SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " ldl " 450 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Politics Needs More Pragmatism
To the Editor: It’s no secret that our political climate has grown wildly polarized and shockingly partisan. I recall growing up in a time when the hot topics for debate […]
CDFW News | Commercial and Recreational Take Restrictions in Place for Northern Anchovy in Monterey Bay Due to Public Health Hazard
State health agencies have recommended restricting the take of northern anchovy to bait use only for both the commercial and recreational fisheries in Monterey Bay after determining anchovies contain elevated levels of domoic acid.
Things to do, Sept. 11 and beyond: FanExpo Dallas; Paella y Pasión; Do
Other events on tap include Boldly Going to Garland; Afrimma Music Fest; comedian Craig Robinson
Rowan's Native Plant Meadow takes root as living laboratory
Rowan's Native Plant Meadow serves as a living laboratory for ecology and sustainability while creating habitat for pollinators and wildlife.
MN rabies scare: Health department warns of possible false test results
The Minnesota Department of Health says ASAP Wildlife Services allegedly failed to consistently submit bats for proper rabies testing, leaving some customers in the dark about possible exposures. FOX 9's Corin Hoggard has the latest details.
Luma locks down 15-year, $410M fund for life science investments
Luma Group today announced the final close of its inaugural life sciences venture capital fund, totaling $410 million. The New York-based investment firm has had a grip on life sciences since its founding in 2023. The funds unveiled today, dubbed LumaBio Fund I, include investments that have already been made into more than 10 biotechs. They include the likes of eye disease-focused Character Biosciences, rebranded Belgian biotech Coultreon Biopharma and cellular rejuvenation company Altos Labs. The fund saw early success when one of the companies it co-founded, called Vaccine Company, was picked up by Eli Lilly earlier this year for up to $1.55 billion. The acquisition of the in vivo nanoparticle technology-focused biotech formed part of a trio of vaccine buys for the Big Pharma, which has itself been on a prolonged spending spree in 2026. Luma's fund is structured as a 15-year investment with plans to support groundbreaking science and support companies through key milestones from discovery to commercialization, Luma explained in the release. "We founded Luma Group on the belief that extraordinary science, supported by patient, long-term capital, has the power to improve millions of lives," Joshua Fink, founder and managing member of Luma Group, said in the release. "This fund represents more than capital—it is a commitment to partnering with extraordinary innovators as they translate visionary science into life-changing medicines."
The 98 Biggest TV Show Flops, Bombs and Misses in the First Half of 2026
(Welcome to the Entertainment Strategy Guy, a newsletter on the entertainment industry and business strategy. I write a weekly Streaming Ratings Report and a bi-weekly strategy column, along with occasional deep dives into other topics, like today’s article. Please subscribe.) In July, I updated my look at how the “streaming bubble” popped since 2023, showing the decline in streaming TV shows over time. But after compiling and analyzing and writing about over one hundred TV show flops in the first half of 2026—I counted 99 “nominees” and there are even more honorable mentions—I couldn’t have told you that the number of shows is going down. When it comes to scripted, English-language TV shows, it feels like we have as many bombs as ever. I don’t keep a specific count, but some streamers probably had as many flops as they’ve ever had.1 That’s right, it’s time for part two of my analysis of the biggest flops, bombs and misses on streaming in the first half of 2026. Two weeks ago, I took a look at films. Today, TV shows. If you want to read the full methodology for how I assemble this list, you can find it at the bottom of this article. In short, this list is… ...scripted and unscripted TV shows,...from the nine major streamers,...in the US (using US-only ratings),...excluding true crime, kids and foreign-language shows,...that got no/poor ratings,...from Jan-2026 to the end of June-2026. Reminder: this article does not represent my personal opinion—many of these shows are great!—but I follow the data, and a miss is a miss and a bomb is a bomb. Also, price matters. If a TV show costs north of $100 million, it needs to get lots and lots of streaming viewership to justify that budget. As with past editions, I ordered this list by streamer, going from best (fewest flops) to worst (the most misses)—taking the size of the flops into consideration—and like the last edition, three or four streamers vied to take the win/loss of having the most flops. (But the actual winner is no surprise.) I try to avoid tooting my own horn too much, but seriously, in just under 5,000 words (including the methodology section) I provide a mostly comprehensive overview of the eight major streamers (Netflix, Disney+, Prime Video, Hulu, HBO Max, Peacock, Paramount+, and Apple TV) for the first half of the year, mentioning most of their hits and all their misses. It summarizes the entire first half of 2026! If you want to support this work, please subscribe. Subscribe Tubi Big Mood Boarders The Freak Brothers Twenty Twenty Six Honorable Mentions: Busted on Bodycam, Deestroying the Pitch, Destination World Cup 2026 I don’t think that Tubi spends all that much making or (mostly) licensing these original TV shows—Big Mood, Boarders and Twenty Twenty Six all come from the UK—but they’re not free and they didn’t chart anywhere. Winner: The Freak Brothers Have you even heard of this show? It’s an animated comedy...that’s on its third season! And Pete Davidson, Woody Harrelson, John Goodman and Tiffany Haddish all provide voice talent for it. Yes, animated shows don’t cost as much as live action shows, but cheap isn’t free! So a show with this level of talent needs to perform better. Disney+ Daredevil: Born Again Star Wars: Maul – Shadow Lord Honorable Mentions: Behind the Attraction, Donna Hay Coastal Celebrations, We Call It Imagineering Disney+ doesn’t make all that many original shows anymore. They had two flops, and one was animated. Their one not-a-miss show, Wonder Man, got just good enough viewership to not be considered a “miss”...but it’s since been cancelled. At this point, Disney has pivoted entirely away from making big budget TV shows for Disney+ to making...almost nothing for Disney+? Sure, Disney’s spending circa 2019-2022 was unsustainable, but now they’re pivoting too far in the other direction. At some point, Disney needs to stop shifting strategies so wildly. Really, Disney should have made fewer shows for Disney+ at launch and the shows they did make at that time needed to be made at more reasonable budgets. And they should adopt that strategy now. Winner: Daredevil: Born Again Daredevil, the Marvel Comics character, is on my personal Mount Rushmore of favorite superheroes, so it pains me to give him the win/loss today, but this show deserves it. I’ll repeat my hot take from last spring: “Based on his popularity, Daredevil should be in movies, and probably ones that cost a lot less than the MCU’s usual price tag. Disney/Bob Iger/Ike Perlmutter (who, based on reporting, made the decision) made a huge mistake selling TV shows to Netflix in the 2010s, thus limiting this character to the small screen. Daredevil could have anchored Marvel’s post-Infinity War plans, and if he did, the MCU would probably be in a better place than it is now.” HBO Max We’re just getting started with this issue, but the rest is for paid subscribers of the Entertainment Strategy Guy, so if you’d like to find out… What four streamers had the most misses... HBO’s strong start to 2026… The caveat to Peacock’s turnaround this year... Paramount+’s key man problem… What country isn’t delivering hits for Netflix or Hulu... The cavalcade of stars on a streamer where no one is watching their shows... Across nearly 5,000 words of analysis… And a lot more... ...please subscribe! We can only keep doing this great work with your support. If you’d like to read more about why you should subscribe, please read this article about the Streaming Ratings Report, why it matters, why you need it, and why we cover streaming ratings best.
Wellston firefighter's death highlights toll of wildland firefighting, gaps in health monitoring
A retired truck driver with just four months on the job with the Wellston Fire Department died while trying to protect his community from a wildfire.
Mysterious elk deaths in Nevada could offer clues about health of herds across the West
An unusual pattern of springtime elk deaths for more than a decade in northern Nevada has scientists searching for answers. What they find could shed light on broader questions about wildlife health across the West.
Mysterious elk deaths in Nevada could offer clues about health of herds across the West
An unusual pattern of springtime elk deaths for more than a decade in northern Nevada has scientists searching for answers. What they find could shed light on broader questions about wildlife health across the West.
Republicans were confident about keeping the Senate. Now the battle is wide open
Republicans appeared to have a firm grip on the majority at the start of the 2026 election cycle. But Democrats are now competing in states that once seemed well beyond their reach.
Aaron Rodgers praises Karl Ravech for ‘phenomenal’ ESPN tenure
Aaron Rodgers loves to hate on ESPN, and the Worldwide Leader may have given him a little more ammunition by parting ways with Karl Ravech. Rodgers was recently interviewed by Adam Schein on his SiriusXM Mad Dog Sports Radio show. At the end of the segment, Schein boldly gave Rodgers the open forum to share…
The Otherworldly Geology of Vasquez Rocks
Layers of sedimentary rock that jut from the Soledad Basin at surprising angles have long enthralled television and film producers, including the team behind Star Trek.
X-Men Reboot’s Wild 4-Movie Comparison Includes Batman V Superman
A leaked script review for Marvel Studios’ X-Men reboot draws comparisons to four wildly different films. The surprising mashup description hints at the tone and style audiences can expect from the MC...
Come to Angola for deserts, wildlife and waves
LUANDA, Angola — Angola boasts some of the best waterfalls in Africa, spectacular deserts and all the wildlife you could wish for. Head to the Kalandula Falls, a quarter-mile wide
Chaotic meeting began with attempt to squelch public comment
When Attorney General Phil Weiser takes the governor’s office in January, he must immediately address the chaos of the latest round of appointees to the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission to assure stakeholders he’s willing to put pressure on the bleeding wound. The keys to the kingdom have fallen into the wrong hands and Weiser […]
8 Daily Habits to Support Your Heart, Kidney and Metabolic Health
(Feature Impact) When it comes to protecting your heart, supporting your kidney function and improving your metabolic health, you’ll find the advice for each one looks similar. That’s because your body’s systems are deeply interconnected: what affects one will have ripple effects across the others.Cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic health, or CKM health, is a perfect example. When any one of these systems is compromised, it can lead to problems with the others. Therefore, it’s not uncommon for health problems like heart disease, stroke, diabetes and kidney disease to develop or worsen simultaneously – a condition collectively known as CKM syndrome.The reverse is also true, so habits that are healthy for your heart will have a positive effect on your kidneys and metabolic system and vice versa. Consider these simple strategies that align with the American Heart Association’s Life’s Essential 8, a list of healthy steps that can improve overall health. Learn more about how these habits and health measures affect your CKM health at Heart.org.Choose Healthy Foods – Food is your body’s fuel, so fill your tank wisely. Certain types of foods can help your blood pressure, cholesterol, blood glucose and triglycerides stay within healthy ranges, while poor nutrition can push those numbers into more dangerous territory. Focus on vegetables, fruits, whole grains, plant-based proteins (e.g. beans, legumes and nuts) and lean animal proteins (e.g. seafood, skinless poultry and low-fat dairy). Drink plenty of water throughout the day and limit added sugar and salty or fatty foods.Stay Physically Active – Exercise doesn’t have to feel like a chore – in fact, some of your favorite hobbies may already count. The American Heart Association recommends aiming for 150 minutes per week of moderate physical activity like dancing, gardening or walking, moving quickly enough to elevate your heart rate and break a light sweat. Alternatively, choose 75 weekly minutes of vigorous exercise that gets you breathing hard and fast; think running, swimming, playing tennis or riding your bike on hilly terrain.Avoid Nicotine – Tobacco and other nicotine products can raise your blood pressure, damage blood vessels and increase your risk of heart attack and stroke, which are all bad news for your CKM health. If you’re currently trying to quit, you aren’t alone, so don’t be afraid to seek out support groups and resources to help.#placement_976606_0_i{width:100%;max-width:550px;margin:0 auto;}var rnd = window.rnd || Math.floor(Math.random()*10e6);var pid976606 = window.pid976606 || rnd;var plc976606 = window.plc976606 || 0;var abkw = window.abkw || '';var absrc = 'https://ads.empowerlocal.co/adserve/;ID=181918;size=0x0;setID=976606;type=js;sw='+screen.width+';sh='+screen.height+';spr='+window.devicePixelRatio+';kw='+abkw+';pid='+pid976606+';place='+(plc976606++)+';rnd='+rnd+';click=CLICK_MACRO_PLACEHOLDER';var _absrc = absrc.split("type=js"); absrc = _absrc[0] + 'type=js;referrer=' + encodeURIComponent(document.location.href) + _absrc[1];document.write('');Prioritize Healthy Sleep – Sleep gives your body a chance to rest and recover from the day, but it’s often one of the first things people sacrifice when life gets busy. Poor sleep can increase your risk for heart disease, weight gain and other issues. Aim for a solid 7-9 hours a night. Keep your bedroom cool, dark and comfortable, and do your best to limit distractions like late-night smartphone scrolling.Watch Your Blood Pressure – When your blood pressure is high, it forces your heart to work harder to pump blood through the body, which can weaken it over time. It can also damage the delicate arteries in and around the kidneys, putting CKM health further at risk. Information is power, so check your blood pressure frequently to know whether further action is needed to keep it under control.Manage Your Blood Sugar – High blood sugar can damage the kidneys, eyes, blood vessels and more, thereby increasing your chance of developing harmful CKM conditions. Controlling blood sugar is particularly important for people with diabetes. If you don’t have diabetes and still experience frequent blood sugar spikes and crashes, talk to your doctor.Control Your Cholesterol – Cholesterol comes in both “bad” (LDL) and “good” (HDL) forms, requiring a balancing act to keep your levels within a healthy range. If LDL is high and HDL is low, your risk of clogged blood vessels, heart attack and stroke are higher. Healthy levels keep blood flowing to your heart and kidneys, supporting your metabolic health in the process. See your doctor for regular bloodwork so you can monitor cholesterol changes.Maintain a Healthy Weight – Since excess body weight puts pressure on the heart, kidneys and other organs, a healthy body weight helps lower your risk of CKM syndrome. Whether you’re hoping to maintain or reduce your weight, regular exercise, healthy eating and quality sleep are all great ways to achieve your goals.
8 Daily Habits to Support Your Heart, Kidney and Metabolic Health
(Feature Impact) When it comes to protecting your heart, supporting your kidney function and improving your metabolic health, you’ll find the advice for each one looks similar. That’s because your body’s systems are deeply interconnected: what affects one will have ripple effects across the others.#placement_1126610_0_i{width:100%;max-width:550px;margin:0 auto;}var rnd = window.rnd || Math.floor(Math.random()*10e6);var pid1126610 = window.pid1126610 || rnd;var plc1126610 = window.plc1126610 || 0;var abkw = window.abkw || '';var absrc = 'https://ads.empowerlocal.co/adserve/;ID=181918;size=0x0;setID=1126610;type=js;sw='+screen.width+';sh='+screen.height+';spr='+window.devicePixelRatio+';kw='+abkw+';pid='+pid1126610+';place='+(plc1126610++)+';rnd='+rnd+';click=CLICK_MACRO_PLACEHOLDER';var _absrc = absrc.split("type=js"); absrc = _absrc[0] + 'type=js;referrer=' + encodeURIComponent(document.location.href) + _absrc[1];document.write('');Cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic health, or CKM health, is a perfect example. When any one of these systems is compromised, it can lead to problems with the others. Therefore, it’s not uncommon for health problems like heart disease, stroke, diabetes and kidney disease to develop or worsen simultaneously – a condition collectively known as CKM syndrome.The reverse is also true, so habits that are healthy for your heart will have a positive effect on your kidneys and metabolic system and vice versa. Consider these simple strategies that align with the American Heart Association’s Life’s Essential 8, a list of healthy steps that can improve overall health. Learn more about how these habits and health measures affect your CKM health at Heart.org.Choose Healthy Foods – Food is your body’s fuel, so fill your tank wisely. Certain types of foods can help your blood pressure, cholesterol, blood glucose and triglycerides stay within healthy ranges, while poor nutrition can push those numbers into more dangerous territory. Focus on vegetables, fruits, whole grains, plant-based proteins (e.g. beans, legumes and nuts) and lean animal proteins (e.g. seafood, skinless poultry and low-fat dairy). Drink plenty of water throughout the day and limit added sugar and salty or fatty foods.Stay Physically Active – Exercise doesn’t have to feel like a chore – in fact, some of your favorite hobbies may already count. The American Heart Association recommends aiming for 150 minutes per week of moderate physical activity like dancing, gardening or walking, moving quickly enough to elevate your heart rate and break a light sweat. Alternatively, choose 75 weekly minutes of vigorous exercise that gets you breathing hard and fast; think running, swimming, playing tennis or riding your bike on hilly terrain.Avoid Nicotine – Tobacco and other nicotine products can raise your blood pressure, damage blood vessels and increase your risk of heart attack and stroke, which are all bad news for your CKM health. If you’re currently trying to quit, you aren’t alone, so don’t be afraid to seek out support groups and resources to help.Prioritize Healthy Sleep – Sleep gives your body a chance to rest and recover from the day, but it’s often one of the first things people sacrifice when life gets busy. Poor sleep can increase your risk for heart disease, weight gain and other issues. Aim for a solid 7-9 hours a night. Keep your bedroom cool, dark and comfortable, and do your best to limit distractions like late-night smartphone scrolling.Watch Your Blood Pressure – When your blood pressure is high, it forces your heart to work harder to pump blood through the body, which can weaken it over time. It can also damage the delicate arteries in and around the kidneys, putting CKM health further at risk. Information is power, so check your blood pressure frequently to know whether further action is needed to keep it under control.Manage Your Blood Sugar – High blood sugar can damage the kidneys, eyes, blood vessels and more, thereby increasing your chance of developing harmful CKM conditions. Controlling blood sugar is particularly important for people with diabetes. If you don’t have diabetes and still experience frequent blood sugar spikes and crashes, talk to your doctor.Control Your Cholesterol – Cholesterol comes in both “bad” (LDL) and “good” (HDL) forms, requiring a balancing act to keep your levels within a healthy range. If LDL is high and HDL is low, your risk of clogged blood vessels, heart attack and stroke are higher. Healthy levels keep blood flowing to your heart and kidneys, supporting your metabolic health in the process. See your doctor for regular bloodwork so you can monitor cholesterol changes.Maintain a Healthy Weight – Since excess body weight puts pressure on the heart, kidneys and other organs, a healthy body weight helps lower your risk of CKM syndrome. Whether you’re hoping to maintain or reduce your weight, regular exercise, healthy eating and quality sleep are all great ways to achieve your goals.
8 Daily Habits to Support Your Heart, Kidney and Metabolic Health
(Feature Impact) When it comes to protecting your heart, supporting your kidney function and improving your metabolic health, you’ll find the advice for each one looks similar. That’s because your body’s systems are deeply interconnected: what affects one will have ripple effects across the others.#placement_1126603_0_i{width:100%;max-width:550px;margin:0 auto;}var rnd = window.rnd || Math.floor(Math.random()*10e6);var pid1126603 = window.pid1126603 || rnd;var plc1126603 = window.plc1126603 || 0;var abkw = window.abkw || '';var absrc = 'https://ads.empowerlocal.co/adserve/;ID=181918;size=0x0;setID=1126603;type=js;sw='+screen.width+';sh='+screen.height+';spr='+window.devicePixelRatio+';kw='+abkw+';pid='+pid1126603+';place='+(plc1126603++)+';rnd='+rnd+';click=CLICK_MACRO_PLACEHOLDER';var _absrc = absrc.split("type=js"); absrc = _absrc[0] + 'type=js;referrer=' + encodeURIComponent(document.location.href) + _absrc[1];document.write('');Cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic health, or CKM health, is a perfect example. When any one of these systems is compromised, it can lead to problems with the others. Therefore, it’s not uncommon for health problems like heart disease, stroke, diabetes and kidney disease to develop or worsen simultaneously – a condition collectively known as CKM syndrome.The reverse is also true, so habits that are healthy for your heart will have a positive effect on your kidneys and metabolic system and vice versa. Consider these simple strategies that align with the American Heart Association’s Life’s Essential 8, a list of healthy steps that can improve overall health. Learn more about how these habits and health measures affect your CKM health at Heart.org.Choose Healthy Foods – Food is your body’s fuel, so fill your tank wisely. Certain types of foods can help your blood pressure, cholesterol, blood glucose and triglycerides stay within healthy ranges, while poor nutrition can push those numbers into more dangerous territory. Focus on vegetables, fruits, whole grains, plant-based proteins (e.g. beans, legumes and nuts) and lean animal proteins (e.g. seafood, skinless poultry and low-fat dairy). Drink plenty of water throughout the day and limit added sugar and salty or fatty foods.Stay Physically Active – Exercise doesn’t have to feel like a chore – in fact, some of your favorite hobbies may already count. The American Heart Association recommends aiming for 150 minutes per week of moderate physical activity like dancing, gardening or walking, moving quickly enough to elevate your heart rate and break a light sweat. Alternatively, choose 75 weekly minutes of vigorous exercise that gets you breathing hard and fast; think running, swimming, playing tennis or riding your bike on hilly terrain.Avoid Nicotine – Tobacco and other nicotine products can raise your blood pressure, damage blood vessels and increase your risk of heart attack and stroke, which are all bad news for your CKM health. If you’re currently trying to quit, you aren’t alone, so don’t be afraid to seek out support groups and resources to help. Prioritize Healthy Sleep – Sleep gives your body a chance to rest and recover from the day, but it’s often one of the first things people sacrifice when life gets busy. Poor sleep can increase your risk for heart disease, weight gain and other issues. Aim for a solid 7-9 hours a night. Keep your bedroom cool, dark and comfortable, and do your best to limit distractions like late-night smartphone scrolling.Watch Your Blood Pressure – When your blood pressure is high, it forces your heart to work harder to pump blood through the body, which can weaken it over time. It can also damage the delicate arteries in and around the kidneys, putting CKM health further at risk. Information is power, so check your blood pressure frequently to know whether further action is needed to keep it under control.Manage Your Blood Sugar – High blood sugar can damage the kidneys, eyes, blood vessels and more, thereby increasing your chance of developing harmful CKM conditions. Controlling blood sugar is particularly important for people with diabetes. If you don’t have diabetes and still experience frequent blood sugar spikes and crashes, talk to your doctor.Control Your Cholesterol – Cholesterol comes in both “bad” (LDL) and “good” (HDL) forms, requiring a balancing act to keep your levels within a healthy range. If LDL is high and HDL is low, your risk of clogged blood vessels, heart attack and stroke are higher. Healthy levels keep blood flowing to your heart and kidneys, supporting your metabolic health in the process. See your doctor for regular bloodwork so you can monitor cholesterol changes.Maintain a Healthy Weight – Since excess body weight puts pressure on the heart, kidneys and other organs, a healthy body weight helps lower your risk of CKM syndrome. Whether you’re hoping to maintain or reduce your weight, regular exercise, healthy eating and quality sleep are all great ways to achieve your goals.
The core anti-Pangram constituency is phony writers
Welcome to The Closing Argument, our verdict on the news, plus everything The Argument published and appeared in this week. The Verdict, by Kelsey Piper A lot of people hate AI for drowning the internet in slop and displacing human creatives. You might think that these people would be thrilled by a program that can identify and flag AI-generated work. But many people who hate AI also hate Pangram, an impressively accurate AI detector that produces very few false positives, according to high-quality independent research. This loathing found its most recent expression in a bizarre Wired article that amplifies a wide range of false arguments from Pangram skeptics: that AI detectors are racist (they’re not) or ableist (they’re not)1 or don’t work (this one does)2. Rather than starting from the premise that it would be really valuable to have a working AI detector and scrutinizing Pangram to make sure it lives up to that promise, the article starts from the premise that Pangram obviously has bad vibes and sets out to discover why. (One answer: The CEO microwaved lunch during an interview!) Why aren’t writers who resent Pangram more eager to distinguish themselves from posters who are having ChatGPT ghostwrite all their work? There are a few different things at play, but I think one key dynamic is this: These are often the same people. A core constituency for arguments like Wired’s is “writers” who are using AI to write their posts but resent this fact being made public. They stand to lose from AI detectors because AI detectors call them out. Share When Substack announced a partnership with Pangram, a sizable fraction of the platform’s authors rose up in outrage. Some people had experience with other AI detectors that didn’t work, and some felt that AI writing ought to be encouraged — both of which are fair enough. But the fury was fueled by authors passionately insisting that Pangram kept wrongly accusing them on almost every post they published. Pangram can be wrong, especially on short passages. But in the overwhelming majority of cases where Pangram looked at a whole blog post rather than a single paragraph, the program correctly detected work as AI. Even if we can’t be 100% sure in any individual case, we can notice the trend in the aggregate. Wired quotes Sam Illingworth, a professor of critical AI literacy at Edinburgh Napier University, who said, “I don’t think [AI detectors] work. … I think that detectors are prejudiced against certain people.” This spring, he said that he used AI for research and editing; this summer he acknowledged that in addition to research and editing, he also uses it “now and then for a turn of phrase I keep.” Pangram informs us that most of his posts are 100% AI-written (some are mixed AI-and-human) and that 100% AI-written posts started appearing last year. The favorable interpretation is that, as someone whose recent work Pangram consistently mistakes for AI, Illingworth sees Pangram’s flaws firsthand. The unfavorable interpretation is that the tool’s credibility trades off against his own, because its account of who writes his posts is not consistent with his. Illingworth is not alone in insisting the detector does not work. “It’s a Monday night in late July, and I’m pasting my own Substack draft into an AI detector for the first time. Not because I’m worried. Because I’m curious. I wrote every word of it myself, the way I write everything, out loud in my head first, in a rhythm that still carries the accent of a language I learned to think in before I learned to write in this one,” begins one Substack post by an author indignant that Pangram flags her writing as AI. “That’s the part I had to sit with before I could write this.” If you, like me, have worked with AIs a lot, you won’t even need Pangram there. The author of that piece is AI. It is obviously AI! I checked 10 other posts on the blog, and they were also obviously AI! “I have spent 22 years as an award-winning author and essayist. And now this bullshit tool that learned from MY writing is going to accuse me of plagiarism,” popular Substack writer Carlyn Beccia wrote in an anti-Pangram post. “For the last and final time, AI DETECTORS DO NOT WORK.” Here’s what her writing sounded like in 2020: “Most success stories revolve around one person who believed enough in you to say — give it a try. We call these people muses, but they are so much more than that. They are the strong man giants whose shoulders we stand on so we can see the horizon. Throughout the editing process, I am sure my editor felt less like a giant of greatness and more like Atlas with the world on her shoulders.” Pangram says it was 100% human-written. (So were other articles of hers in 2020.) And here’s what it sounds like now: “And then there is the reshuffling, which sounds like paperwork until you remember that empires have always loved paperwork. The Trump regime recently moved special education oversight from the Education Department to HHS. That is not a minor bureaucratic transfer. It changes the frame.”3 Pangram says this is mostly AI. I am not convinced that Pangram is wrong. In my own experience, Pangram is very effective on long texts — if it marks a long essay as AI, the essay was either written by AI or deliberately written to sound like AI. On tweet-length or paragraph-length texts, it’s not perfectly reliable. It seems to work just as well for non-native English speakers as for native speakers. While I have seen dozens of claims of pre-2022 text returning a positive result on Pangram, I have tried repeatedly to corroborate those and have never once succeeded. To be clear, I’m absolutely not saying that complaining about Pangram suggests a writer is a cheat. There are plenty of other concerns. Most are mistakenly premised, such as the false claim that Pangram trains on work you put into it, but others are reasonable: It’s unreliable on sufficiently short text segments; it creates an internet witch-hunt mentality when there are defensible uses of AI; people who are open about their AI use are sometimes blamed, when the only people really doing something wrong are the ones who hide it; and it isn’t perfect, so a single positive result shouldn’t be taken as decisive proof of misconduct. I’m happy to concede that Pangram is imperfect and possible to over-rely on. If an author’s posts are mostly non-AI and one scans as partially AI, this could be a mistake. It’s also possible to defeat Pangram with intentional effort. If you think we need something more robust and more reliable, fine! But if you don’t like AI and don’t like Pangram, your attitude really ought to be that it’s a shame that our existing tools for AI detection are imperfect, and it’s important to invent better ones. If your stance is instead that AI is evil and so is looking for AI, then ultimately you’re contributing to the sloppification of the internet. You’re making it harder for people who write their own text to distinguish themselves, and providing cover for authors who are definitely not writing their own text. Subscribe Top stories this week, by Kobe Yank-Jacobs Commentators often worry that the decline of reading could mean the decline of liberal democracy — but deliberative governance actually predated widespread literacy. This week, Maibritt Henkel pointed out that many liberal cultures thrive on a culture of raucous, interactive debate, which can happen in-person as easily, if not more so, than in text. Read on, dear reader, to learn more. It may actually cheer you up: [ ](https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/reading-wont-save-liberalism) [ Reading won’t save liberalism ](https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/reading-wont-save-liberalism) Maibritt Henkel · Sep 1 [ Read full story ](https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/reading-wont-save-liberalism) It used to be bad to downplay climate change (if we mean denying its reality). Today, it’s actually good to downplay climate change (if we mean keeping the issue out of political fights so we can make real progress). This counterintuitive view is called “climate hushing,” and contributor Alex Trembath argued that it’s the key to enacting good policy going forward. Get up to speed on the latest in climate politics: [ ](https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/we-wont-stop-climate-change-by-talking) [ We won’t stop climate change by talking about it ](https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/we-wont-stop-climate-change-by-talking) Alex Trembath · Sep 2 [ Read full story ](https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/we-wont-stop-climate-change-by-talking) Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney is standing up for the forces of liberalism against Donald Trump’s assault on our closest ally. So, why is one prominent left-wing commenter attacking Carney? Columnist Matthew Yglesias explains: [ ](https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/when-economic-liberty-means-central) [ When "economic liberty" means central planning ](https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/when-economic-liberty-means-central) Matthew Yglesias · Aug 31 [ Read full story ](https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/when-economic-liberty-means-central) 🌟Abundance Wins of the Week🌟 Shout out to my home state of California, whose legislature passed two housing bills this week. One requires a housing density minimum in transit-oriented areas of the state’s most transit-rich cities (Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, San Diego, and Long Beach). Another bill closes two common loopholes used by third parties to delay housing projects, including an opportunity to challenge maps of a given lot created by the developer after a project has been approved. Shout out to our big-state rival, Texas, where pro-housing SB 785 took effect this week. The new state law requires municipalities to have at least one district permitted for manufactured housing without a special permit. This will promote zoning changes in 44% of municipalities. The company Fervo Energy signed a deal with Google for what is set to be the world’s largest enhanced geothermal facility, proving a technology can work at a scale that could be crucial to a decarbonized, energy-abundant economy. Share Worth watching… This week, forecasting legend Nate Silver joined Jerusalem, Matt, and Jeremiah on a crowded episode of the pod. It was a party. And speaking of parties, our round table debated the factional lines within the Democratic Party: Is it possible to be center-left and also anti-establishment? Watch or listen to find out: The Rio Grande Valley in Texas is one of the areas that swung hardest toward Trump in 2024, but musician Bobby Pulido is running to flip it back. Right now, The Argument/Split Ticket’s model has him running 1.1 points behind his Republican opponent in a district Trump won by 18 points. Tune in to find out how he differs from national Democrats and what he thinks he can to do win this seat. On Thursday, Bernie Sanders was among the first politicians to call for a ban on superintelligence. My guest this week, Andrea Miotti, has been lobbying to ban superintelligence for several years, most recently in the U.K., U.S., and Canada. I asked him how he gets legislators to take speculative risks seriously, and we dug into what plans might look like to actually pass a ban. Listen to learn more: What’s News with The Argument The Argument recommends, by Kobe Yank-Jacobs If we ever lose track of Justin Zuckerman, I’ll have the team split up and check all the movie theaters in the city. I’m shocked (and a little jealous) at how often he gets out to see good cinema. This week, he brings us It Ends, a “horror-ish movie,” which he described as a “Gen Z Waiting for Godot.” I was intrigued before he added that it was “funny, dark and existential” — at which point I was fully locked in. I guess I also had existential themes on the mind this week. One morning, a single line from a poem I read long ago just came to me: “Is death a stretch of time in which a life is just a flash?” The poem is called “From 20,000 Feet” by Heather McHugh. I suggest the version in The Vintage Book of Contemporary American Poetry, which, by tradition, my best friend and I always bring backpacking, extra weight be damned. We’ll stay thematically dark for just one more rec from senior editor John Robert Thomason, whose upcoming trip to Baltimore reminded him to suggest Michael Clune’s memoir White Out (about being addicted to heroin in Baltimore in the 1990s). Ben Lerner’s blurb called it _“_Disturbing, brilliant, hilarious—it’s as if Proust had written Jesus’ Son.” John told me this “seems accurate, with the caveat that I’ve never read Proust.” I, personally, have also shelved Proust until retirement. At this point, I was a little concerned for the team since all of us tossed out such psychologically grim material — maybe we’re all down about the end of summer — but thankfully, at least a few of us were into more upbeat selections. Milan Singh recommended Made In’s 5-quart stainless clad saucier, suggesting he had some fun in the kitchen. Jeremiah Johnson asked if he could recommend yet more Carly Rae Jepsen. Once denied, he offered up Game Changer instead_,_ calling it “the most wildly creative game show, maybe in the entire history of the genre.” Eli Richman mentioned _Lucky, “_a B-tier show with an A-tier cast and an S-tier theme song.” I suppose he was recommending the song, Horns of a Bull. Still, despite these cheerier recs, I couldn’t help but be concerned that we were subconsciously worried about racing toward summer’s end — the end of swim trunks and splashing around. Then a message landed reminding me of the three-day weekend to come. A whole extra day for sunshine. One more swim in the lake. I was grateful this called to mind yet another line from a poem, one by Mary Oliver, the patron saint of every gorgeous summer day (and about whom a documentary is now out). Speaking to God in the poem “Thirst,” she wrote: grant me, in your mercy,a little more time. Love for the earthand love for you are having such a longconversation in my heart. We have merch! We have quarter-zips, keychains, hats, and stickers. Each one is a great conversation starter in its own way. Buy them here. Subscribe More to read: [ The Opening Argument ](https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/seeing-like-an-elite)[ Seeing like an elite ](https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/seeing-like-an-elite) Kobe Yank-Jacobs · Sep 4 What do Americans hear when they watch Sen. Bernie Sanders or Vice President JD Vance rail against the elite? Are they thinking of right-wing tech billionaires? Imperious college professors? Liberal magazine writers? [ Read full story ](https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/seeing-like-an-elite) [ The Weekly Scroll ](https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/god-is-back-on-the-timeline)[ God is back on the timeline ](https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/god-is-back-on-the-timeline) Jeremiah Johnson · Sep 5 This week, we’re talking about Substack’s new religious debates, the continuing MAGA influencer scandal, how to retire from YouTube, and aura battles. [ Read full story ](https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/god-is-back-on-the-timeline) 1 This was a legitimate thing to worry about, but doesn’t seem to be a problem given the actual technology: Marijke Van Vlasselaer, Filip Van Droogenbroeck, and Bram Spruyt’s 2026 paper looks at whether Pangram is less accurate when evaluating the work of non-native speakers of English. It isn’t. That’s because Pangram isn’t really looking at how “unusual” a piece of writing is but whether it has the characteristic patterns of LLMs. The Wired article makes an odd gesture at a different Pangram-is-racist argument. There were several controversies this summer during which upcoming books were canceled after being discovered to be AI-written: “The three novels mentioned earlier — Shy Girl, Daggermouth, and Call Me, easily publishing’s biggest AI-detection scandals — were all written by writers of color.” But come on! As Zvi Mowshowitz put it: “They were not primarily written by people of color. They were primarily written by AIs.” That’s the whole problem! And as my colleague Jeremiah Johnson recently observed with respect to Cambridge’s Arday scandal, a community being unwilling to call out fraud if it’s perpetuated by people of color is not an anti-racist tendency; it is ultimately quite racist. 2 Many non-Pangram detectors don’t work, but many possible airplane designs also don’t work, and no one considers this a general argument against aviation; the thing that matters is whether any detection works. 3 The phrase “empires have always loved” mysteriously became all the rage in the last few years. See here, here, here, here and here. Before 2025, the only use of that phrase I have been able to find is a single Tweet. The logic of the sentence, too, is incoherent in an AI-characteristic way. “...sounds like paperwork, until you remember that empires have always loved paperwork”? Does remembering that make it sound less like paperwork? It’s a craft-ful sentence, but what is it actually saying??
Texas State Parks hold ‘ruck' hikes to raise awareness for veterans' mental health
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department will host ruck hikes during the month of September.
‘What a Coward’ — Barstool Sports CFB Analyst Trashes Dave Portnoy After Michigan’s ‘Unbelievably Pathetic’ Week 1 Win
The college football world witnessed a stunning and wildly controversial finish between Western Michigan and Michigan on Saturday night in Ann Arbor. Despite Western Michigan holding a 12–7 advantage with less than a minute remaining, a highly debated officiating decision ultimately changed the course of the game and swung the momentum back toward Michigan at the very last second.
Museum of Chelmsford taxidermy bear helps tackle wildlife crime
Hayden Leigh, a forensic science graduate, is studying the hair of Boris the bear.
China’s $25b microdrama industry faces AI upheaval
The country’s wildly popular microdrama industry is undergoing a dramatic upheaval thanks to artificial intelligence – with a very real human cost.
CDFW: Scientists keeping an eye on river conditions to protect winter-and-fall-run salmon
From the Department of Fish and Wildlife As California continues to feel the impacts of a heat dome that is bringing higher than normal temperatures to large portions of the state, it’s a good time to remember that fish and wildlife — especially salmon — need cold water, too. River temperature management is critical for salmon’s survival and spawning. Earlier this year, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) announced that commercial ocean salmon fishing was back after being closed for three […]
Already Threatened, Rare Wildlife Dealt Blow by Trump Administration Rule Change
Rule changes to the Endangered Species Act by the White House could make survival more difficult for rare wildlife. The Dept. of the Interior and Dept. of Commerce changed the definition of "harm" in the law, allowing industry to encroach on habitats of endangered species
Already Threatened, Rare Wildlife Dealt Blow by Trump Administration Rule Change
Rule changes to the Endangered Species Act by the White House could make survival more difficult for rare wildlife. The Dept. of the Interior and Dept. of Commerce changed the definition of "harm" in the law, allowing industry to encroach on habitats of endangered species
How to balance soil health and wildlife conservation
Digging Deeper: Managing for diversity, whether it is aboveground or belowground, is crucial to building healthy rural landscapes and farms.
September in the Neighborhood: Star Trek science, shop local artisans, picnic at Peirce Mill
To boldly go... Sept. 8 is the 60th anniversary of the day the first episode of Star Trek aired. Sept. 9 is the day our Broad Branch Road neighbor, the Carnegie Earth and Planets Laboratory, is inviting us over for a Star Trek-themed lecture on the worlds among the stars, and how the science of
CPW chair’s unilateral comment changes spark backlash from fellow commissioners
A decision to cap public comment, announced last week by Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission Chair Jay Tutchton, set off a lively discussion at Wednesday’s meeting. In the end, Tutchton’s unilateral decision to cut public comment and to change who gets to testify was killed on a 6-5 vote, with Tutchton himself casting the deciding […]
Louisiana cites three for illegal seafood business
Agents with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) cited three individuals for several violations related to selling illegal raw seafood
Risky science: why connecting research to application matters
There is not much benefit in producing science that just sits on a shelf. Effective science must extend beyond publication and address real-world needs argues Lynn Johnston, a Forest Fire Research Specialist with Natural Resources Canada and the Canadian Forest Service, in an editorial for the International Journal of Wildland Fire. While reading journal articles […]
CBS Sports analyst predicts 'Giants will make the Super Bowl' in 2026
A CBS Sports analyst boldly predicts the New York Giants will make the Super Bowl in 2026.
CDFW News | Del Norte County Razor Clam Fishery Opens After One-Month Closure Due to Public Health Hazard
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Director Meghan Hertel has opened the recreational razor clam fishery in Del Norte County following a recommendation from state health agencies that domoic acid no longer poses a significant threat to human health if consumed.
An Experimental Single-Time Treatment Slashed Cholesterol for a Year
A small gene-editing study significantly reduced LDL cholesterol levels, and the results have stuck a year later.
Colorado’s hunting and fishing traditions rest on science, conservation and a proven heritage
By John Howard Eric Washburn’s recent column warns Coloradans the right to hunt and fish amendment is a Trojan horse designed to resurrect “cruel” practices voters have already banned and to elevate killing above every other form of wildlife management. The argument is passionate. It is also wrong on the text, the history, the experience […]
Walt Disney vs. Netflix: Evaluating Massive Overall Business Scale Versus Consistent Double-Digit Growth in Revenue
Disney's quarterly revenue is roughly double Netflix's, yet Netflix has posted eight straight quarters of consistent growth, while Disney's revenue swings wildly.
Scientists tracked 4,500 animals and found a surprising human effect
Scientists tracking thousands of animals found that our physical presence can reshape where wildlife moves and lives, sometimes as strongly as roads, cities, and other human development. Because different species reacted in very different ways, conservation efforts may need to become much more targeted.
The Literacy Crisis Reaches Dog-Bear Science
“New analysis of more than 300 bear encounters suggests our canine companions often increase odds of conflict and rarely serve as early warning systems many recreationists assume,” reads a subhead in Mountain Journal. The thing is, that study reaches no such conclusion. But you have to read beyond the abstract to understand that. Mountain Journal is not alone. Let’s look at a brief list of takeaways published elsewhere just to establish that none of them seem to know how to read science. Wes Siler’s Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe Here’s CBC: “A new peer-reviewed study, The Canine Conundrum: Is a Dog a Help or Hindrance in Bear Country?, dug into conflicts similar to what the video depicts, by analyzing 326 reported human-bear conflicts from 1901 to 2023 involving dogs.” “The study found 54 per cent of conflicts were started by dogs. In the encounters researchers included in the study, five people and 56 dogs were killed, and 170 people were injured.” “Lana Ciarniello, an independent researcher who co-authored the study, said researchers found when a person goes hiking with at least one other person, the odds of a negative bear encounter decrease by 50 per cent.” “However, when a dog is involved, the chances of a negative bear encounter increase because ‘a dog really adds a chaotic factor into the mix of recreation,’ said Ciarniello.” Again, the study finds no data supporting that conclusion. “Hiking with your pet dog may make you feel safer in bear country—but a hiker’s recent encounter and a new study prove that the numbers don’t add up,” writes Backpacker, which is now part of Outside. The numbers don’t add up to support this take. There’s plenty more examples, but all are equally dumb, so I’ll stop there. How did so many people get this so wrong? Three reasons: 1) the study is published behind a paywall, with only the abstract freely available. 2) the methodology sets out to create work relevant to a hyper-specific audience, not the public. And 3) the dataset studied is almost absurdly limited and doesn’t bear (get it?!) comparison to wider information. Let’s work through all three. The Problem is Money I understand the irony, since I’m writing about this on a subscription-model newsletter, but information wants to be free. The study is published by The Wildlife Society and costs $16 to access. Reprinting it is specifically prohibited by the terms of use, so I can only share snippets and my conclusions with you here. Having worked as a journalist for 24 years, I can report with some authority that journalists are both lazy and cheap. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that much of the material you’re seeing written about this study is drawn from the freely-available abstract (above) only, and not a deep dive into its methodology or data. And that’s a problem, because abstracts are where researchers are able to break from their numbers and editorialize their opinions about conclusions. So what’s getting reported isn’t based on numbers, it’s based on an opinion designed for a specific audience, not the general public. Hell yeah ladies, kick that bear’s ass. The Methodology is Designed to Support a Predetermined Conclusion One of the biggest issues with the science that everyone likes to cite about bear spray’s efficacy is that no one understands that study was designed for a specific audience, looking for a specific answer. And since that audience is not the public, and our safety was not the question being asked, its conclusion is rendered irrelevant to our needs. Yes, I’m talking about Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska, which was created by Tom Smith and Stephen Herrero, two of the same scientists who put together this dog-bear conflict analysis. In the spray study, the purpose was to present relevant agencies with the information they needed to issue their field workers with bear spray. As such, incidents where people were unable to access the spray or similarly failed to get it deployed in time were excluded from the results, and only incidents they deemed successful were included. Could a ranger roll down their vehicle’s window and scare a bear away from a dumpster by spraying it? Turns out the answer was yes, and that was good enough for the purposes of that study. The sample size of actual bear attacks—the thing you and I would want bear spray to provide a solution to, was too small to draw conclusions from, and didn’t indicate success in that role. Is a Dog a Help or Hindrance in Bear Country? has similar limitations. “Insights provided here are intended to help wildlife managers create effective guidelines regarding the presence of domestic dogs in bear habitat,” is explained clearly by the study’s text. To conduct the study, Smith and Herrero went looking for publicly available reports of dog-bear conflicts: “All incidents included in our analysis involved at least one bear, one dog, and one person who was at immediate risk of injury (e.g., not in a protective structure such as a cabin or vehicle), injured, or killed,” explains the report’s methodology. Why is that a problem? “We recognize that data used in this study are biased in that people generally only report adverse interactions with bears, not benign ones. Consequently, we assume that for the most part, people and their dogs pass through bear country without incident.” As was the problem with the bear spray study, people are drawing conclusions here from a study that was never intended to be relevant to the general public. The Smith-Herrero database famously excludes Alaska’s Defense of Life and Property records, which are elsewhere considered the largest and most authoritative source on human-bear conflict. The Dataset is Absurdly Limited A 2009 study conducted by the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife estimates that each year there are at least 43,000 documented complaints of human-bear conflict across North America. Is a Dog a Help or Hindrance in Bear Country? Examined those reports for years ranging from 1901 to 2023, and only managed to find 326 such incidents that met the criteria explained above. Let’s do some quick math, poorly. 43,000 incidents x 122 years = 5,246,000 total incidents of documented human-bear conflict. Smith and Herrero were only able to find 326 incidents that met their criteria for dog+human+bear+risk or occurrence of injury. That means there’s a 0.006 percent chance that the study’s conclusion—that dogs make bear encounters more dangerous—even gets a chance of occurring. And remember, that’s only in documented conflicts. There’s no way to know how many people across North America run into a bear in any given year without any conflict, but it’s probably safe to assume that the total number is well in excess of 43,000. And, dig deeper into the study and you can find further restrictions that skew its conclusions even more. “While the people involved in these incidents did not report the level of training their dogs had received, it is our assumption that most were untrained companion dogs as opposed to well-trained bear dogs, such as Karelians and livestock guardian breeds that have proven to be significant aids in bear country,” the study’s methodology explains. And that’s a problem, because an ongoing study here in Montana is finding that the simple presence of a Kangal like our youngest dog Teddy can reduce visits to private property from grizzly bears by 87.8 percent. In addition to being a badass, Teddy is also a companion animal. And in my admittedly limited sample size of the three dogs currently present in our living room, she’s no more effective than her mutt brothers. Plenty of people own a dog capable of deterring bears, even if they didn’t set out to own a bear dog. The real purpose of this study appears to be a recommendation that leashes are mandated and recreationists pursue training in their deterrent of choice. But that doesn’t make for sensational headlines. Are There Any Real Takeaways Here? Let’s throw some numbers around, just to try and get our hands around what the larger picture might look like for bears and dogs here. The American Veterinary Medical Association estimates that 42.6 percent of American households own a dog. The Canadian Animal Health Institute says roughly 35 percent of households in Canuckistan own a dog. In an attempt to create the worst possible result for dogs, let’s run with that 35 percent number. And given that outdoorsy and rural people are more likely to both own a dog, and have bear encounters, let’s just make a giant assumption and apply that number to those 43,000 conflicts documented annually. If 35 percent of 43,000 human-bear encounters involve a dog, then we can assume that at least 15,050 dog-bear conflicts are occurring annually in North America. 15,050 x 122 = 1,836,100. Smith and Herrero were only able to find 326 incidents that met their human, dog, chance or occurrence of injury criteria across 122 years. And only 170 documented human injuries. So, with all the obvious caveats about these numbers in no way describing reality beyond narrow study parameters, what they actually found is that your risk of injury if your dog tangles with a bear is only 0.009 percent. I’ll take those odds next time I’m hiking my dogs in bear country. Top photo: “Superintendent Horace Albright, eating pancakes with bears, at Lake Lodge, Yellowstone National Park.” NPS. A journalist with more than two decades of experience working around the world, Wes Siler is here to cut through the outrage and disinformation to bring you the factual, insightful, actionable reporting you need to understand what’s going on. Upgrading to a paid subscription supports this reporting, and buys personal access to Wes, who will help you save money on gear, plan outdoor adventures, and prepare for real life, and who promises he’s less salty in real life than he sometimes comes across as on the Internet. Wes Siler’s Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe
World Lacrosse, Colorado Springs Sports Corporation to host historic 2027 World Lacrosse Sixes Championships in Olympic City USA
World Lacrosse and the Colorado Springs Sports Corporation today announced that Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA, has been selected to host the 2027 World Lacrosse Sixes Championships, the sport’s primary qualifier for the Olympic Games Los Angeles 2028.
Fact check: Trump keeps making stuff up about Canada
President Donald Trump’s criticism of the US neighbor has been filled with lies – a remarkable variety of assertions that either wildly distort a kernel of truth or are just made up.
Right-to-hunt ballot measure’s a cruel, anti-wildlife solution to a nonexistent problem
By Eric Washburn I love to hunt. Every year I try to hunt big game in Colorado and waterfowl in Louisiana. This year, I applied for five Colorado big game licenses — elk, deer, pronghorn, moose and bighorn sheep. I drew a moose tag and an elk tag and will be chasing them around northwest […]
How much has the U.S.’s wildlife changed since Lewis and Clark?
Ever wish you could have been part of the Lewis and Clark expedition? Us too. The Corps of Discovery came across scores of plants and animals that were new to Western science: Grizzly bears, ponderosa pines, a “barking squirrel” that William Clark would later call the prairie dog. A modern effort is underway to see how much the country’s wildlife has changed in the 220-some years since their journey. Host Nate Rott tags along with some scientists re-surveying a part of the expedition’s route in western Montana. And he wishes he was in better shape.Interested in more science in the news? Email us your question at shortwave@npr.org.Support public media with NPR+ and enjoy perks for over 25 podcasts like this one. This show’s perks include sponsor-free listening. Learn more at plus.npr.org.
Letter: Apply science, aloha to solve cat problem
Hawaii must address the impact of free-roaming cats on native wildlife, but it must be done humanely and based on science. Simply restricting feeding is not a viable solution; it risks increasing predation on endangered species and ignores the root causes of the problem. Hungry cats do not disappear — they might hunt more, further threatening native wildlife (“Enact law to curb feral cat colonies,” Star-Advertiser, Our View, Aug. 19). That is not a responsible outcome.
Officials warn wildland firefighters about the risks of using a supplement for smoke exposure
Fire and medical officials have issued warnings about a supplement offered to Western wildland firefighters who have been exposed to toxic chemicals.
Montana wildlife commission overhauls recommended wolf quota, questioning state-backed science
The Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission set a quota of 300 wolves for the 2026-2027 hunting and trapping season, eschewing the recommendation of state biologists while also significantly lowering the number of tags available from last year.
Colorado voters will decide fate of ‘right to hunt’ proposal
Colorado’s election office said Thursday that a proposal to add a constitutional right to hunting and fishing has qualified for the November ballot. Backed by the International Order of T. Roosevelt, a group dedicated to preserving the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, Initiative No. 302 would amend the Colorado Constitution to include language establishing […]
Confirmed Detections of New World Screwworm | Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
View APHIS' current dashboard of confirmed New World screwworm cases in U.S. livestock and wildlife, updated regularly by county, state, and species.
PFF wildly underrates Jaguars running back room in NFL rankings
PFF ranked the Jaguars’ running back room last in the NFL, but Jacksonville’s young committee has more upside than the ranking suggests.
Wildlife photos from around the world dazzle in competition
Australian scientists are among the winners of a photo competition featuring stunning images of peeking damsel flies, tree selfies and cuddling manatees.
We tracked how much 3 young startup founders actually sleep
Business Insider tracked the sleep schedules of some young tech founders. Their sleep habits were wildly different.
Poor genetic health threatens many species
Four experts explain what genetic health is and why it matters for our most vulnerable wildlife.
The U.S. Military Wants A.I. Dominance. Feuds and China May Thwart It.
The administration is veering wildly in its response to the national security implications of A.I. as China, America’s main technological and military rival, charges ahead.
Dritwood Outdoors: Wildlife science demands effective communication
Wildlife management has come a long way from the days of Aldo Leopold traversing the New Mexico mountains on horseback and the Wisconsin River Valley by canoe. Back then, most decisions were based primarily on observation and experience. Today, highly trained wildlife biologists use sophisticated research, technology and mountains of data to understand everything from population dynamics and habitat needs to disease transmission and predator-prey relationships.
Wildlife science demands effective communication
Wildlife management has come a long way from the days of Aldo Leopold traversing the New Mexico mountains on horseback and the Wisconsin River Valley by canoe. Back then, most decisions were based primarily on observation and experience. Today, highly trained wildlife biologists use sophisticated research, technology and mountains of data to understand everything from population dynamics and habitat needs to disease transmission and predator-prey relationships.
Wildlife science demands effective communication
Wildlife management has come a long way from the days of Aldo Leopold traversing the New Mexico mountains on horseback and the Wisconsin River Valley by canoe. Back then, most decisions were based primarily on observation and experience. Today, highly trained wildlife biologists use sophisticated research, technology and mountains of data to understand everything from population dynamics and habitat needs to disease transmission and predator-prey relationships.
Brandon Butler column: Wildlife science demands effective communication
Wildlife management has come a long way from the days of Aldo Leopold traversing the New Mexico mountains on horseback and the Wisconsin River Valley by canoe. Back then, most decisions were based primarily on observation and experience. Today, highly trained wildlife biologists use sophisticated research, technology and mountains of data to understand everything from population dynamics and habitat needs to disease transmission and predator-prey relationships.
Wildlife experts share new details on Jackie the bald eagle’s health before her death
As the Big Bear community and wildlife enthusiasts around the world continue to mourn the death of Jackie, many still have questions about what happened to the famous bald eagle and what’s ne…
From school science project to Louisiana Wildlife Youth of the Year
New Orleans' Very Own
Hunting is a privilege, not a constitutional right
By Roland Halpern Colorado voters may soon be asked to place hunting and fishing in the state constitution. Proposition 302 would establish the right to hunt, fish and take wildlife using “traditional methods,” while declaring hunting and fishing are the state’s preferred means of managing wildlife. But though hunting and fishing are an important management […]
Hunting is a privilege, not a constitutional right
By Roland Halpern Colorado voters may soon be asked to place hunting and fishing in the state constitution. Proposition 302 would establish the right to hunt, fish and take wildlife using “traditional methods,” while declaring hunting and fishing are the state’s preferred means of managing wildlife. But though hunting and fishing are an important management […]
Wherever Jared Kushner’s Disastrous Business Plans Wander, Indictments and Protests Seem to Follow
Maybe the president’s son-in-law shouldn’t try to annex a protected wildlife habitat in Albania, just saying.
Jackie the bald eagle dead at 14
Jackie the bald eagle died Monday, August 10. Her life was documented through wildlife cameras in California's Big Bear Valley.
UW-Eau Claire student’s self-advocacy brings accessible microscope to science lab
Nursing major with low vision pushed for change — and her whole class is benefiting
In 2018, scientists found just 39 surviving clams in Florida’s Indian River Lagoon; they bred them and have since outplanted 65 million
After decades of environmental decline, Florida's Indian River Lagoon is beginning to show signs of recovery. With funding from NOAA Fisheries' Office of Habitat Conservation, the Indian River Lagoon Council is leading a system-wide effort to restore the habitats that once sustained the lagoon's fish and wildlife.
Ghost Recon Wildlands: Last Rites – A Major Free Update Powered by Community Feedback and Player Insights
Ghost Recon Wildlands: Last Rites is a major free update out now for XBOX Series X|S. Learn about how it was developed with the player community.
Free Play Days – NBA 2K26, Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Breakpoint, Wax Heads, and More
Game Pass members can hop into Sports Renovations this weekend, while all XBOX players can enjoy Ghost Recon Wildlands, Ghost Recon Breakpoint, NBA 2K26, and a free trial for Wax Heads.
Big Walk simulates the strange, childlike sensation of being unexpectedly separated from your friends, and the joy and relief of finding your way back
It might be disconcerting to wander out of voice range in Big Walk, but half the fun is working out ways to regain contact.
Ghost Recon Wildlands Goes Stupidly Cheap On Xbox Alongside Free Next-Gen Upgrade
Other Tom Clancy games have been discounted too
Science|Business summer reads of 2026
As most people in the European research and innovation policy bubble are going on a well-deserved summer break, we have come up with a list of our favourite books, podcasts and essays from the past year that ask deeper questions about science, technology and politics.BooksPasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation, by Donald StokesIf you haven’t read Pasteur’s Quadrant yet, now is the time. In the EU and elsewhere, we’re living through a period of dwindling faith that curiosity-driven research automatically leads to economic growth and technological progress. Pasteur’s Quadrant, published in 1997 by the Princeton academic Donald Stokes, is the most influential critique of the standard “linear model” of R&D: the idea that new discoveries made in ivory-tower labs get neatly passed on for commercialisation by start-ups. In reality, Stokes argues, practical applications often inspire more theorical lines of inquiry. Of course, we have long known that things are more complex than the linear model, but even today, it’s still often assumed in Brussels discourse. The book is a useful corrective, and is being used now to argue for new types of scientific institutions. David MatthewsThe Weaponization of Expertise: How Elites Fuel Populism, by Jacob Hale Russel and Dennis PattersonAre society’s problems solvable by technical expertise alone? “If only the benighted would listen,” say Jacob Hale Russel and Dennis Patterson, two professors at Rutgers Law School who got frustrated with how scientists and politicians handled public health communication during the Covid-19 pandemic. In the book, they argue that clichéd mantras about scientific evidence and expertise perpetrated by academics, journalists and politicians have harmed public trust in the very institutions they were trying to defend. Paradoxically, slogans such as “we believe in science,” “follow the science” and “defer to the experts” can fuel mistrust in science, experts and democratic institutions. The authors criticise “condescension” and “technocratic paternalism” in the public discourse and make the case for a more nuanced approach to scientific and expert policy advice that rests on humility, doubt, scepticism and open dialogue. “Most complex social questions in fact revolve around values, not the recitation of unambiguous facts,” they say. Florin ZubascuBreakneck: China's Quest to Engineer the Future, by Dan WangIn this book, Dan Wang compares the structural differences between the US and Chinese industrial policies, but raises a very timely question for innovation policy wonks: how can advanced manufacturing know-how contribute to technology-intensive economic growth? Wang says technology has three components: the tools, the blueprints and patents, and the process knowledge. The third component represents the “proficiency gained from practical experience, which isn’t easily communicated and requires years of implementation.” According to Wang, rather than seeing tools and blueprints as the ultimate ends of technological progress, policymakers should see them as milestones in the training of better scientists and manufacturers. Over the past decades, China has amassed “process knowledge” because capital flowed to complex fabrication facilities, while investors in the West have parked their money in capital-light businesses such as digital platforms or chip companies that focus on design. As it turns out, thanks to its oversized focus on manufacturing, China has gained remarkable advantages in the global technology race. Florin ZubascuBaltic: The Future of Europe, by Oliver MoodyWhat can Europe learn from the nine countries surrounding the Baltic Sea? Alongside the familiar stories about Estonia's digital transformation, the book examines how the region has used technology, resilience, education, governance and long-term thinking to respond to geopolitical, economic and security challenges. Innovation policy wonks might find fresh perspectives on how innovation can strengthen defence, societal resilience and Europe's capacity to adapt in an uncertain world. Whether or not you agree with all of Oliver Moody's conclusions, the book is a useful guide to a region that is increasingly shaping European debates on security, competitiveness and technology. Goda NaujokaityteThe Invention of Nature, by Andrea Wulf This book chronicles the wild and adventurous life of natural science pioneer Alexander von Humboldt who at some point in the 19th century seems to have been just about the most famous person in the world. Through scientific expeditions to the Andes Mountains and to the depths of Siberia, von Humboldt contributed a host of discoveries and concepts. During his life he met and formed relationships with historical figures as different as Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Simon Bolivar, Thomas Jefferson, Napoleon Bonaparte and Charles Darwin. He is also claimed to be the person in the world with most things named after him, a list that includes an ocean current, a penguin and a region of the Moon. Still venerated in Germany, with numerous scientific institutions named after him, von Humboldt has slipped out of public consciousness in most of the rest of the world. For anyone not familiar with him, this book does a good job of describing his fascinating life. Ole EllekrogCareless People, by Sarah Wynn-WilliamsYou may have heard this referred to as the book Meta doesn’t want you to read. The 2025 memoir from Sarah Wynn-Williams, former director of global public policy at Meta, then just called Facebook, includes explosive claims about everything from a toxic workplace culture to how the company worked with advertisers to target vulnerable teens, and the lengths it was prepared to go to in order to break into China. It’s a fascinating insight into how and why the tech company gradually shifted its approach to policy, whether in the US, Europe or Asia. Meta has denied the allegations in the book, and last year won an emergency ruling to prevent Wynn-Williams from promoting it. In response, the author is now suing her former employer. If that doesn’t make you want to read it. Martin GreenacrePodcastsThe Europeans: Europe’s anti-ElonThis podcast is a great choice for a light-hearted dose of European policy and culture news. Most of it has little to do with research, innovation and technology, but this particular podcast features an interview with Mastadon’s founder Eugen Rochko. He talks about his experience running an open-source, federated, European-made social media platform, and leaving it all behind. The conversation, which starts 14 minutes in, gently encourages us to reflect on what kind of technology we, as Europeans, want to make. Goda NaujokaityteSolarpunk and how we escape dystopiaNew technologies are very often taken from science fiction. Alberto Santos-Dumont, inventor the airship, was inspired as a child by the adventure stories of Jules Verne. OpenAI’s attempt to build a personal assistant with the voice of Scarlett Johansson was lifted from the 2013 film Her, completely ignoring the movie’s cautionary message. So if we want better tech, we need to imagine it first. Unfortunately, the state of current sci-fi is relentlessly dystopian, giving inventors precious few ideas or hope. However, a new genre, Solarpunk, which envisages a technologically advanced but ecologically harmonious future, is now taking off. The actual tech the genre imagines, such as permaculture, renewable energy or community repair workshops, while nice, isn’t all that inspiring or ambitious. But it’s a first step towards rescuing sci-fi from its pessimistic Blade Runner rut. David MatthewsEveryday AbundanceLaunched in June, Everyday Abundance is a podcast that tells the stories of the inventions we now take so for granted that we barely given them a second thought. For example, the washing machine, which liberated women from a lifetime “bent over washtubs and washboards.” Or modern dentistry, which ended the reality that “tooth pain was simply part of human life.” Historians of technology, Virginia Postrel and Charles C Mann are very much on the optimistic end of the spectrum when it comes to the capacity of invention to improve human life. Here, they set out their case: if it wasn’t for progress, you might be hunched over a washtub with toothache rather than reading these words. David Matthews‘We will not know what we lost’: Conservation fallout a year after USAID shutdownSince his return to the White House, Donald Trump has been on a mission to undermine science. He slashed jobs at federal agencies, terminated grants in some research areas, took unprecedented control over university affairs and, within hours of his inauguration, suspended the US Agency for International Development. While its initial focus was to administer health and food aid around the world, it had since expanded to conservation projects. The result? Some of these projects were stopped abruptly. In this Mongabay podcast, environmental reporter Michelle Nijhuis tells the story of the EcoGuard conservation programme in Liberia, whose local patrols had helped protect rainforests, monitor endangered wildlife and track illegal threats. From one day to the next, these were left without salaries. Luckily, she notes, the initiative was able to get emergency funding from international NGOs, but its future remains “incredibly uncertain.” Juliette PortalaEssaysThe Mars Delusion, by Henry WismayerWhy is humankind so fixated on establishing a colony on Mars? asks London-based writer Henry Wismayer. From space evangelists promoting Martian settlement as an insurance policy, to billionaire Jeff Bezos, who said humans should settle on Mars “because it’s cool,” the mission is not running short of advocates. However, in this essay, Wismayer reminds us that some critics expect any future Mars pioneer to end up “irradiated, sick, mad and dead.” Scientists have already looked into the possible effects of prolonged exposure to Martian gravity, and it’s not pretty: muscle shrinking, bones weakening, changes to the central nervous system and other biological modifications to make us all reconsider the journey. “Some researchers have forecast that the future settler, after generations of evolutionary conditioning, will look less like an Übermensch and more like ET,” Wismayer writes. Juliette Portala
Free 4K, 60fps PS5 Upgrade for Ghost Recon Wildlands for All Existing Players from Tomorrow
Everyone can try until 10th August
Orange County weighs restrictions on exotic wildlife entertainment after Sloth World controversy
Nearly a year after the Sloth World controversy sparked outrage across Central Florida, Orange County leaders are exploring whether they can prevent a similar situation from happening again.
As Global Land Degradation Accelerates, WCS Brings Science and Wildlife Conservation Expertise to UNCCD COP17 in Mongolia, August 17-28
ULAANBAATAR, Mongolia, August 3, 2026 — As land degradation, biodiversity loss, and climate change increasingly threaten ecosystems and communities around the world, the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) will urge governments at the 17th Conference of the Parties to the United
As Global Land Degradation Accelerates, WCS Brings Science and Wildlife Conservation Expertise to UNCCD COP17 in Mongolia
ULAANBAATAR, Mongolia, August 3, 2026 — As land degradation, biodiversity loss, and climate change increasingly threaten ecosystems and communities around the world, the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) will urge governments at the 17th Conference of the Parties to the United
Let’s do science: Share your wild turkey sightings
MAINE—All good wildlife management starts with science, and all good science starts with data. That’s where you come in. Maine’s Wild Turkey August Production Survey invites community scientists to play a direct role in monitoring our state’s wild turkey population. Whether you enjoy watching wildlife from your window, spend time hiking, hunting, or exploring the outdoors, or just need an excuse to get outside, you can help. Each summer, Maine’s wild turkey hens are busy raising the next generation of birds. By reporting your sightings and observations, you’ll help our biologists monitor annual reproduction rates, track population trends, and make informed management decisions that support healthy, sustainable turkey populations for generations to come. The information collected helps ensure there are abundant opportunities for both wildlife watchers and hunters to enjoy Maine’s wild turkeys. It’s easy to participate! Whenever you see wild turkeys anywhere in Maine during August, simply report: Date and location of your observation Number of adult females (hens) Number of adult males (gobblers) Number of poults (young turkeys) Estimated poult size relative to the adult hens Every observation counts, even if you don’t see poults. Together, these reports provide a clearer picture of turkey productivity across the state and are an important part of Maine’s wildlife management. Ready to help? Report your turkey sightings online using the Wild Turkey August Production Survey. Submit an Observation Subscribe Share Leave a comment
Florida Business Owners Accused of Scattering Mothballs to Drive Off Protected Shorebirds
Two business owners on St. Pete Beach are facing charges after wildlife officers say they tried to make an entire flock of protected shorebirds pack up and leave — not with noise, not with nets, ... R...
Eating one avocado a day may lower heart disease risk
A daily avocado may help lower heart disease risk in adults with obesity by reducing the number of LDL particles circulating in the blood. After six months, participants who ate an avocado each day experienced a decline associated with an estimated 4% reduction in cardiovascular risk.
CDFW News | Del Norte County Razor Clam Fishery Closes Due to Public Health Hazard; Monterey Bay Anchovy and Sardine Restrictions Lifted as Health Concern Alleviated
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife closed the recreational razor clam fishery in Del Norte County today following a recommendation from state health agencies that consumption of razor clams in the area poses a significant human health threat for domoic acid exposure.
Viewpoint: Grizzly science and keys to wildlife management
Alex Metcalf writes, Science can help us expand grizzly bear populations or shrink them — science doesn’t care which, only people can make that choice.
The new "science golden age" looks suspiciously like a grift
This edition of PN is made possible by paid subscribers. Become one ⬇️ 🚀 Subscribe to PN 🚀 The Trump regime is trying to usher in a “Golden Age in Science” where scientific research is run like a Trump family business, artificial intelligence is all that matters, profit is everything, and expertise is for chumps. Or at least that’s the vision emerging from a new 123-page “Report to the President” from Michael Kratsios, the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. In a normal administration, you could probably skip over learning about a science policy document — but this is no normal administration, and this is no normal science policy document. Instead, it’s Trump’s attempt to end the actual golden age of science that was kicked off in 1945 with the publication of '“The Endless Frontier” by Vannevar Bush. [ ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/harmeet-dhillon-portland) [ Harmeet Dhillon demonstrates danger of posting through it ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/harmeet-dhillon-portland) Liz Dye · Jul 29 [ Read full story ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/harmeet-dhillon-portland) Bush, at President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s request, laid out a vision of federal support for science that centered on funding universities to do basic research, saying that as long as those institutions were “vigorous and healthy and their scientists are free to pursue the truth wherever it may lead, there will be a flow of new scientific knowledge to those who can apply it to practical problems in Government, in industry, or elsewhere.” Kratsios’s report is supposed to be the successor to Bush’s, and even apes the format, but this isn’t really a document about science policy. It’s one about ending science research as we know it in favor of shoveling cash at big tech companies. While it might be temping to wave this away as an aspirational policy document, Trump has already begun to shift billions in research funds to AI projects and has taken a hatchet to science funding across the board. He’s teed up the shift Kratsios proposes here, and since neither Congress nor the Supreme Court seem inclined to stop him from doing whatever he wants with taxpayer money, it isn’t doomering or hyperbole to say we are staring down the barrel of a world where the only “science” the government intends to support is for-profit tech and defense advancements. Science for dummies Part of how you can tell this isn’t a document about science is that you are immediately faced with an absolute wall of business-speak of the worst sort. Did you know we must “tightly couple our science and technology enterprises to ensure that groundbreaking ideas invented in the United States are rapidly prototyped, tested, manufactured, and scaled domestically”? You do now! That tone isn’t surprising, because Kratsios has no background in science or research. He has a bachelor’s in political science and spent most of his career working for Peter Thiel at Thiel Capital. After a stint in the first Trump administration as Chief Technology Officer, where he also did not do any science, Kratsios was tasked in 2020 with overseeing the Pentagon’s research budget for a brief time, a position that, as the Wall Street Journal put it, “carries a great deal of power in terms of dictating investment allocations.” He spent the Biden years at Scale AI as “head of strategy,” which you will also note is neither a science nor a research job. But Scale AI has contracts with the Department of Defense and, as the Washington Post wrote in 2023, “has been aggressively pitching itself as the company that will help the US military in its existential battle with China.” And now you have the necessary background for our new golden age, which is going to be a golden age of taking money away from scientists and universities and giving it to companies like Scale AI. A note from Aaron: Working with brilliant contributors like Lisa takes resources. If you aren’t already a paid subscriber, please become one to support our work. 👇 Subscribe In a genuinely galling move, Katsios spends a lot of time slamming universities because of “administrative burdens on researchers” and the “well-documented inefficiencies” in academia, the message being that those damn universities waste the time of amazing researchers with paperwork. Except it’s the administration that is attempting to impose inefficient, unnecessary burdens on those researchers with a proposed Office of Management and Budget rule that would require senior political appointees to approve every science grant and ensure it aligns with Trump’s personal priorities. Researchers would also have to seek prior government approval to attend conferences or publicize their research. And political appointees could terminate any grant at any time if they feel like it. [ ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/omb-rule-science-funding) [ The murder of expertise ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/omb-rule-science-funding) Lisa Needham · Jun 11 [ Read full story ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/omb-rule-science-funding) But when it comes to AI, we’re going to “restore permissionless innovation.” The report proposes to give lucky ducky innovators a pile of cash up front for grants lasting five years or longer, saying “awards should be fully-funded in year one, with all resources earmarked upfront, to minimize administrative burdens and reduce pressure for researchers to generate intermediate results to secure continued funding.” Yeah, wouldn’t want to have to make the Very Special Tech Bros show results or get money parceled out year by year like the plebes at universities. The report also proposes that we should have “fast grants” with “simplified applications requiring just a few pages of writing” because that is definitely how science works, just writing a bit off the dome and getting some cash. [ ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-ai-action-plan-altman-llms) [ Tech elites are turning AI into ChatGPTrump ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-ai-action-plan-altman-llms) Paul Waldman · July 29, 2025 [ Read full story ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-ai-action-plan-altman-llms) Oh, and we should have prizes and challenges, where multiple teams compete. The proposed prizes include incentives like “advance procurement commitments,” which means the federal government agrees to buy whatever is being developed. There’s also “regulatory fast-tracking,” making sure all those great AI thingies don’t have to wait too long to be unleashed on a market. These aren’t incentives to do science. These are incentives to develop things with tax dollars that you can then sell to the government for more tax dollars. In the suggestion that might be the most unhinged, the most very opposite of how both government and research work, our new age will include “golden tickets.” That’s where an individual reviewer in an agency — yes, just one person — can “recommend unconventional proposals that may not pass consensus-driven review panels” because somehow this will “surface valuable ideas too divisive for committees and attract higher quality reviewers by empowering them to exercise independent scientific judgment.” Yes, that’s saying that a random person in an agency should be able to shovel money at some idea even if it can’t pass a review panel, and that the opportunity to do so will attract better employees because apparently all the best minds in science are chomping at the bit to be allowed to unilaterally fund AI research based on their personal vibes. But that isn’t at all how actual science works, and actual scientists aren’t unhappy about review panels. They work collaboratively, not siloed in some secret race to create the next AI chatbot. A 2020 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research examined whether peer review panels succeed in helping agencies predict which research ideas will best advance science. Peer review was better at finding “diamond in the rough” applicants than a single government program official. How about that. Trump always wants a taste It’s painfully clear that what Katsios is trying to do here is turn the whole of government science research and funding into the sort of “move fast and break things” paradigm that is the hallmark of big tech. That method works to line the pockets of tech executives, but it isn’t science. There’s a reason the government funds different kinds of research than private tech companies do. What Katsios either fails to understand or deliberately ignores is that the federal government is the main funder of basic research precisely because it can take a long time for it to bear fruit and is not intended to be profitable as such. “Basic” here does not mean rudimentary or simple, but rather research that is designed to advance scientific knowledge instead of achieving a specific outcome or product. Big tech companies don’t widely fund that sort of research, because it doesn’t make them money. Industry dollars account for only about 20 percent of basic research funding, while the government contributes around 60 percent. Big tech companies and startups do, however, rely on and benefit from that basic research. A 2019 study found that 35 percent of all patents obtained by venture-backed startups from 1976 to 2016 cited federally supported research. Basic research funded by the NIH contributed to every single drug the FDA approved from 2010 to 2016. [ ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-saudi-nuclear-deal) [ The Saudi nuclear farce and governance by whim and meme ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-saudi-nuclear-deal) Noah Berlatsky · Jul 27 [ Read full story ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-saudi-nuclear-deal) Unlike inventing the next ChatGPT, actual science is slow and iterative. Government funding of research that, on its face, would not appear to lead to any big new invention is actually what underpins those big new inventions. If the government hadn’t funded research into desert lizard venom, we wouldn’t know about semaglutide, and we wouldn’t have Ozempic. If research scientists hadn’t studied how bees optimize nectar foraging within a colony, we wouldn’t have the algorithm that assigns internet traffic across computer servers. The report assiduously ignores that a symbiotic, profitable relationship between the federal government, universities, and private companies already exists. Each federal research dollar generates about $1.50 to $3.00 in long-term economic benefits. The $36 billion the government awarded in NIH research funding in fiscal year 2025 generated $94 billion in new economic activity. Trump’s proposed new golden age is intended to strip those billions from universities, resulting in the dismantling of departments and the shuttering of labs. But Katsios has a plan for that: Universities should just become trade schools to churn out no-show STEM degrees! “Require universities and community colleges to embed practical technical training and externships into STEM curricula. Let hands-on experience and industry credentials count toward degrees.” It’s quite the feat to, on the one hand, strip schools of funding for scientific research while simultaneously demanding to control what is taught and, oh, also, colleges need to give degrees to employees at big tech companies just for being employees at big tech companies. The new golden age would also exacerbate the brain drain Trump’s policies have already caused. Nature found that in the first quarter of 2025, US scientists submitted 32 percent more job applications abroad than in 2024. A March 2025 poll by Nature of roughly 1,600 scientists found that over 1,200 said they were considering leaving the country. Europe is investing $565 million to make it a “magnet for researchers” and provide funding for scientists who relocate. The new golden age is also about embedding Trump’s xenophobia into the fabric of American science. The report complains of an “over-reliance on foreign students” that “creates a security challenge our institutions are ill-equipped to address” and that a “reliance on foreign talent sidelines American students.” This is, to put it mildly, nonsense. International students pay far higher tuition and often receive no financial aid. Their tuition dollars are what make it possible for American students to get financial aid. In the 2023-2024 school year alone, international students contributed $43.8 billion to the US economy and supported over 378,000 jobs. Those 1.1 million international students accounted for only six percent of the total number of students in higher education that year, but were such an economic engine that for every three international students, one job was created or supported. It’s impossible not to wonder whether part of Trump’s loathing for universities and their leading role in scientific research is that there is no way for him to corrupt the process and make money off it in the same way he can by giving millions and billions to Silicon Valley types who, in turn, give him millions in cash. There’s no way for his children to invest in universities that the government then gives no-bid contracts to, fattening the family’s bottom line, which is pretty much the Trump sons’ current venture capital practice. Trump and Katsios’s view of science is narrow, cramped, and wrong. We’re not in a crisis, we’re not a failed state. We’ve been a science superpower for decades, and the only thing that threatens that is Donald Trump. Tech bros are already living high off the hog in this administration. They don’t need any more of our tax dollars. Hopefully this new golden age never comes to pass. Thanks for reading Public Notice. This post is public so feel free to share it. Share We’ll be back with more tomorrow. If you appreciate today’s PN, please do your part to keep us free by signing up for a paid subscription. 🚀 Subscribe to PN 🚀 Thanks for reading, and for your support.
Wild horse decisions should be led by science
Karen Schutte’s recent Arizona Capitol Times op-ed, “Arizona Should Not Manage Wild Horses by Straw Poll,” raises an important question that deserves serious consideration: How should public agencies establish population targets for free-roaming wildlife?
Amber heat health alert: How are people and wildlife faring?
As another amber heat health alert is issued, what are the issues across the region?
6 Takeaways From Michigan’s Senate Debate Between Abdul El-Sayed and Haley Stevens
At the final debate before next week’s Democratic primary for Senate, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed and Representative Haley Stevens showcased their wildly different ideological stances and political styles.
Bill Oddie, wildlife presenter and star of British comedy series 'The Goodies,' dies at 85
Bill Oddie, a British comic actor who had a second career as as a bird expert and wildlife presenter, died on Saturday, his agent said, He was 85.
Puzzles, Treats, and Consent? The New Frontier in Wildlife Studies
From raccoons solving puzzle boxes to dogs leaving saliva samples, scientists are experimenting with less invasive ways to study wildlife.
Did bucket-list trip for partner's 50th birthday, including a safari
To celebrate my partner's 50th birthday, I planned a bucket-list trip around the world that included our first African safari and wildlife sightings.
Colorado Commission prioritizes feelings over science
The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission voted Thursday and prioritized feelings over science-based management. Meanwhile, Rancher X is the beneficiary of those feelings-driven decisions. Well played, governor. The newest appointees to the CPW Commission are...
A Week of Smoky Skies Across North America
Brown carbon, emitted by wildland fires and tracked over the span of a week in July 2026, worsened air quality in parts of the U.S. and Canada.
The CPW Commission’s act of courage
By Eric Washburn Winston Churchill once said: “Courage is rightly esteemed the first of human qualities because, as has been said, it is the quality which guarantees all others.” Until this year, Colorado Parks & Wildlife has allowed hunters to kill as many so-called furbearers, including beavers, foxes and pine martens, as they liked, with […]
Business, boaters, and wildlife hit by Erewash Canal closures
Part of the canal shut at the end of June due to low water levels, and remains closed.
Shaky political "science": breakdown of the peer review process
[This article is the latest in our “Shaky Political Science” series. In our 38 page report, “Shaky political ‘science’ misses mark on ranked choice voting,” released in December 2025, we examined over 40 studies focused on ranked choice voting (RCV). Many of these studies suffered from puzzling research methodologies, poorly constructed surveys, unrealistic simulated elections, cherry picked data and faulty analyses that often were contradicted by results from real-world elections (a link to our full paper is here). Here are links to the first four articles in our series: the first one summarizing the overall results of our report; the second one analyzed a study co-authored by University of Minnesota academic Larry Jacobs, which was one of the most error-prone of all the research we reviewed in our report; a third article showing an admirable example of two political scientists holding two other political scientists accountable for their flawed, sloppy research; and a fourth article that analyzed seven studies sponsored by New America’s political reform program that deployed flawed methodology based on “simulated” elections instead of real-world elections, which when combined with some basic misunderstandings of RCV, produced odd and misleading results]. In this fifth article in our “Shaky Political Science” series, we examine two flawed studies on the impact of RCV on voter turnout authored by San Francisco State University professor Jason McDaniel. McDaniel’s research in these two papers stands out for its puzzling methodology, inadequate and cherry-picked data, and faulty analyses that not only misunderstands ranked choice voting but reflects a basic misunderstanding of politics in general. The first of the McDaniel studies actually passed through a peer review process and then was subsequently published by the Journal of Urban Affairs, despite its obvious errors. It is perplexing that a jury of peer political scientists did not catch the errors and send it back to McDaniel for a rewrite or outright rejection. This calls into question the credibility of the peer review process itself. The peer review process is supposed to represent the intellectual pinnacle of the profession – a way for academics to certify the quality of each other’s work, and to act as a check against sloppy research. In the case of the McDaniel study, the peer review process failed. Yet his flawed study has been cited dozens of times by other political scientists in their own flawed works — an unvirtuous circle of academic research. Here is the first Jason McDaniel study that we analyzed: “Writing the Rules to Rank the Candidates: Examining the Impact of Instant-Runoff Voting on Racial Group Turnout in San Francisco Mayoral Elections,” by Jason McDaniel, 2016, Journal of Urban Affairs. This study covered San Francisco’s use of ranked choice voting (RCV) in mayoral elections, purporting to show that RCV reduces voter turnout overall, increases voter errors, and has a negative impact on “marginal populations,” i.e. racial minorities, mainly as the result of the alleged complexity of RCV asking voters to rank candidates and having to be familiar with multiple candidates and related dynamics. McDaniel reached these conclusions by examining five San Francisco mayoral elections taking place in odd years (i.e. where there are no federal or state races on the ballot) from 1995 to 2011, comparing three earlier non-RCV races (in 1995, 1999 and 2003) with the later two RCV races (in 2007 and 2011). Only two RCV races were studied, and as McDaniel acknowledged, only the contest in 2011 was “competitive” (that contest in 2007 was the first mayoral election using RCV, and incumbent mayor Gavin Newsom won easily in the first round of counting, earning 74% of first choices and far ahead of the second place candidate who had just 6.3% of first choices). Yet even the allegedly competitive contest in 2011was won by an incumbent with a landslide margin of nearly 20 points. No other elections were studied by McDaniel, even though San Francisco elects 17 other offices besides mayor with RCV, including the 11 seats on the Board of Supervisors (the name for the city council) in even years, and six other citywide offices in odd years. Previous academic research has found that competitive elections can stimulate greater voter involvement and higher turnout. For unexplained reasons, this study ignored at least 34 other RCV races between the years 2004 to 2011, many of which were very competitive and had high voter turnout. Instead, McDaniel’s analysis based its conclusions on data from only a single, marginally-competitive mayor’s race using RCV. These 2007 and 2011 mayoral elections were the only two RCV elections that McDaniel used as the sole basis for his small data set to determine the impact of RCV on voter turnout. Despite having no meaningful data to inform his study, McDaniel nonetheless concluded that RCV lowered turnout when compared to the previous three mayoral non-RCV elections using two-round runoffs. Then, using the same inadequate database of San Francisco elections, McDaniel also found that “Instant-runoff voting is associated with a significant decline in Black voter turnout and White voter turnout…On average, Black voter turnout decreases by 18 points and White voter turnout decreases by 16 points …” But how could he credibly arrive at that conclusion when his study was based on voter turnout in two RCV contests that were not even remotely competitive? Beyond that, McDaniel tacitly admits that the key determining factor driving Black voter turnout was not RCV vs non-RCV elections, but the presence of a viable Black candidate. McDaniel wrote, “Black voter turnout was about 17 percentage points higher for the two elections that featured an African American candidate compared to the three elections that did not” — but one of those three elections did not use RCV. The same dynamic was present for White voter turnout, in which higher turnout was not correlated with RCV vs non-RCV elections, but the presence of a viable White candidate. Beyond that, McDaniel’s voter turnout results, whether correlated with the race of the candidates or RCV vs non-RCV elections, showed no clear patterns. In his Figure 1, he shows low Asian voter turnout in the non-RCV elections in 1999 and 2003 when there was no viable Asian candidate running, but in the 2007 mayoral election using RCV, there is still no viable Asian candidate, yet Asian turnout increases dramatically. For Latinos, voter turnout is virtually the same in 1999 (no viable Latino candidate, non-RCV elections), 2003 (leading Latino candidate, non-RCV elections), 2007 (no viable Latino candidate, RCV elections) and 2011 (leading Latino candidate, RCV elections). Meanwhile White voter turnout increased dramatically from a low in the 2007 mayoral election, in which the leading candidate was a white incumbent, to the 2011 election in which there were no leading white candidates that finished any higher than sixth place with 5.6% of the vote. Clearly other factors were determining voter turnout than either the race of the candidates or RCV vs non-RCV elections. Despite these inconsistent findings, McDaniel boldly marches forth to render conclusions about the impact of RCV on different groups of racial voters, even though his conclusions are not remotely supported by his data. This looks like the worst kind of “data cherry picking” to cover up a puzzling conclusion based on a poor data set involving only two RCV elections, neither of which were remotely competitive. McDaniel’s cherry picking didn’t stop there. In calculating voter turnout for the three non-RCV mayoral elections in 1995, 1999 and 2003, he failed to mention that in each of these years there was a two-round runoff election, with a first round election in November in which no candidate garnered a winning majority of the vote, followed by the decisive runoff in December. So there were two non-RCV elections in each election year. But McDaniel only decided to include one of the two elections in his data set, apparently the December runoff in each year (which had higher turnout in two out of the three mayor’s races, and lower turnout in the third). So he ignored the November 1995 election, the November 1999 election when turnout was only 45 percent, and the November 2003 election when turnout was only 45.7 percent. This is flawed methodology based on blatant cherry picking, since McDaniel simply omitted three elections worth of data that did not fit within his frame. His study should never have made it through a peer review process, and it is an embarrassment to political science that not only was it approved for publication, but it has been uncritically cited by dozens of other political scientists. Share A “study” without wider context or credible data Lacking a data set that included even a single competitive RCV mayoral race, McDaniel declared that RCV lowered voter turnout in 2011, when turnout was 42.5 percent. But he also ignored -- or did not realize -- that voter turnout in mayoral elections during 2011 had sharply declined in all big cities, including far more steeply in nearby Los Angeles and other cities. In fact, San Francisco’s election in 2011 had the second highest turnout of any mayoral election in the nation’s 22 largest cities from 2008-2011. Was 2011 just a particularly low turnout year all across the country, perhaps because the country was still reeling from the aftermath of the housing market collapse in 2008-2010? McDaniel ignored this factor and did not search for alternative explanations beyond his flawed thesis. Furthermore, while McDaniel suggested that RCV leads to more “overvotes” – which is an invalidated ballot in which a voter, in either a non-RCV or RCV race, makes a mistake and selects two candidates for a single choice – he failed to address that in the June 2012 US Senate primary contest, which used the typical “one-choice” plurality method and did not use RCV, there was more than five times as many overvotes in San Francisco and Oakland than in the RCV mayoral elections in those cities. Additionally, turnout had been significantly higher and more representative in RCV elections for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors races -- that McDaniel didn’t even bother to study -- as compared to previous “delayed two-round runoffs” for those offices, often higher by as much as 40% in the RCV races. Perhaps the most surprising irony was that an earlier study co-authored by McDaniel (Overvoting and the Equality of Voice under Instant-Runoff Voting in San Francisco by Francis Neely and Jason McDaniel, 2015, California Journal of Politics and Policy) found that overvotes are often more common in lower-income precincts, but that the pattern of overvoting is similar in both RCV and non-RCV contests. Wrote Neely and McDaniel: “[Overvote] errors appear to be a function of complexity in general and not IRV per se…. the pattern of overvoting is similar in both IRV and non-IRV contests…Even among votes cast in a top-of-the-ticket race like U.S. Senate, overvoting occurs in an uneven fashion” (IRV, or ‘instant runoff voting,’ is another name for ranked choice voting in single-winner contests). So McDaniel not only contradicted his own conclusion in his earlier study with Neely, but the earlier study had been an important corrective for one of the most frequently made mistakes made by anti-RCV political scientists – a continual failure to provide crucial context by pairing a comparative analysis of real world RCV elections with an analysis of real world plurality or other electoral methods. Unfortunately McDaniel’s earlier study does not get cited much by other researchers, and McDaniel did not even cite it in his own flawed study analyzed above. Incredibly, McDaniel cherrypicked McDaniel, even as his flawed study has been cited dozens of times. Despite being a textbook example of poor political “science,” featuring both inadequate as well as cherrypicked data, the shelf life of McDaniel’s study has been extended endlessly by other political scientists and media outlets who have cited it uncritically. Equally troubling, the Journal of Urban Affairs put this paper through its peer review process and published it despite its numerous flaws. McDaniel gets it wrong, Part II Not content with producing one shoddy, confused paper, McDaniel produced another one a few years later, here is the link: Electoral Rules and Voter Turnout in Mayoral Elections: An Analysis of Ranked-Choice Voting by Jason McDaniel. San Francisco State Univ. (McDaniel, 2019). In this paper, McDaniel extended his previous flawed research focused on San Francisco, about voter turnout and voter impact, to multiple RCV cities through the 2018 elections. In his data set he included San Francisco, Minneapolis, St Paul, Oakland, Berkeley, San Leandro and Santa Fe. He then compared their turnout in mayoral elections to non-RCV cities, and to mayoral elections in those cities held before first RCV usage, and concluded “a significant decrease in voter turnout of approximately 3–5 percentage points in RCV cities after the implementation of RCV.” But he replicated many of the same mistakes as his first study presented above. While in this study McDaniel attempted to distinguish between various factors, such as odd year vs. even year elections, competitive races vs. noncompetitive, contests with open seats and other factors, the analysis is superficial and inadequate. He attempts to incorporate so many often-conflicting variables that his conclusions are once again unsupported by the actual data, and ultimately unconvincing (this second study never underwent a peer review process). For example, McDaniel declared that for RCV cities “in elections that are more competitive than average (margin of victory less than 20%), there is no significant RCV effect on voter turnout.” Yet McDaniel is a professor in a city, San Francisco, in which the 2018 special election using RCV to fill a mayoral vacancy was exceedingly close, decided by a margin of only one percentage point, and resulted in the second highest turnout in San Francisco history for a mayoral election. Illustrating the complexity involved in assessing the critical factors in turnout, that special election was held on the same election day as federal and state offices, which tends to boost turnout. Yet more voters participated in that RCV mayoral election than voted on the same day in the non-RCV primary for governor in which former San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom was running. Even more puzzling, in this study McDaniel inaccurately cited his own previous study from 2015 with Neely. McDaniel wrote, “Neely and McDaniel (2015) examine individual ballot image files within a natural experiment, and find higher rates of ballot errors in RCV elections compared to non-RCV elections” (emphasis added). However, we quoted from that 2015 study several paragraphs above, and in actual fact Neely and McDaniel actually concluded the opposite -- that the pattern of overvoting – which is the most common form of ballot error – is similar in both RCV and non-RCV contests. McDaniel also ignored the fact that in Bay Area RCV elections held in even years – at the same time as federal and state elections, when turnout is highest -- the “undervote” (that is, the dropoff in ballots cast for governor or mayor) has declined, which contradicts his thesis that the act of ranking ballots in RCV elections is too complex and presents a barrier for certain demographics of voters. To his credit, McDaniel actually acknowledged another contradiction in his own paper, which found a negative RCV turnout effect in some odd-year elections but not others, admitting that “may present a challenge to the theory that increased complexity [from RCV] will have a marginal negative effect on voter turnout.” But he tried to wallpaper over that contradiction by blaming it on an unlikely source -- bad election administration. McDaniels wrote, “This would suggest that the negative impact of RCV on voter participation may be alleviated by high quality election administration,” without presenting any data or even anecdotes to support such an unfounded theory. While competent election administration of any election, whether RCV or non-RCV, is crucially important, there is no credible research that supports the far-fetched notion that the quality of election administration has much of an impact on voter turnout in US elections, whether using RCV or otherwise. Upgrade to a $5 subscription The unvirtuous circle of academic research It is puzzling how McDaniel’s first study could have survived the peer review process for the Journal of Urban Affairs. The mistakes in McDaniel’s first study above should have been obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of ranked choice voting as well as elections in general, and elections in San Francisco specifically. It undermines faith in the credibility of the peer review process to think that a jury of peer political scientists did not catch the egregious errors and reject McDaniel’s sloppy research and paper. And it remains a black mark on political science that this thoroughly discredited study has been cited dozens of times by other researchers. Indeed, in our research paper it became apparent that many political scientists cite each other’s flawed research to pad their list of citations and to legitimize their own flawed research, creating an unvirtuous circle of political science. More broadly, McDaniel’s voter turnout studies, like other studies evaluating RCV’s impact on turnout, lacked a recognition that no credible opinion or research can claim that RCV increases voter turnout merely because so many voters are excited to vote for their favorite candidates instead of “lesser evil” candidates without worrying about spoilers. Instead, with respect to turnout, the advantage of RCV has always been that, in most places where it has been used, it has eliminated a pre-November primary or post-November runoff, which usually saw about half the turnout of the November general election. This is especially true during even years when there are state and federal elections on the ballot which substantially drive turnout more than local contests. Any study that does not adequately account for this non-November primary/runoff vs November general election dynamic, or odd year vs even year election factors, is simply not credible. Both of McDaniel’s studies largely failed on those grounds. Steven Hill and Paul Haughey Share Upgrade to a $5 subscription Thanks for reading DemocracySOS…your digital portal for the pro-democracy movement. Subscribe for only $5 per month to receive full benefits and to support our work. Subscribe
Xbox Store Quietly Leaks 'Major' Upgrade For Ghost Recon Wildlands
4K, 60FPS seemingly inbound
How Nashville's country music talent helps shape Big Sky's music scene
Carrie Underwood, Riley Green and more lead Wildlands as a Montana luxury resort town turns Nashville connections into a music tourism opportunity.
Colorado Commission prioritizes feelings over science
The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission voted Thursday and prioritized feelings over science-based management. Meanwhile, Rancher X is the beneficiary of those feelings-driven decisions. Well played, Governor. The newest appointees to the CPW Commission are just the parting gift you had in mind for rural Colorado. The Commission voted Thursday 6-5 to reject CPW staff […]
Colorado Commission prioritizes feelings over science
The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission voted Thursday and prioritized feelings over science-based management. Meanwhile, Rancher X is the beneficiary of those feelings-driven decisions. Well played, Governor. The newest appointees to the CPW Commission are just the parting gift you had in mind for rural Colorado. The Commission voted Thursday 6-5 to reject CPW staff […]
Rookie Hannes Steinbach Gets Honest on Role With Hornets
Charlotte Hornets rookie big man Hannes Steinbach shared what he will bring to the team in his rookie season.
New Official Ghost Recon Release Confirmed For PS5 and Xbox Series X
Ubisoft’s latest Ghost Recon Wildlands release could be the first sign of a long-awaited current-gen revival for the beloved 2017 shooter.
Sharks, sutures & science
From learning how to do surgical sutures on a silicone mat to exploring the anatomy of sharks, frogs and other animals, students are diving into hands-on wildlife science this summer during the Clinic for the Rehabilitation of Wildlife's Conservation Summer Camp. With various camps designed for students in kindergarten through 12th grade, CROW's annual camp combines wildlife conservation, veterinary medicine and outdoor discovery through
In pictures: How forensic science is helping tackle wildlife poaching
Advances in forensic science are disrupting the illegal wildlife trade – and are documented in a new photo series