in 'mafia-related stuff' for its storyline.
A cloud-based miniscope for neurosurveillance of brain health and disease in freely behaving animals
Nature Methods - A miniscope with cloud-based operation and multicontrast capabilities enables continuous recording of neuronal activity, hemodynamics or cellular dynamics over multiple days. This...
Penicillin Allergy Labels May Pose Health Risks in Kids
Children with a penicillin allergy label have higher rates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization, surgical site infections, and all-cause mortality than those without the label.
A Submarine Found Something Strange On The Ocean Floor
A submarine named Ran was sent below the ice shelf in Antarctica and found some strange readings before disappearing entirely. Here's what it found.
A Submarine Found Something Strange On The Ocean Floor
A submarine named Ran was sent below the ice shelf in Antarctica and found some strange readings before disappearing entirely. Here's what it found.
Ezekiel Emanuel: My father lived into his 90s. He understood something many successful men miss
The wellness industry wants you obsessing over biomarkers and supplements. One physician's life offers a simpler—and more effective—blueprint for aging.
Adam Minter: The farm crisis demands certainty from congress now
Something is breaking in farm country, and the warning signs are growing harder to ignore. The clearest indicator arrived this spring, when farm bankruptcies reached their highest level in six
New Orleans East Hospital breaks ground on $10 million inpatient behavioral health unit
Before Hurricane Katrina made landfall in 2005, New Orleans East was home to a 40-bed inpatient behavioral health unit at The Pendleton Memorial Methodist Hospital—the same campus where LCMC Health’s
Scientists Just Found Something Weird Inside Moss
A surprising discovery inside desert mosses could reshape scientists’ understanding of plant evolution.
Le'Stuff Antique Mall Celebrates 25 Years In Business ~ The Greatest Treasure Is The Owners
Le'Stuff Antique Mall Celebrates 25 Years in Hillsboro, Oregon. The amazing store is something special and it's owners are even more so.
The Most Important AI Company Isn't OpenAI. It Might Just Be This Under-the-Radar Business
While everyone is debating which model is best, one AI chip company is focused on something different.
🎥 World Cup highlights: What drama, Paraguay knock Turkey out
You couldn’t make this up! Having gone into the World Cup as something of a dark horse, Turkey already has to bow out after just two group-stage matches. The 0–1 loss to Paraguay sealed their earl...
USA vs. Australia takeaways: Winners of Group D, USMNT is redefining World Cup expectations — 'There's something about this one that feels different'
Italy’s prime minister says Trump made up a story about her supposedly begging him for something. She wouldn’t be the first
After an Italian media outlet reported that President Donald Trump said Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni had “begged” him for a photo at the G7 summit this week, Meloni quickly posted a response on social media. Trump, she said, had “completely fabricated” the story, and she was “shocked.”
The Averted Crisis of the Brendan Sorsby Ordeal
The NCAA needs to figure out how to enforce its rules before something goes wrong.
Researchers found a Wordle strategy that wins 99% of the time
Researchers developed a Wordle-solving strategy that succeeds 99% of the time by focusing on information gain rather than likely answers. The method uses Shannon entropy to identify guesses that reveal the most about the hidden word. Each guess is designed to slash uncertainty and narrow the possibilities faster. The result significantly outperformed more traditional Wordle tactics.
Something's missing at this U.S. Open: cursin', kvetchin' and complaints
The first round of this U.S.
Gambling made sports what it is today, according to new book
Gambling is not something that grew out of American sports. Sports in the U.S. exist in their current form because of gambling. We talk to the author of a new book on sports betting.
Why Buying Health AI Is Just the Beginning
Health leaders haven’t figured out how best to integrate AI products into their workflow, nor how to demonstrate the financial return on their investment, panelists said at a U.S. News Healthcare of Tomorrow conference in Washington Thursday. Health systems are struggling to “take something like ...
Why I Use a Business School Model to Teach History (Opinion)
Students who can see themselves in historical figures learn how to debate respectfully.
Reframing exercise: How simple physical activity boosts health | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
For many people, consistent exercise feels daunting — an all-or-nothing proposition in which setbacks signal failure and advice overwhelms. This discussion reframes physical activity as something accessible and sustainable by challenging common myths about exercise.
In Good Health: The Matter Of Male Fertility
When a couple struggles to conceive, the assumption is often that there is something wrong with the woman. Women are evaluated for infertility far more often than men. But male factor infertility accounts for about half of all infertility cases. And when that’s the case, men are less likely to talk about it, seek support, or even get tested in the first place. In this installment of our “In Good Health” series, we talk about male infertility — what causes it, what can be done about it, and what it’s like to go through it.Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.
The Sperm-Maxxing Bros Are Actually Onto Something
Wellness influencers have stumbled onto a huge issue when it comes male fertility, though not every solution they're pitching is good advice.
AI’s growing appetite for power is a public health issue. Here’s a fix
“AI is creating a new and largely overlooked strain on something fundamental to health,” write Sten H. Vermund and Patricia J. Kissinger.
MrBeast's next challenge? Writing a book. See the cover, title, plot.
If popular YouTuber MrBeast and bestselling author James Patterson have anything in common, it’s that they’re both game to try something new.
Scientists just found something weird inside moss
UC Riverside researchers have found evidence, for the first time, that desert mosses may host fungi inside their tissues. The finding offers a clue about how ancient life crawled from oceans onto dry land.
The economy looks steady on paper. Small businesses see something else.
New data shows small business owners are struggling with uncertainty, which could signal a wider economic slowdown.
When Health Results Raise Questions but Provide Few Answers
Older people are often treated as if their judgment is less valuable, creating the risk of a future where human intelligence is seen as something that depreciates with age.
Are all redheads born with freckles? Science reveals a surprising truth - Futura-Sciences
Why Rare Redheads Get So Many Stereotypes Redheads are already something of a rarity on this planet—think unicorns but with sunscreen in their bag! In fact, it’s estimated that only about 1 to 2% of the world’s population has natural red hair. The highest concentrations are mainly in Scotland and...
A ‘Dead’ Destiny 2 Now Has Something Players Can Grind For Forever
Destiny 2 may be dead, but it has given players a reason to play forever, if you're a collector, that is. Here's what you can get.
Latvia pilots citizen engagement in research grant evaluations
Latvia has introduced an element of citizen engagement to the evaluation of nationally funded research grants. The aim is to both create more connections between science and society, and to improve the quality of its evaluations. The move comes as research funders across Europe are experimenting with ways to improve evaluation processes in the face of a sharpened focus on science’s impact on society. Evaluators of grant applications submitted to Latvia’s Fundamental and Applied Research Programme (FLPP), the country’s main research funder, will this year have the option of consulting citizen feedback on challenges the public thinks science should focus on to inform their decisions. “In recent years, both public discussions and policy-level debates in Latvia have highlighted the importance of demonstrating how publicly funded research contributes to society, the economy and the resolution of real-world challenges,” said a source at the Latvian Council of Science (LCS), which manages the FLPP. “At the same time, research institutions themselves expressed interest in improving the project evaluation framework while continuing to ensure that funding is awarded to the highest-quality projects,” the source added. The citizen input comes from a survey that was conducted between 25 February and 16 March 2025, to which 1,737 people responded. It gathered information on what the public views as problem areas for Latvia, and the role of science and technology in providing solutions to these problems. A summary of these responses has been included as an annex to the FLPP 2026 call for proposals that evaluators can refer to, purely in an advisory manner, when judging proposals. Results from the survey show that the main problem areas identified by the public were in healthcare and public health, followed by the development of new treatment methods and medicines, and then digital technology, data security and cyber security. At the bottom of the list was research aimed at acquiring new knowledge about the universe, matter and the laws of nature. Further analysis looked at the public view of the possible role of science in solving these problems. The survey charted 4,167 individual responses based on open-ended questions that were derived from the participants’ answers. The analysis again found that medical and health sciences topped the scoring, with 788 responses referring to the field. Humanities and the arts were bottom of the list, with 625. Digging further into the details, the survey suggests citizens are aware of and concerned about a number of research areas. This includes technologies and innovation to improve the environment or reduce pollution, the development of modern military technologies and cybersecurity tools, and the development and application of artificial intelligence, among others. “We hope this initiative will help strengthen public trust in science and create a more meaningful dialogue between researchers and society,” the LCS source said, adding that it offers benefits to researchers, evaluators and to the general public. More space for citizen engagement in evaluationsThere is a gradual but increasing use of citizen engagement in research evaluation processes around Europe, especially in healthcare, but it remains relatively rare, said Henry Sauermann, a professor at the European School of Management and Technology in Berlin and an expert in citizen science.“Given that we are at a point where citizen involvement is extremely limited, there is presumably space for more, but it's not that we should do it just because we want to do it,” he told Science|Business. He said some research lends itself better to having citizen input, and this usually tends to be on the applied end of the science spectrum where the public can offer useful feedback based on their experiences. He added that advising scientists on certain topics to study is also a useful approach, in the way that Latvia is doing. “The public does fund a lot of science, there's a lot of tax money going into this. We of course do want to preserve academic freedom, but it's also not unreasonable to incorporate more feedback or input from citizens where possible,” he said. Related articlesCitizen science: where, when, and how to let the public contribute to researchHow can Europe cope with a flood of AI-assisted research grant proposals?Data Corner: Horizon Europe’s AI, digital and data call success rate is 5.2%There are several ways of involving citizens in science funding. The most minimal way is having a few representatives on a panel, such as members of a patient group or union. The most direct way is crowdsourcing funding for specific projects. There is an increasing number of online platforms that allow the public to chip in to support scientific proposals.Sauermann studied this in a recent paper and found that it can have its uses, but it still is not clear if there are benefits to it. There are various assumptions linked to citizen engagement, for example that it increases public trust in science, or that it provides a representative view of what the public thinks about science. These are not necessarily true, Sauermann found. People who participate in engagement activities tend to already be very trusting of science, and, on the whole, it is generally the well-off and well educated who contribute, giving a narrow view of public opinion. On whether citizen input can help manage the increasing number of proposals that are being submitted due to assistance from AI, Sauermann is more sceptical. “The obvious answer to the flood of AI-written proposals is AI-driven evaluation,” he said, adding that it doesn’t mean citizen engagement shouldn’t be a part of evaluations in a well thought-out manner. Southern Denmark’s successful approachOne successful example of citizen engagement in science evaluations was implemented in southern Denmark. Between 2019 and 2025, citizens in the region were invited to vote to fund one of five pre-selected projects in the field of healthcare. The project, called A Healthier Southern Denmark, was a collaboration between regional authorities, the University of Southern Denmark, and two media partners. Over the seven years, there were 75,000 votes and significant public engagement online and on social media. “It was a bit of a wild project, we’d never done something like that before and we were a bit nervous about what would be said in the media about it. But actually, people were very positive,” said Anne Kathrine Overgaard, one of the main organisers of the project from the University of Southern Denmark. The university and its researchers have learned a lot from the experience, particularly about engaging with society and shaping their research to match real-world needs. This is important with Europe’s increasing focus on competitiveness and bringing innovations to market faster, Overgaard said. She hopes to see more citizen engagement in evaluation processes and in science more broadly. “For many years, citizen engagement has been a bit of an add-on to proposals, just to check a box. But I think things are changing,” she said. It’s less about citizens just gathering data and more “about the dialogue between the public and the scientists,” she said. The initiative ended last year as the team wanted to regroup to find fresh momentum. The development of AI and AI-written proposals has made Overgaard reflect on how the project could be reworked to help evaluators. She hopes to bring it back in the future. “It could be a good idea to try this initiative again in a slightly re-worked format,” she said.
Planning Ahead Can Actually Make You Happier—Here's the Science Behind It
Research shows that simply having something to look forward to—big or small—can meaningfully boost your sense of well-being.
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.
AI and brain-computer interface allow speechless ALS patient to work a full-time job
The hardware isn't new, but a UC Davis research team's machine learning-powered method of translating brain activity in an ALS patient into sentences with 92% accuracy is
Jeff Bezos Just Raised $12 Billion. He’s Betting His Newest Business Will Create the Next Elon Musk or Henry Ford
Jeff Bezos is back in an operating seat for the first time since stepping down from Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN), pointing a $12 billion war chest at what he calls the engine of civilizational wealth: invention itself. In a CNBC interview on June 11, 2026, Bezos and co-CEO Vik Bajaj outlined Prometheus, a Series B round raising ... Jeff Bezos Just Raised $12 Billion. He’s Betting His Newest Business Will Create the Next Elon Musk or Henry Ford
Financing, regulatory concerns stall SunGas’ Louisiana biofuels ambitions
SunGas Renewables has halted development of its Beaver Lake Biofuels Project near Alexandria, ending plans for a major renewable fuels facility that would have converted sustainably sourced wood fiber into low-carbon methanol, 10/12 Industry Report reports. The project was expected to produce more than half a million metric tons of methanol annually while capturing and […]