SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " agrees " 284 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Breaking: LeBron James Agrees To Contract With Philadelphia 76ers
In a stunning turn of events, LeBron James is taking his talents to the Philadelphia 76ers. ESPN insider Shams Charania just broke the news that James is heading to the 76ers. He's agreed to a two-year, $8 million deal that includes a player option. Klutch Sports CEO Rich Paul confirmed this ...
Understanding the conversation around solar farming in New York
Not everyone agrees with the push to use New York’s farmland for solar farming.
NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani Just Rolled Out 50 Small Business Reforms. An Advocate Says It's Only the Beginning
While the reforms aim to ease some of the day-to-day burdens facing small businesses, not everyone agrees they go far enough.
Trump ally pledges to ‘work with people’ he disagrees with after Arizona primary win
Andy Biggs – a hard-right congressman endorsed by Donald Trump – won the Republican nomination for Arizona governor
Democrats could take initial vote on 2028 presidential primary calendar this week
Democrats could vote as early as this week on the order of their primary calendar for the 2028 presidential election, although the decision wouldn't be final until the full Democratic National Committee agrees.
Appeals court rejects Biden's bid to block release of audio from memoir ghostwriter interviews
Joe Biden disagrees with an appeals court's rejection of his effort to block the release of audio recordings of his interviews with a memoir ghostwriter.
Lakers' Matisse Thybulle: Agrees to sign with Lakers
Lakers' Matisse Thybulle: Agrees to sign with Lakers
Blackhawks' Connor Bedard agrees to lucrative five-year deal
The Chicago Blackhawks and Connor Bedard agreed to a five-year, $75 million contract as he rehabs from shoulder surgery.
Maximum Entertainment’s U.S. Subsidiary Agrees to Cathay Bank’s Request for Stipulation of a Receiver
Stockholm, Sweden, July 17, 2026 - Maximum Entertainment AB (Nasdaq: MAXENT B) (“Maximum Entertainment” or the “Company”) today announces that its U.S. subsidiary, Maximum Entertainment, LLC (the “Borrower”), has agreed to stipulate to the appointment of a court-supervised receiver as requested by…
Minister suggests Shabana Mahmood will use visa threats to deport Rochdale grooming gang leader to Pakistan
Cather Atkinson hinted that the Home Office may threaten to stop issuing visas to Pakistan unless it agrees to accept Shabir Ahmed
Sky Agrees £1.6 Billion Acquisition of ITV Media & Entertainment to Strengthen UK Media
Sky Agrees £1.6 Billion Acquisition of ITV Media & Entertainment to Strengthen UK Media
A wave of young Miami Cubans disagrees with abuela about politics in the Trump era
As Donald Trump touts his Miami support, a surprisingly large number of younger Cubans and Cuban Americans recoil at the Trump administration’s tactics.
Australia agrees to sell uranium to India, ending a long stalemate
Australia has agreed to sell uranium to India for peaceful purposes.
Step forward for long-planned entertainment venue
Wolverhampton council’s cabinet agrees to appoint an operator for the "box space"-style site.
Rogers agrees to take 100% ownership of Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment
Rogers Communications Inc. is moving to take full control of Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment after reaching a $4.35 billion agreement to buy the remaining 25% stake held by Kilmer...
25 best NASCAR drivers of all time
Arguing about the NASCAR’s most iconic drivers of all time is basically a second religion in the infield. The only thing everyone agrees on is that somebody got snubbed. The mix of drivers in the conversation tells the story of…
Comcast’s Sky Agrees to Acquire ITV Media and Entertainment
The £1.6 billion ($2.14 billion) deal will give the combined company more than 70% of the U.K. ad market and face extensive regulator scrutiny
Continental Agrees to Sell ContiTech Business to Lone Star Funds
Continental expects the deal to generate cash proceeds of approximately 3.1 billion euros, some of which will be used to cut debt, with around 2.5 billion euros distributed to shareholders.
EasyJet Agrees in Principle to Castlelake’s Latest Takeover Offer
The latest proposal—the fifth from Castlelake—stands at £6.90 a share. This is up from a previous proposal of £6.50 a share.
Oil slips after OPEC+ agrees to raise output targets
Oil prices inched lower on Monday after OPEC+ agreed to further increase its output targets from August while exports from key producers via the Strait of Hormuz are recovering, potentially adding to global supplies.
EasyJet agrees to £5bn takeover by US investment firm
Agreement in principle with Castlelake follows several rejected offers and means UK’s biggest low-cost carrier will be taken private
Anfernee Simons agrees to 2-year deal with Philadelphia 76ers
The Philadelphia 76ers agreed to a two-year, $12.3 million contract with guard Anfernee Simons. Simons averaged 14.3 points per game last season.
Subnautica 2 studio Unknown Worlds' CEO resigns as Krafton agrees to pay $250m bonus
Krafton has settled its lawsuit with the former leadership team of Subnautica 2 developer, Unknown Worlds, and agreed t…
Center Ariel Hukporti agrees to one-year contract with Sixers
The Sixers agreed to a deal with 24-year-old center Ariel Hukporti on the second day of free agency.
Krafton Agrees to Pay ‘Subnautica 2’ Bonuses as Developer’s CEO Resigns
After being fired over a $250 million payout dispute and then reinstated, Unknown Worlds Entertainment boss Ted Gill is leaving again
Norman Powell agrees to 2-year, $45 million deal with Bulls: report
Powell averaged 21.7 points per game for the Miami Heat this past season.
John Collins agrees to $51 million contract with Detroit Pistons
The veteran big man strengthens the Pistons' frontline.
Conduent agrees to sell tolling business to Quarterhill for $70M
Conduent Inc. announced on June 30 that it has agreed to sell its tolling business to Toronto-based Quarterhill Inc.
Supreme Court agrees to review ban on AR-style semi-automatic rifles in major Second Amendment case
The Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it will decide whether cities and states may ban people from owning AR-15 rifles and similar semiautomatic weapons, taking up a major Second Amendment dispute that it had previously declined to address.
Oregon Health Authority agrees to $630,000 settlement with ousted equity director
The sum includes more than $400,000 in back pay that the director would have received if she had remained at the agency until this year.
Bruno Genesio agrees two-year Marseille contract
Bruno Genesio is set to put pen to paper over a two-year deal as Marseille manager, according to a report from L’Equipe. The former Lille OSC head coach was identified by Les Phocéens as the ide...
Reports: Diomande agrees PSG move from Leipzig
Ivory Coast forward Yan Diomande has decided to leave RB Leipzig for Paris Saint-Germain, according to media reports. Broadcasters Sky and RMC, as well as transfer specialist Fabrizio Romano, reported on Sunday that the 19-year-old has agreed a five-year contract with the French Champions League winners.
🚨 BREAKING: Robert Lewandowski agrees multi-year deal with Chicago Fire
Major League Soccer looks set to add another iconic veteran presence to its ranks this summer, with Polish legend Robert Lewandowski reportedly primed for a move to Chicago Fire.Per The Athletic, the ...
'Godfather of SaaS' says you can't get truly rich working from home
SaaStr founder Jason Lemkin agrees with Flexport CEO Ryan Peterson's skepticism of remote work.
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.
A new paper argues Microsoft exaggerated its quantum claims a year ago
A peer-reviewed critique of Majorana 1 claims Microsoft did not conclusively demonstrate a working topological qubit. Microsoft disagrees.
Influence Media Agrees to Buy Anthem Entertainment's Music Assets
Influence Media has agreed to buy Anthem Entertainment's music assets for a price sources suggest is slightly over $650 million.
Judge agrees to set aside default entered against Jon Prosser in Apple lawsuit
Jon Prosser is getting a new chance to respond to Apple’s complaint over the leak of iOS 26 and the Liquid Glass revamp.
Vance says Iran agrees to nuclear inspections, as under Obama deal
Conversations with inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency could occur as soon as Monday, the vice president said, as negotiations continue in Switzerland.
CJ McCollum agrees to return to Hawks on 1-year, $21 million deal
McCollum was responsible for two of the New York Knicks' losses in the 2026 NBA playoffs during a first-round series with the Atlanta Hawks.
GOP Sen. struggles to say he disagrees with Trump allowing Iran to have ballistic missiles
OhioHealth agrees to void contracts that allegedly punished payers for including competitors in-network
The U.S. Department of Justice said the settlement will save citizens of the state money and open up the market to competition.
Judge who had sex in courthouse and attended political event agrees to exit Georgia election case
A federal judge who was disciplined after an investigation found that she had sex with a police officer in her chambers and attended a partisan event, then lied when confronted with the allegations, has recused herself in a fight over Georgia election records after the U.S. Department of Justice raised questions about her ability to be impartial.
Judge who had sex in courthouse and attended political event agrees to exit Georgia election case
ATLANTA (AP) — A federal judge who was disciplined after an investigation found that she had sex with a police officer in her chambers and attended a partisan event, then lied when confronted with the allegations, has recused herself in a fight over Georgia election records after the U.S. Departm...
Judge who had sex in courthouse and attended political event agrees to exit Georgia election case
A federal judge has recused herself in a fight over Georgia election records after the U.S. Department of Justice raised questions about her ability to be impartial
Who are the internal replacements for Cardinals trade chips?
Midway through June, I believe it is time we can all believe that the postseason is a real possibility for the St. Louis Cardinals this year. FanGraphs agrees, putting the Cardinals above a 50% chance to play in October, but we would still be smart to temper overall expectations for this season. The overall strategy […]
SpaceX IPO buyers are betting on an idea, not a business
Market Catalysts host Julie Hyman sits down with Epistrophy Capital Research Chief Market Strategist and The Drill Down podcast host Cory Johnson to discuss the upcoming SpaceX (SPCX) IPO. Johnson breaks down the company's key business segments and weighs in on its valuation. Asked whether he agrees with the proposed $135 IPO price, Johnson expressed caution, saying, "Projections out to the future to get to today's price are really optimistic."
Loma Linda University Health agrees to pay nearly $8 million settlement for improper disposal of hazardous waste, medical records
Loma Linda University Health officials agreed to pay a $8 million settlement over a lawsuit that was filed after a multi-year investigation by Riverside County and San Bernardino County officials found that medical records and hazardous medical waste were improperly disposed of.
Avista agrees to framework to provide single business with power equal to half of all Spokane County customers
Avista Corp. has entered into a memorandum of understanding with one "large load" customer that is seeking to use an amount of electricity that would be equal to more than half the combined power used by all residential and business customers in Spokane County.
Drake London reportedly agrees to 4-year, $141 million contract extension with Falcons
Drake London has played himself into becoming the Atlanta Falcons' No. 1 option at WR over the past couple of seasons. Now, he's been rewarded for it.
Nick Herbig agrees to four-year extension with Steelers
Nick Herbig is in the final year of his rookie deal, but the edge rusher won't be hitting free agency in 2027.
How Science Works
The 2nd Weather and Climate Livestream is now underway. It is organized by a group of early-career researchers concerned about declining funding for the field and eager to demonstrate how weather and climate research makes a difference in our lives. Last year’s event was a great success, drawing terrific press coverage including a piece in the NY Times. This year features a strong lineup of talks aimed at a general audience — I highly recommend tuning in. Share I gave a talk yesterday about How Science Works in Three Steps. You can see the short presentation here (I’ve appended a transcript below): And please tune into the livestream here. It runs through tomorrow at 6 pm ET. Thanks for reading The Climate Brink! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work. Subscribe Cleaned up transcript: Thank you, and thanks to everyone tuning in. I want to talk about something I think a lot of people don’t really understand: how science actually works. Arguments over any scientific topic — climate change, vaccines, you name it — revolve around competing claims. For climate change, the claims are: Is the Earth warming? Are humans to blame? What will the impacts be? Over the last 150 years, the scientific community has developed a remarkably robust method for sorting out which claims are true and which aren’t. That method is what I want to walk through. So how does science generate knowledge? If you ask a high schooler, they’ll give you the version they learned in ninth grade: an individual scientist forms a hypothesis, runs an experiment, and draws a conclusion. That’s more or less what happens at the individual level, though in practice it’s more iterative — you design, test, and refine all at once, landing on a slightly different idea each time until you reach a conclusion about whatever hypothesis you’ve ended up with. But this isn’t science. It’s only step one. Any individual scientist can make mistakes — scientists are human. Maybe there’s a bug in the code, maybe there’s an error in the experiment. Just because someone ran an experiment and reached a conclusion doesn’t mean it’s right, and scientists don’t treat a single result as settled truth. Step two is peer review, the first layer of quality control. The scientist writes up what they did and submits it to a journal, which sends the paper to other experts in the field. Those experts judge whether the methods are sound, whether it properly references prior work, and whether the conclusions actually follow from the data. Ask any scientist and they’ll tell you peer review is miserable — the comments come back brutal, often harsh, and you have to revise and resubmit, sometimes multiple times, before an editor finally accepts the paper. Peer review catches an immense amount of bad science, but it can’t catch all of it. Reviewers get sloppy or overworked, they miss obvious mistakes, and they can’t catch hidden errors — a bug in the code, a misread instrument. So a peer-reviewed paper making it into a journal doesn’t mean the paper is right. Nobody treats a single paper as the final word. That’s where step three comes in: the crucible of science. Important results get retested by the broader community. If you publish something interesting, it gets dissected. Sometimes people try to reproduce your work directly but more often they test its implications. If someone claims X is true, and that implies that Y is also true, then scientists will go check Y. If a claim survives this gauntlet long enough, it becomes accepted. That’s how we generate knowledge. Let me give an example: the ozone hole. In 1985 — and I doubt many people watching were around then, but I remember it well — Joe Farman and his colleagues published observations from Antarctica showing that a huge chunk of ozone was disappearing every year. This was shocking because most atmospheric chemists had expected ozone loss to occur at mid-latitudes and high altitudes, not over the South Pole. When scientists see something they don’t understand, they rush to explain it, and several competing hypotheses quickly appeared in the peer-reviewed literature. One pointed to chlorine chemistry from chlorofluorocarbons. A second blamed nitrogen chemistry, possibly driven by solar proton events — meaning the sun was responsible. A third argued it wasn’t chemistry at all but dynamics: winds were carrying naturally low-ozone air from the lower atmosphere up into the stratosphere. Then the community went to work testing which theory could survive the crucible. Aircraft flew into the ozone hole and found no nitrogen, ruling out the nitrogen theory. Measurements showed the air in the polar vortex was descending, not rising — which would bring high-ozone air down, eliminating the dynamics theory. Meanwhile, those same flights measured enormous amounts of chlorine, strongly correlated with exactly the regions where ozone was being destroyed. That became known as the “smoking gun” paper, and it established that chlorine chemistry was the cause. Through this process, a consensus emerged. And it’s worth being clear that this consensus is organic. There’s no vote, no poll, no meeting where it gets decided. Scientists go to conferences, talk to one another, and independently arrived at the same answer. It’s the ultimate free market of ideas. After the consensus was established, the peer-reviewed literature doesn’t even mention the rival theories — it simply takes chlorine chemistry as given. That’s what a consensus looks like. It doesn’t mean every single scientist agrees, but it does mean there’s no longer any legitimate debate. So where can you see what scientists actually think? It’s all in the peer-reviewed literature, which contains the entire historical record of the argument: the discovery, the competing theories, the debate, the testing, and finally the community coalescing around one answer. But there’s a lot of room for misrepresentation. You can dig up an old paper claiming the ozone hole was caused by dynamics and wave it around as if there still was a debate about the cause of the ozone hole — without mentioning that the idea was disproven long ago and that even its own authors no longer believe it. There’s a bigger problem, though: the peer-reviewed literature is written in a language I call “nerd.” It’s extremely hard to read — honestly, some of it is hard for me to follow. It takes graduate students years to work through the literature in a single field, so we can’t expect policymakers or ordinary people to do it. This is where scientific assessments come in. The most famous is the IPCC — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The job of an assessment is to read and summarize the peer-reviewed literature, synthesizing what’s settled, what’s been disproven, and what remains genuinely debated. To ensure the assessments accurately summarize the peer-reviewed literature, assessments are written by large teams, which are far less prone to bias than individuals and which dilute the influence of any one scientist with an axe to grind. The teams are deliberately assembled to avoid stacking the deck, and the reports themselves go through multiple rounds of peer review. That rigorous process is exactly why you can trust them and why people consider the IPCC to be the gold standard of what we know about the climate system. An assessment produced through a different process may well not be credible. You can even watch the consensus evolve across assessments. Take the attribution of warming. The 1990 IPCC report said the observed warming was broadly consistent with model predictions but also comparable to natural variability — in other words, we don’t know whether humans are responsible. By 1995, it concluded that the balance of evidence suggested a discernible human influence — a sentence only a committee could write, and one that barely commits to anything. By 2001, most of the warming over the previous 50 years was judged “likely” due to greenhouse gases; by 2007, “very likely”; by 2013, “extremely likely.” The 2023 report says essentially the same as 2013 — there’s not much stronger language available. So, to wrap up: science is our ultimate tool for deciphering the universe — the most successful method we’ve ever developed for determining what’s true and what isn’t. Our understanding is written into the peer-reviewed literature, so if you want to know what scientists think, that’s where to look. And for those of us who don’t speak nerd, scientific assessments are the Rosetta Stone — they translate nerd into English. Let me open the floor to questions. Thank you.
Fertitta Entertainment Agrees to Acquire Caesars Entertainment in $17.6B Deal
HOUSTON, LAS VEGAS AND RENO, NEV. — Fertitta Entertainment Inc., a private holding company controlled by the NBA’s Houston Rockets governor (i.e. owner) Tilman Fertitta, has entered into a definitive agreement to acquire casino and gaming giant Caesars Entertainment (NASDAQ: CZR) for $17.6 billion. Fertitta Entertainment plans to finance the acquisition through a combination of equity, assumed Caesars’ outstanding debt (approximately $11.9 billion) and new committed debt financing arranged by a consortium of 10 banks. Under terms of the agreement, Caesars shareholders will receive $31 in cash for each outstanding share, which represents a 49 percent premium to the company’s unaffected stock price on Feb. 25 (the last trading day before rumors of a potential transaction were reported) — $20.77 per share. Upon completion of the transaction, shares of Caesars Entertainment common stock will no longer be listed on the NASDAQ stock exchange. Caesars operates several major Las Vegas Strip properties, such as Caesars Palace, Harrah’s, Paris Las Vegas, Planet Hollywood, Horseshoe, The LINQ Hotel, Flamingo and The Cromwell. Fertitta Entertainment owns Golden Nugget Hotels & Casinos and operates more than 450 full-service restaurants around the world, including Landry’s, Rainforest Café and Morton’s. According to the press releases issued by both companies,…
Caesars Entertainment board agrees to acquisition by Golden Nugget owner
Harrah’s, owned by Caesars Entertainment, may soon have a new owner after Caesars announced it entered into an agreement to be acquired by Fertitta Entertainment Inc.
Caesars Entertainment Agrees to Be Acquired by Fertitta Entertainment
Caesars Entertainment, Inc. has entered into a definitive agreement to be acquired by Fertitta Entertainment, Inc. in an all-cash transaction valued at approximately $17.6 billion, including the assumption of approximately $11.9 billion of Caesars’ outstanding debt.
WSL, CBS Sports agrees 4-year U.S broadcast deal
The deal will run from the 2026-27 season through to 2029-30.
Caesars Entertainment agrees to $17.6B Fertitta takeover
Shareholders will receive $31 per share in cash, a 49% premium to Caesars' stock price before deal rumors emerged in February
Tilman Fertitta Agrees to Buy Caesars for $5.7 Billion
Fertitta Entertainment will pay Caesars shareholders $31 a share and assume about $11.9 billion of the casino company’s outstanding debt.
Caesars Entertainment Agrees to $5.7 Billion Fertitta Takeover
Caesars Entertainment Inc. has agreed to be bought by Fertitta Entertainment Inc. in a $5.7 billion, all-cash deal that stands to form a massive entertainment empire in the US.
Casino M&A: Caesars Entertainment agrees to buyout offer from Feritta Entertainment
Caesars Entertainment to be acquired by Fertitta in a $17.6B all-cash deal at $31/share (49% premium).
Conduent agrees to sell public transit business to Modaxo for $164M
Conduent Inc. has agreed to sell its public transit business, an operating unit of Conduent Transportation, to Modaxo for $164 million.
Mexico agrees to host Iran at 2026 World Cup
Mexican president Claudia Sheinbaum has confirmed her country will host Iran during the 2026 World Cup amid tensions with the United States.Sheinbaum said that FIFA had approached Mexico after the US ...
'Today, history moved forward in Florida' as House agrees to Groveland 4 compensation
'We are now one step closer.'
Budget conference: House agrees to Senate cost-of-living adjustments for retired ‘special risk’ employees
'The water is boiling; we’ll put the vegetables in shortly.'
Iowa Appeals court upholds Waukon business owner’s arson, animal death offenses
The Iowa Court of Appeals agrees with the Allamakee County District Court that the convictions against a Waukon woman were reached fairly and will stand.
Sherritt agrees to sell stake in Cuba mining business to company linked to former Trump adviser
Canadian miner Sherritt International Corp. has signed a non-binding agreement with Gillon Capital LLC.
U.S. government agrees to drop tax claims against Trump in broadening of IRS lawsuit settlement
The one-page document posted to the Department of Justice website Tuesday says the U.S. is “forever barred and precluded” from examining or prosecuting Trump, his sons and the Trump organization’s current tax issues.
Australian medical college leader suspended from position over alleged health and safety breach
Dr Sharmila Chandran suspended until 20 September as Royal Australasian College of Physicians agrees to work with regulator to meet its obligations
Whoa! Netflix is Sending Narnia Heading to Theaters...What This Means for the Future of Film
(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.) Here’s a funny thing about the debate over whether streamers should release their movies in theaters first: Both sides think the other side represents the “conventional wisdom”. If you’ve been reading me for any amount of time, or even just scanned my front page, you know I think movies make more money by having a robust theatrical window compared to going straight-to-streaming. I’ve published thousands of words on this topic. And for years, I felt like I was standing up to a wave of opposition. See, while the “put your films in theaters to make money” take was obvious at any point before 2019, post-streaming revolution, most of the trendy thinkers took the opposite point of view. Big names argued that Netflix putting their film straight-to-streaming (“S-to-S” from here on out) actually made more money. Netflix was “disrupting” theaters, just as they disrupted Blockbuster Video, and since innovation is always good, this too was a great idea. This thinking then leaked into the mainstream business outlets like the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg. I read many articles whose take boiled down to “Netflix makes tons of money from S-to-S releases” and “theaters were in structural decline” anyways. Covid-19 shutting down theaters and the 2023 strikes shutting down film production seemingly justified this point of view, as the box office struggled to return to 2017-2019 heights. Yet I’ve also read folks arguing the opposite point: the conventional wisdom says to put films in theaters! From some writers’ points of view, “everyone” actually agrees/agreed with my “send your films to theaters” take—especially the stodgy traditional studios—and folks still didn’t understand Netflix’s genius. I feel like, for the last two years, many people have argued this point as if it’s conventional wisdom. You know what? I may have been wrong. At this point, the “S-to-S strategy makes money” might be the minority viewpoint. Especially with the news this month that Netflix will put at least one film—Greta Gerwig’s Narnia film The Magician’s Nephew—in theaters in 2027 for a full 49-day run is big news. So that’s the story of the week, but I’ll also explain why they’re making this move now and why Netflix may not completely embrace theaters, along with other topics, like how I don’t buy Disney’s “super app” strategy, the latest good news out of the unions, my take on the latest attacks against free speech, and a whole lot more. Let’s get started. Subscribe Most Important Story of the Week - Netflix Goes to Theaters! Listen, I promise not to victory lap too hard today. As I just wrote, I’ve argued against sending films straight-to-streaming for—checks calendar—eight years now. Since 2018. Yikes. That’s a long time. And for years, others painted my thinking as “conventional” in that I was standing up for the status quo against trendy, cool disruption. And that’s not cool! But math is math, and I never could make the S-to-S numbers work. The only thing that ever enabled that model was Wall Street’s brief exuberance for it. It seems like the heads of Netflix now agree with me. (There were always rumors that former head of film for Netflix Scott Stuber argued internally for theatrical releases as well.) As they announced: “The Magician’s Nephew_—the first film in a Narnia series of films—will open on 12-Feb-2027, with a 49 day theatrical exclusive run.”_ I’m a little surprised at how little coverage this big change actually got. Credit to Bloomberg for leading with it and Matt Belloni’s The Town for highlighting it with the provocatively titled podcast “Hell Hath Frozen Over”. But after that? Instead of getting as much coverage as, say, the FCC’s latest egregious crackdown on free speech, this news story got crickets. But it’s massively more important for the future business of entertainment. So let’s start with the obvious question… Why Put Your Movies in Theaters? So…why should Netflix put (some!) of their movies in theaters? Well, I’ve already written that in a very, very, very long article from 2022: [ ](https://entertainment.substack.com/p/the-data-is-in-theatrical-films-massively) [ The Data Is In: Theatrical Films Massively Outperform Straight-To-Streaming Films ](https://entertainment.substack.com/p/the-data-is-in-theatrical-films-massively) Entertainment Strategy Guy · April 5, 2023 [ Read full story ](https://entertainment.substack.com/p/the-data-is-in-theatrical-films-massively) To summarize, theatrical runs make much more money, especially blockbusters, because they earn more money per viewing,1 and that helps boost home entertainment sales. Theatrical films also perform as well or better than the streaming-only films. Now, partially this is driven by increased marketing for said films, but said marketing ultimately boosts the awareness of the movies and drives improved streaming and library performance as well. Again, I’ve made this case after reviewing the economic models and streaming data for years. Just last week, Emily Horgan also made the case for kids films! Yes, it is probably conventional wisdom, but that’s also because it’s true! I’d also argue we’ve seen a lot of data in the various studios’ behavior. As I’ve noted before, the more a studio needs to make money, the likelier they are to put films in theaters. As such, Disney, Universal, Warner Bros., Paramount and Sony all send their major films to theaters. Even if they once made a big S-to-S push (*cough* Disney *cough*), they’ve since relented and returned to theaters. The tech companies don’t need to make money, per se, so it took them years to embrace theaters. Apple doesn’t need to make money because it doesn’t disclose their (likely) Quibi-sized losses each year. (They fear bad press more than losing money.) Amazon announced two years ago that they planned to make Amazon-MGM Studios/Prime Video profitable on its own, and guess what? Now they’re putting films in theaters. That leaves Netflix. They’re in between the “no need to make money at all” and the “desperately need to make money to offset linear TV declines”, so they had less pressure to put some films in theaters. Plus, for years, they were the sexy disruptor, and Wall Street rewarded them for that. (Honestly, they still do.) Yet, even Netflix likely saw the money they were leaving on the table (I’ve estimated it at an easy billion dollars before) so they changed their course. I heard one pundit argue that, because Netflix already makes so much money, they don’t need to make more money, which sort of goes against everything I’ve ever learned about business and economics. Again, to be super-nuanced, sending “films to theaters” does not mean EVERY film. TV movies have been a thing for decades. Lifetime films, Hallmark holiday films, Disney Channel Original Movies, and so on, don’t need theatrical runs. But films above a certain budget level (say $25 to 50 million) almost certainly need theaters to maximize their revenue. The Scenarios (with a Dose of Skepticism) Now time for some skepticism: it won’t surprise me at all if Netflix re-changes course. Specifically, Netflix announced that their Narnia film will go to theaters. And I’d bet anything we see KPop Demon Hunters 2: The Huntering2 also goes to theaters, cause it’s the surest hit outside of a Disney animated sequel right now. But how much does Netflix truly commit to theaters? They’ve already tried to emphasize that this is a one-off move. I see three broad scenarios:
Final Fantasy creator Hironobu Sakaguchi praises AI-generated FF6 remake teaser, is promptly told "please stop" by SaGa's Akitoshi Kawazu
Hironobu Sakaguchi, the father of Final Fantasy, praised an AI-generated teaser for a hypothetical FF6 remake, but SaGa creator Akitoshi Kawazu disagrees.
Winvia Entertainment agrees Rev Comps acquisition to expand UK prize draw operations (WVIA)
Winvia Entertainment (LSE:WVIA) has entered into an agreement to acquire the trade, business and selected assets of Rev Comps, a family-operated UK digital prize draw platform. The acquisition will be financed entirely from the company’s existing cash resources.
Reims’ Ewen Jaouen agrees to Newcastle United move
Stade de Reims goalkeeper Ewen Jaouen (20) has reached an agreement in principle to join Newcastle United, as per a report from Sacha Tavolieri. Jaouen impressed last season while on loan at USL Dun...
NFL: Aaron Rodgers agrees new one-year deal with Pittsburgh Steelers
Quarterback Aaron Rodgers, 42, opts to continue his NFL career and agrees a new one-year deal with the Pittsburgh Steelers, according to reports.
Aaron Rodgers reportedly agrees to 1-year-deal with Steelers
Former NFL MVP Aaron Rodgers is running it back with the Steelers as he reportedly agreed to a one-year deal to return to Pittsburgh.
Xabi Alonso to Chelsea: Former Real Madrid and Bayer Leverkusen coach agrees four-year contract to be head coach at Stamford Bridge
Xabi Alonso has been out of work since being sacked by Real Madrid earlier this year; Chelsea were looking for a permanent replacement for Liam Rosenior, who was let go after just four months in charge; Alonso had been linked with the Liverpool role but Arne Slot looks set to stay
ActBlue C.E.O. Agrees to Testify Before Congress About Foreign Donor Vetting
The Democratic fund-raising group, which backs candidates up and down the ballot, has been the subject of scrutiny by Republicans.
Esse Health Agrees to Pay 2.53M to Settle Data Breach Lawsuit
American Multispecialty Group, doing business as Esse Health, a Missouri-based independent physician group serving the greater St. Louis area, experienced Esse Health has agreed to pay $2,525,000 to settle class action litigation stemming from an April 2025 data breach that affected more than 521,000 individuals.
Apple Backs Google After EU Orders Android Be Opened Up To AI Rivals
The company agrees with Google that it would put European users' privacy and safety at risk.
Trump wants to rebrand ICE as NICE. Not everyone agrees
President Donald Trump has made clear on social media and in interviews that he thinks Immigration and Customs Enforcement needs a rebrand — more specifically, a new name: National Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or NICE.
PayPal Agrees to Settle US Probe of DEI Business Initiative
PayPal Holdings Inc. has agreed to resolve a US Justice Department probe into allegations the company had violated federal civil rights laws when it started an initiative to support minority-owned businesses.
News | Software business agrees Manchester move after outgrowing WeWork offices
CMap has exchanged contracts at Arkwright
Steve Kerr reportedly agrees to 2-year deal with Warriors after exit rumors, remains highest-paid coach in NBA
Steve Kerr had reportedly been conflicted about his future with the Warriors for weeks.
UVM Health must cut expenses by $300 million in three years, independent liaison finds
It’s a goal that the hospital network agrees it needs to meet, in a marked shift toward cooperation.
Science diplomacy lessons from a North Korean volcano
Mount Paektu, a mythic, active volcano on the border between North Korea and China, is almost the epitome of a scientific challenge that crosses political lines. In 946 CE, it erupted in one of the five biggest volcanic events of the past 10,000 years, kicking up huge quantities of ash and sending destructive mud flows down river channels for hundreds of kilometres. Should this happen again, the entire region, including easternmost Russia, South Korea and even Japan could be hit. “It’s definitely got the potential to be big,” said James Hammond, a professor of geophysics at Birkbeck, University of London. An eruption on the scale of 946 would have “huge regional impact.” For the past 15 years, Hammond has helped lead a groundbreaking collaboration with North Korean scientists to study the volcano, navigating scientific sanctions, tough export controls on scientific equipment and a long, pandemic-enforced exodus from the country. Although he seems more at home on far-flung research expeditions – before speaking to Science|Business, Hammond was camping out on a Greenland ice sheet – he has also advised the European Commission on its changing science diplomacy strategy. His long experience with North Korea has made Hammond sceptical of blanket bans on science collaboration, no matter the country.This is a live question in Europe, where in the wake of Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, institutional ties with Russian universities were almost entirely severed, although some scientists fear this could undermine our understanding of climate change’s impact on the Arctic. Here, Hammond tells the story of the Mount Paektu mission and the policy lessons he takes from it. Ominous rumblingsThe genesis of Hammond’s collaboration came in 2002, when Mount Paektu began to rumble ominously. Earthquake activity picked up and the volcano began to emit unusual gases. North Korean scientists took notice. “People felt we need to know more about this volcano,” said Hammond. In 2011, North Korean vulcanologists put out a request for international expertise to help them learn more. At the time, Hammond and his collaborator, Clive Oppenheimer, were working on a vulcanology project in another sanctioned country, Eritrea, and so decided to answer the call. Within a month, they had flown into Pyongyang. “It was pretty incredible,” recalls Hammond (left). “We were made to feel like honoured guests, and invited to official celebrations.” The scientific opportunity was huge. Paektu is unusually positioned, a thousand kilometres from where tectonic plates rub against each other in the Pacific. “It was an incredibly interesting volcano, but not much research had been done, at least not in the international community,” he said. “There was so much we felt we could do. And we had these partners that were super keen to engage.”The mission received an unusual visitor in the form of volcano-obsessed filmmaker Werner Herzog, who accompanied Hammond and Oppenheimer while directing his 2016 film Into the Inferno about volcanos across the world. Four days into the trip, the German director delivered a long speech about reunification to his North Korean hosts, recalls Hammond. “He got to the heart of the Koreans and how they felt, and how they thought, in a way that I'm not sure I ever will,” he said. UN sanctionsHowever, Hammond realised he’d been “naïve” about how difficult it would be to collaborate with North Korea, which was sanctioned far more heavily than Eritrea. “We didn’t fully appreciate the all-encompassing nature of restrictions,” he said. In 2016, as tensions escalated over Pyongyang’s nuclear tests, a United Nations resolution banned all joint scientific work with North Korea. However, the UN sanctions did allow countries to request carve outs, and the UK successfully requested an exemption for Hammond’s work. Related articlesEU pushes for joint science diplomacy, but care needed to avoid gridlock, experts sayRussia severs its last ties with German scienceAnchor Greenlanders in Arctic climate research, experts tell EU ahead of policy updateExport controls have also delayed Hammond’s work. In one case, it took 18 months to get approval from the UK government to take seismometers, which measure earthquakes, to North Korea. “It was frustrating,” he said. “But they didn’t just say no.” However, one instrument, called an induction coil, used to measure how the earth conducts electricity, was blocked entirely because it can in theory be used to detect submarines. Karaoke bondingSince the collaboration started in 2011, Hammond has visited the country around 15 times, although the pandemic closed off North Korea for more than five years. A trip last November was Hammond’s first since the outbreak. Despite this lengthy interlude, Hammond has deep bonds in the country. The North Korean scientists Hammond works with are somewhat isolated, as they struggle to access the latest research papers and travel to international conferences. That said, they are “excellent geophysicists” and are “very well trained in the field,” he said. Over karaoke and chats about their families, “we’ve made friendships, for sure,” he said. The authorities have to sign-off things like the placement of seismometers, for example, but Hammond said these requests have been approved. “Everything that we've asked for within a scientific context has been delivered.”Scientific backchannels? These kind of personal links between scientists across political lines are one purported benefit of science diplomacy. During the Cold War, some historians argue, scientific contact between the US and Soviet Union laid a groundwork of trust for other cooperation, such as on arms control. Hammond agrees that backchannel contacts to North Korean geophysicists are hardly likely to defuse a military crisis on the Korean peninsula, but the simple fact of the scientific collaboration makes contacts between diplomats that little bit easier. “It creates opportunities to understand each other a little bit better,” he said. “When maybe you have those more difficult discussions as diplomats, it's coming from a slightly better place.” Cutting tiesDrawing lessons from the Mount Paektu mission for today’s links with Russian science isn’t simple. The analogy is far from exact, Hammond said, “because one is essentially a Cold War, versus a pretty hot war in the case of Russia.” But Hammond’s broader argument is that the challenges we face, such as climate change, pandemics, biodiversity loss, pollution and so on, have globalised in an unprecedented way, making blanket shutdowns in collaboration with any country unwise.He’s somewhat critical of the UN scientific sanctions imposed on North Korea in 2016, even though they did allow for exceptions. “I think a blanket halt to some of these things, when we face big global challenges [. . .] that’s quite a risky thing to do,” he said.Institutional endorsement?European academics are still by and large free to work individually with Russian counterparts. However, official, institutional partnerships have largely ended. Shortly following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Russian university rectors wrote a public letter endorsing the war, meaning European universities fear official collaboration could also be seen as a kind of endorsement. Hammond acknowledges there is a risk of legitimising regimes, and state-controlled universities, through scientific cooperation. “That’s the trade off you have to make,” he said. Strategic projectsWith Russia, instead of giving a green light to restart all Arctic science, a middle ground might be firing up a few carefully selected “strategic” projects, said Hammond. After all, European countries are still collaborating with Russia on the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, an experimental nuclear fusion plant in the south of France. However, even if Europe did try to revive Arctic science with Russia, there’s no guarantee Russian scientists would play ball. A series of high-profile arrests of physicists in Russia accused of sharing their findings with the outside world has made collaboration fraught. Even before the invasion of 2022, “the Russian regime made it increasingly difficult, and this sort of discouraged people,” Dag Rune Olsen, rector of the Arctic University of Norway, told Science|Business last year.
GOP offers $1B for White House security, sparking dispute over ballroom
Senate Republicans maintain their budget reconciliation proposal would authorize security construction, but not Trump’s ballroom. The White House disagrees.
Phil Foden: Man City star agrees to sign new four-year deal as he approaches final year of contract
Phil Foden has agreed to sign a new contract at Man City; the 25-year-olds existing terms are due to expire in the summer of 2027
US PlayStation players could be due payout as court agrees class-action settlement of $7.8 million
Sony PlayStation users in the US could be due a collective $7.85 million (£5.8m) in refunds after a judge primarily app…
Long Lake Agrees to Acquire American Express Global Business Travel, the World’s Largest Corporate Travel Platform, for $6.3 Billion, With Support From General Catalyst and Alpha Wave
Long Lake agrees to acquire American Express Global Business Travel
They Say Compassion Drains You. Science Disagrees
Research suggests it’s not compassion that wears doctors down but a different emotion — a distinction that may help them recharge more effectively.
Trump Claims King ‘Agrees’ Iran Shouldn't Have Nuclear Weapon. Here's Buckingham Palace’s Response
"Charles agrees with me, even more than I do," said President Trump at the White House state dinner.
King Charles visits New York after Trump says UK monarch ‘agrees with me’ on Iran
US president said UK monarch agreed Tehran should not be allowed nuclear weapons
German football agrees €100m Adidas investment: What impact will it have, and does it make sense?
The sports manufacturer's deal is intended to support the growth of the leagues and the development of the Bundesliga's 36 member clubs.
OpenAI reportedly working on its own smartphone based around AI agents
Many have thrown around the idea that AI will replace the smartphone, but it seems even OpenAI disagrees as the...