SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " medium " 391 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Colorado Sues EarnIn For “Immoral, Unethical, Oppressive and Unscrupulous” Business Practices
Hey all, Jason here. When this hits your inbox, I should be en route to the airport — not to go anywhere myself, just to pick up my better half. I must admit, it’s been strange to be home alone (well, with two dogs) for two weeks! Really lets me “optimize” to spending more time on reading/writing/working, whether that’s healthy or not! Looking forward to getting back into a (somewhat) more balance routine. Subscribe or Support by Upgrading Compare Notes With the People Who Built Modern Fintech Partner content: Remitly CEO Sebastian Gunningham. Increase founder Darragh Buckley. Linda Du, Co-founder & President at Valon. They’ll unpack the decisions behind building and scaling major financial products: what they got right, what broke, what they would do differently, and how AI and new infrastructure are changing the operator playbook. Most events tell you where fintech is going. NerdCon puts the people who built the present in the room and asks them what comes next. Expect an operator-led conversation grounded in real products, real trade-offs and lessons earned the hard way. Fintech Business Weekly readers save 20% on Regular tickets with code FBW20 before standard pricing ends September 11. Meet the Builders Things To Know & Other Good Reads Advent and Stripe Abandon $50 Billion Pursuit of PayPal (Bloomberg) Trump Family’s New Crypto Bank Is Backed by Abu Dhabi Sheikh (Wall Street Journal) The multiplying risks of financing data centres (FT) Let the Bond Market Speak (Wall Street Journal) Did we waste a crisis? Modest proposals to reform deposit insurance. (Fintech Takes Banking) Untangling Guggenheim: How Private Credit Built Its Own Universe (Net Interest) The Hater’s Guide To Circular Financing — Part One (Ed Zitron) Fiat Ventures Rebrands to FGV Capital, Announces $35M Oversubscribed Fund II (BusinessWire) Socure Announces Strategic Growth Investment at $5.2B Valuation and Acquires Agentic Operations Platform Fravity (Socure) Listen: When Consumer Protection Disclosures Work Too Well (Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast) Colorado Sues EarnIn For “Immoral, Unethical, Oppressive and Unscrupulous” Business Practices When Andreessen Horowitz led EarnIn’s $39 million Series B in 2017, Alex Rampell, a partner at the storied venture capital firm, described EarnIn’s small-dollar advance product as “free,” relying on “entirely on voluntary contributions instead of fees.” Rampell favorably compared EarnIn’s approach to typical payday loans, writing, “Payday loans historically have had the potential to be a slippery slope for consumers into financial distress: opaque systems and steep fees that are hard to repay and set individuals back further than where they started. For many Americans living paycheck to paycheck, that kind of slide into debt can be extremely difficult to recover from.” But EarnIn’s product — which, the company says, isn’t a “loan,” legally speaking — ends up being anything but free for most users. While it is technically possible to take a no-fee advance from the company, most users incur “Lightning Speed” (instant funding) fees and/or ostensibly optional tips that combined can equate to annualized percent rates that can reach over 1,000%. With an average term of 9.77 days, even fees and tips that are small on an absolute dollar basis are equivalent to high APRs on an annualized basis. A lawsuit filed last week by Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser against EarnIn describes the company and its product and business practices quite differently than Andreessen’s Rampell; “EarnIn’s business practices are unfair because they are immoral, unethical, oppressive and unscrupulous,” the complaint, filed in District Court in Denver, Colorado, says. EarnIn’s marquee product, Cash Out, isn’t a loan, the company says, as Cash Out is not “[f]orward [l]ooking” because “[t]he money is transferred based on earnings to date,” does not carry a mandatory fee to access funds, and is “non-recourse,” meaning EarnIn cannot pursue recovery from users who don’t repay advanced funds. EarnIn is sometimes referred to as an “Earned Wage Advance” service. Though, unlike some others in the broader category, EarnIn does not integrate with employers’ payroll or time and attendance systems. Rather, EarnIn attempts to verify a user’s income and employment, by examining direct deposit transaction data in their linked external bank account, by using GPS location and Bluetooth data to estimate a user’s time spent at work, if they work in a fixed location, and/or by having a user provided a work email address. While repayment is theoretically optional, as EarnIn would have no recourse, such as reporting non-payment to the credit bureaus or a collections agency, this is anything but clear to users of the EarnIn app, Colorado’s complaint argues. During the process of taking a Cash Out, users must agree to a preauthorized debit of the amount advanced, plus any expedited funding fee and/or tips. Though users technically can revoke this ACH authorization, the fact that they have this right isn’t presented to users during the Cash Out process, but rather is included in linked terms and conditions few users are likely to actually read. And users who do wish to revoke their ACH authorization must do so three or more days before the scheduled transaction date by emailing EarnIn’s customer support. Similarly, EarnIn’s marketing claims that it carries “no interest” and “no mandatory fees” is technically true, but is not the reality for many of the app’s users, the Colorado complaint argues. Further, EarnIn has extensively marketed to users the ability to “access your pay today,” to get “instant” funds, and to get funds “the same day you work” — when, in reality, this speed of access was only possible by paying the additional, undisclosed Lightning Speed fee. The Colorado complaint highlights this contradiction specifically, noting: EarnIn tells consumers that they can ‘Make any day payday with EarnIn’ and that there no ‘hidden’ or ‘mandatory fees.’ For a consumer to access their pay on the same day requested, they would have to pay the Lightning Speed fee. In the fine print of the advertisement EarnIn discloses that ‘[f]ees apply to use Lightning Speed,’ a direct contradiction to the larger text of the advertisement, and a fact that would not be immediately understood by a consumer as ‘Lightning Speed’ is not defined nor explained. Like other small-dollar lending services, rather than explicitly charge interest, EarnIn collects a markup on the optional Lighting Speed fee, which, given the nature of the transactions, many users opt for, as well as offering users the option to leave “tips.” EarnIn leverages either Real-Time Payments (RTP) rails or push-to-card via debit rails if a user opts for the optional Lightning Speed. But while these capabilities cost EarnIn, on average, $0.075 or $0.20 per transaction, respectively, EarnIn charges users significantly more. Initially, EarnIn charged as little as $1.99 for Cash Outs up to $24. But EarnIn has hiked these fees multiple times, and now charges $4.99 for Cash Outs up to $75 and $6.99 for those over $75. According to the Colorado complaint, EarnIn leverages “dark patterns” to manipulate users and to make it more difficult to avoid tipping. Examples of these “road blocks” highlighted in the complaint include: As of 2023, in the EarnIn app, a consumer attempting to get a loan under the default settings had to make at least eighteen separate taps to complete the transaction and reduce the tip to $0. There is an alternative method to leave a $0 tip, via the “Custom tip” feature, but EarnIn made this option difficult to access by visually deemphasizing it and positioning it near devices’ “home” button. Using language and imagery such as “Tip to pay it forward,” “Your generosity supports the service + helps,” “Your tips make a difference,” and “[t]he APR for this cash out is 0%. Your tips help support us.” While Lightning Speed and tipping are, in theory, both optional, in practice, users nearly always ended up paying something. According to the Colorado suit, users were charged either a tip or an expedite fee for more than 92% of transactions, with an average APR of nearly 388%. And, although the advances are “non-recourse,” EarnIn successfully collects on nearly all transactions — 99.18%, according to the complaint, which, Colorado argues, “demonstrat[es] that EarnIn’s advances function as high cost loans, not voluntary payments.” The share of EarnIn users incurring fees — despite the product being marketed as 0% APR — is hard to reconcile with Andreessen investor Rampell’s favorable description of EarnIn vs. “opaque systems and steep fees” associated with payday loans, which, Rampell says, can be “extremely difficult” for borrowers to extricate themselves from. According to Colorado’s suit, EarnIn’s Cash Out product “trapped many consumers in extreme cycles of high-cost reborrowing.” The suit gives an example of one consumer in the state, who took out a whopping 1,151 loans, paying a total of $4,038.50 in Lightning Speed expedited funding fees on loans that averaged the equivalent of 1,421% APR. Another Colorado user, the suit says, took out 1,033 loans, paying $8,561.22 in tips and fees at an average APR of 1,539% . These types of usage patterns demonstrate “the severe and repeated financial harm caused by EarnIn’s illegal lending model,” the Colorado complaint argues. In aggregate, from January 2023 through July 2025, EarnIn extended 3.1 million loans to 56,778 users in Colorado — an average of nearly 55 transactions per person during the time period. EarnIn lent more than $300 million and collected more than $16 million from Colorado users in Lightning Speed fees and in tips. Ultimately, the Colorado complaint argues that “EarnIn’s Cash Outs are loans under Colorado law, and EarnIn’s contention that its product is not a loan based on its disclaimer of any legal repayment obligation lacks any real-world significance given how the Cash Out transactions actually operate in practice.” Colorado further argues that “EarnIn was not working with companies here in providing consumers with funds but acted as a third-party lender and charged illegally high rates, used deceptive design strategies to extract some charges, and trapped consumers in repeat borrowing. Colorado will continue to stand up for consumers and hold companies accountable when they violate our credit laws or attempt to evade them through misleading practices.” Colorado’s suit alleges EarnIn assesses finance charge in excess of that permitted by Colorado law, that EarnIn failed to make legally required disclosures to Colorado borrowers, that EarnIn made supervised loans to consumers without obtaining the requisite license, that EarnIn violated the state’s Deferred Deposit Loan Act, that EarnIn engage in unfair and deceptive trade practices, and that EarnIn made false or misleading statements concerning price. The suit seeks a court order enjoining EarnIn from violating relevant Colorado laws, for EarnIn to refund amounts charged in excess of state law, fees, costs, and penalties, and other relief the court deems to be just. Fintech Business Weekly is made possible by the generous support of paying subscribers — bringing you independent analysis of banking, fintech, and crypto without fear or favor. You can support my work by becoming a paying subscriber if you aren’t already. Paying subscribers enjoy: access to the entire archive of nearly six years of newsletters extended versions of the weekly newsletter, with additional content and analysis and (for founding member tier) quarterly personal 1:1 fintech Q&A / strategy calls with me, tapping into my unparalleled knowledge of the intersection of banking and fintech and experience working in the sector, including helping to launch Goldman Sachs’ retail bank Marcus Support Fintech Business Weekly You can also support Fintech Business Weekly by sponsoring a newsletter or podcast, putting you in front of 93,000+ of the most influential decision makers in banking, fintech, and crypto. Learn more about sponsor opportunities or request a media kit by dropping me an email. Q2 Quarterly Banking Profile: Five Quick Takeaways The FDIC released its quarterly banking profile, which is always worth a read, for the second quarter. The profile provides an aggregate snapshot about the overall health of the 4,238 institutions whose deposits are insured by the FDIC, who, collectively, hold more than $26 trillion in assets and saw a total net income of more than $90 billion in the second quarter. Net income was up 12% vs. Q1 2026, with lower provisions and realized gains on securities helping to drive the improvement, somewhat offset by increases in non-interest expense and applicable income taxes. Overall net interest margin was basically flat quarter over quarter (up 1 basis point vs. Q1 2026), though community banks saw NIM grow by 10 basis points, to 3.81%. Unsurprisingly, given that interest rates haven’t changed, unrealized losses on securities changed little, edging up slightly to $326.7 billion vs. $325.1 billion in Q1 2026. Aggregate credit quality has remained benign, with asset quality actually improving slightly in Q2. Overall, institutions reported a 9 basis point decline in their past-due and non-accrual rate, to 1.44%. Net charge off rate also declined by 2 basis points, to 0.57%. And finally, the FDIC’s deposit insurance fund stands at $161.1 billion, making the DIF reserve ratio 1.48% — above the statutory minimum of 1.35%, but still below the designated target reserve ratio of 2%. [Paid Subscriber Exclusive] Nissan Withdraws ILC App, State Associations Plan BankChain Alliance, FDIC Defines “Unsafe or Unsound Practice” For First Time Automaker Nissan withdrew its application to charter a Utah industrial loan company and its corresponding application to the FDIC for deposit insurance last week, on August 19th. Nissan’s application had been outstanding for more than a year, as it originally applied in June 2025. Recent applications to the OCC to form national banks have been decisioned, one way or the other, substantially more quickly than has historically been the case.
Invisors ranks no. 12 on the Atlanta Business Chronicle 2026 Best Places to Work list
Atlanta Business Chronicle revealed that Invisors, a Workday Services Partner, is ranked no. 12 on its 2026 Best Places to Work list in the medium company category. This marks Invisors' sixth consecutive year on the list, which recognizes companies in the metro-Atlanta area that successfully go above and beyond for their employees.
California’s political battle over key environmental law brews on two fronts
In recent years, the perpetual CEQA debate has centered on its use — or misuse — as local governments were pressed by the state to increase housing development, particularly apartments for low- and medium-income families.
Florence Harding Photographed Taught Me About Women Partaking in Politics
What would Florence Kling Harding think now? A week or so ago when I cast my ballot at my designated polling place this thought crossed my mind. I imagine the former first lady would be pleased about how routine voting has become for women in the United States. But perhaps she would not be satisfied. Today, a published essay I wrote for In Pursuit spotlights a lesson in leadership demonstrated by First Lady Florence Harding. In my research, I discovered there’s a lot to be said about this strong female historic figure. But it was the blurry photograph capturing Mrs. Harding voting for her husband Warren G. Harding, one of two presidential candidates from Ohio, on Nov. 2, 1920—Election Day—that drew my attention. It was the first presidential election held in the United States after the ratification and certification of the 19th Amendment, granting women the right to vote. Its 106th anniversary was marked on Wednesday. I remember thinking what a shame it was that her presence in the image was imperfect while the mostly men surrounding her were in sharp focus. Perhaps cynically I thought, “No surprise!” On further examination, though, the clear reaction of the people surrounding Mrs. Harding was equally important. In that snapshot of time, many of their expressions were serious. One man stood elevated above the rest with a slight smile as he caught a glimpse of history. Mr. Harding hovered over his wife’s shoulder closely observing the last seconds of her vote being cast. Their gazes were locked in on who would hours later become first lady. Subscribe The attention she drew is worth noting, mostly because, as I learned, Mrs. Harding understood the power her image could have on women across the country. She and I share in common a career in newspapers—hers the business side and mine on the editorial side. Nevertheless, it became clear to me as I write in the essay that she understood if she was seen voting, other women would follow suit. That wouldn’t necessarily be the case in that 1920 election, though, Karen Kedrowski, the director of the Carrie Chapman Catt Center for Women and Politics at Iowa State University, explained to me. Florence Harding was a suffrage advocate. But, suffrage was a contentious issue and women were far from united at the time of the election. In fact, a substantial number of women and active anti-suffrage organizations thought women participating in elections was a “bad idea and antithetical to their roles in the private sphere as mothers and homemakers,” Kedrowski said, adding that women were also viewed as the moral compass for their husbands and sons. If women got involved in politics they would become contaminated by it. Suffragists, on the other hand, wanted to bring that moral presence into politics to help clean things up. Only about 30% of women voted in that 1920 presidential election. That was a start. More than 100 years later in the 2024 presidential election, 66.9% of eligible women voted (91.3 million), compared to 63.7% of men who voted (82.6 million), according to the League of Women Voters. Yes, Florence Harding would be pleased. Subscribe That imperfect Election Day image was important symbolism about women’s potential during what was known as the “Modern Woman” era and the growing public role women were taking in the 1920s. I imagine Florence Harding might agree with other succeeding first ladies when it comes to gender equality and the importance of the vote. Like Michelle Obama when she said in her memoir Becoming, “We all play a role in this democracy. We need to remember the power of every vote.” Or Hillary Clinton during her unsuccessful run for president in 2016 when she remarked on International Women’s Day: “We celebrate the progress we’ve made to advance the full participation of women in economies and societies. And most importantly, we recommit to finishing the unfinished work that remains …” I hope if you are reading this, you will also read my essay on Florence Harding’s leadership lesson for In Pursuit. And perhaps that will move you to dig deeper and read more about Florence Harding’s life circumstances in biographies like First Lady Florence Harding: Behind the Tragedy and Controversy by Katherine A. S. Sibley. No, I do not think Florence Harding would be satisfied despite how far women have come from that day she first entered her polling place. She once wrote to the Camp Fire Girls, “The part that women play in the world has been greatly changed … It has been broadened and enlarged …” It has. And as women continue to engage in civics it continues to be. I imagine Florence Harding would want women to keep meeting the moment. Read the In Pursuit essay Watch on C-SPAN Share East Wing Magazine is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe
Why politicians are punchlines at the Edinburgh Fringe
There was a time when satire had an easier gig. Politicians said something ridiculous, comedians made fun of them, audiences laughed, and everyone went home. Subscribe Now the joke is often the headline. In a world where the unbelievable regularly makes the news, where politics can veer into parody before the comedians have had time to write the punchline, you might reasonably wonder: is satire running out of material? Not in Edinburgh. At the Fringe, I can confirm satire has a pulse, even in a relentless and rapid news cycle. Politicians as punchlines Take NewsRevue, the world’s longest-running live sketch show, where politicians are turned into punchlines at industrial speed. Its latest target? Andy Burnham - or, more accurately, his doppelganger, pictured below in the middle. The joke, he tells us, is that there have been so many politicians coming and going that even satire risks suffering from political fatigue. But perhaps that revolving door is precisely why comedy matters. When the news cycle moves faster than our ability to process it, comedians can hold up a mirror - and make us think twice. Small talk Take Ayoade Bamgboye, the Saturday Night Live UK star who won the Best Newcomer prize at last year’s Edinburgh Comedy Awards. Her Fringe debut was critically acclaimed; this year she is turning her attention to one of Britain’s most baffling social rituals: small talk. Share It’s a reminder that satire doesn’t always need a politician in its sights. Sometimes the target is simply us civilians - the strange little rules and rituals we have collectively agreed to pretend are normal. Politics and Palestinian identity For British-Palestinian comedian Sami Abu Wardeh, pictured below, comedy has a more urgent job. His new show, Sami Abu Wardeh Hates You, asks who gets to hate, and whether anger belongs to everyone, not just the far right. His comedy confronts politics and Palestinian identity while refusing to surrender the simple business of making people laugh. Shakespeare meets climate crisis And then there is HAM: an “eco-hijacking” of Hamlet, which its creators describe as “a sordid wrestle between a vegan and a sausage-lover”. Shakespeare meets the climate crisis. Meat meets moral panic. The end result? You’ll leave promising to become vegan and swiftly bulk buying Linda McCartney sausages. HAM was created by theatre company Hotter Project, aka Ell Potter and Mary Higgins, pictured below. They say comedy helped them avoid the preachiness sometimes associated with climate activism - using Shakespeare as a vessel for uncomfortable questions about the planet, politics and the way we live. Perhaps that is satire’s secret weapon. It doesn’t necessarily make the world less absurd. It makes the absurdity crystal clear. And at a moment when reality increasingly feels like it has been written by a sketch writer, the Fringe is proving there is still plenty to laugh and cry at. Satire isn’t dead. It’s alive, subletting and having the time of its life at the Fringe. Subscribe Share Channel 4 News Leave a comment
Helcim Raises $38 Million to Fill Small Business Banking Void
Helcim, a payments company focused on Canadian small and medium-sized businesses, has raised $38 million in new funding. The Calgary startup’s Series C
Shigeru Miyamoto says the Rubik's Cube is his "eternal rival"
Better the Rubik's Cube than the Lament Configuration
Following accusations, James Pond Legacy devs say no generative AI was used in creating artwork
Out of their depth
Anne M. Brown named to National Academies' New Voices program
Brown, associate professor in the Department of Biochemistry in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, has been named to the 2026-28 New Voices cohort, recognizing emerging leaders in science, engineering, and medicine.
Researcher-artist paves the way for science communication
Lulu Perez ‘26 is a behavioral neurosciences alumna. She is a researcher in an FIU lab that investigates how complex sugars can regulate immune and cancer cell function and slow cancer progression. She is also an artist. Perez attended an arts-focused school, where she learned to paint in traditional mediums like acrylic, oil and watercolors,
1000xRESIST Nintendo Switch 2 Edition officially announced, launches Aug. 20th, 2026
Blessed be the ALLMOTHER
After Half A Century, Physicists Find The Strongest Evidence Yet For An Exotic 'Glueball' Particle
An "unprecedented form of matter".
Legacy built at Wendell Johnson Speech and Hearing Center continues
The Wendell Johnson Speech and Hearing Center was the home of leading communication sciences and disorders work for more than 50 years.
Seven Virginia Tech faculty elected to 2026 Virginia Academy of Science, Engineering, and Medicine
The new members represent the university's research breadth in wireless communications, cybersecurity, cancer biology, medical education, AI, drug delivery, and comparative oncology.
Shopify Inc. (SHOP) Soars as Jim Cramer Applauds AI-Driven Business Formation
Software platforms faced selling pressure due to concerns that generative AI tools would replace traditional software architectures. However, Shopify Inc. (NASDAQ:SHOP) broke away from sector headwinds after second-quarter financial results showed AI tools driving business formation rather than displacing its e-commerce infrastructure. Because Shopify serves small and medium-sized businesses requiring turnkey checkout, payment processing, and […]
TBD vs. TBD - Boxscore - Live Score
View the TBD vs. TBD game played on October 19, 2026. Box score, stats, play-by-play timeline, highlights, odds & more
Honoring Indigenous Midwives: Recognizing Indigenous Women’s Role in Delivering Family and Community Healthcare Across the World
Indigenous midwives provide trusted maternal and community healthcare, preserving ancestral knowledge while supporting families. Growing recognition, training, and integration into health systems are improving outcomes for women and children worldwide.
Cruz Azul vs. Philadelphia Union - Final Score
Live coverage of Cruz Azul vs. Philadelphia Union game on FOX Sports including live score, highlights, updated stats, odds and more - played on August 06, 2026.
Scientists turn one of the world's most hated plastics into premium lubricant
Polyvinyl chloride, or PVC, is among the most common plastics on the planet but also one of the hardest to recycle responsibly. In a new study in Nature, scientists describe a method to strip chlorine from PVC and convert the remaining material into synthetic lubricant-based oils that perform competitively with commercial products.
AI Is Making Cyber Scams Harder to Spot. Is Your Business Ready?
Hackers are getting more personal while AI poses new challenges
Upcoming Science Cafe
BAR HARBOR—Join us for a fascinating Science Cafe with environmental toxicologist Nishad Jayasundara, Ph.D., as he explores how everyday contaminants and other stressors such as heat exposure may be quietly influencing kidney health. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects nearly 1 in 7 adults in the United States—and more than 840 million people worldwide. While factors like diet and genetics are well known, scientists are increasingly uncovering another important piece of the puzzle: environmental exposure. Drawing on his team’s research, Dr. Jayasundara, Maine INBRE alum as a College of the Atlantic undergraduate student and past MDI Bio Lab Visiting Scientist, will share how early-life exposure to environmental toxins can disrupt kidney development, and may affect kidney structure and function in adults. Blending cutting-edge research with real-world relevance, this Science Cafe will shed light on an important and often overlooked contributor to human health—and what it could mean for communities around the world. Monday, August 17, 2026 at 5 p.m.Hybrid event at Maren Auditorium and via Zoom Register Now What Are Science Cafes? MDI Bio Lab’s Science Cafes provide an informal introduction to ground-breaking biomedical research by its scientists, scholars from near and far and from local experts in other fields as well. Each Cafe lasts about one hour; the floor is open for questions and discussion. It can get lively and it’s always engaging. MDI Science Cafes are open to the public and free of charge. For more information, or to watch past events, visit our website. The MDI Science Cafe Series is brought to you by Cross Insurance. Subscribe Share Leave a comment
Research links industrial pollution to health risks in Louisiana
By analyzing Louisiana Medicaid data, a recent study co-led by researcher Barbara Allen found elevated health risks among residents living near petrochemical plants and refineries.
‘Taking the Initiative’
Beatriz Cazho Garcia ’28 begs to differ with those who say young people aren’t engaged in politics.
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
Capcom dev says he threatened Nintendo in order to get Zelda: Oracle of Ages/Seasons made
A story for the ages
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.
The Science Behind the AI Panic Is Shakier Than You Think
A column by Sascha Lobo Is AI making us dumb? So asked DER SPIEGEL on its cover a while ago. After a few weeks of recovery and a therapeutic intervention with the help of my AI, I feel able to respond. That’s a bit unfair, of course; the article itself is more nuanced than the loud cover, the image of a schoolkid with dull prompt questions, or the subtitle: “AI is conquering the schools, and educators fear a disaster.” The short answer to “Is AI making us dumb?” is: no. The long answer is more interesting, and even carries a preliminary glimmer of the spectacular. Unfortunately, it requires a detour into the sphere of artificial intelligence, into the mogul-field terrain of technology assessment, the attention economy, and the destructive virus of cultural pessimism. Along with narrowing the scope to AI’s effects on education and work rather than on intelligence. Because the honest version of the question would be: Does AI help us learn and work, or not? Generative AI, which set off the still-ongoing hype with ChatGPT, has only existed in relevant distribution since late 2022, early 2023. For a technology-driven transformation of people and society, that is extremely short. For that reason alone, research is still in its infancy. And technology assessment is not a fast discipline anyway. Prominent voices from Elizabeth Eisenstein to RAND to Tom Wheeler say we still cannot conclusively judge the consequences of the printing press. Its invention is a mere 580 years back, and some scholars would rather not circulate assessments that might have to be retracted in two or three hundred years. We’re Going Through Growing Pains A phenomenon that already caused upheaval in social media research makes serious assessment of AI’s consequences even harder: the “moving target” problem of LLM-ology, as the linguist Sean Trott called it in 2025. AI develops so quickly and so unpredictably that researchers often end up studying snapshots of the past. There are concepts, from morphological analysis to anticipatory governance, for keeping research, planning, and regulation halfway meaningful anyway. But even with those, universally valid statements are rare. DER SPIEGEL - The German View is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe We should therefore treat findings about the interplay between humans and AI as far more procedural and situational. Unfortunately, this challenge comes at the worst possible time. We are going through growing pains: AI’s everyday impact has grown very large very fast, and with it the longing for guidance. Annoyingly, the body of solid knowledge has not exploded along with it. Experts cannot be moved to broad consensus on even banal statements about AI. Sascha Lobo, born in 1975, is an author and strategy consultant focusing on the internet and digital technologies. Together with Jule Lobo, he explores the debates of the day in the podcast “Feel the News – Was Deutschland bewegt” (”What Moves Germany”). Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang says software developers are dying out. Bill Gates considers coders one of only three professions that will survive the AI tsunami. Top tech economists find virtually irrefutable arguments both for and against an AI bubble. The same naturally applies to the structurally youth-hostile debate over whether AI is good or bad for young people. The gap between the demand for insight and the supply of solid knowledge creates an orientation vacuum. This vacuum of AI cluelessness is filled, as the attention economy described by Georg Franck in 1998 would have it, with half-knowledge (funnily enough, often AI-generated), marketing, and self-marketing. After all, infinite money is at stake, along with academia’s best current shot at global fame. But this iridescent froth of interpretation operates more by the algorithmic principles of the digital public sphere than by seriously earned insight. That is why dramatized, fear-feeding claims about AI are so promising. It tempts parts of academia into distorted drivel, and parts of the media then sensationalize the published drivel once more. Was the Research Aimed at a Desired Result? How badly this can influence academia and public perception is demonstrated by one of the most-discussed studies on AI’s effects: “Your Brain on ChatGPT.” The MIT study by Nataliya Kosmyna also gets plenty of space in the SPIEGEL cover story. What was measured and interpreted: lower brain activity in people who write with AI assistance, compared to people who only google or write without any tools. As is common with preprints, the study has not yet been peer-reviewed, and it contains substantial weaknesses that experts have sharply criticized. The first round had 54 participants in three groups, the second only 18, who reportedly also came from MIT’s own orbit. There was no preregistration (committing in advance to what you want to find out with which data). In their analysis, Stanković et al. even discovered an opposite effect that the study does not further explain. Some measurement data has not (yet) been published. And the EEG analysis method used is considered too imprecise to support such far-reaching conclusions. The biggest criticism, though, is the suspicion of an activism-driven study. In an interview with Time, lead author Kosmyna said she published the study immediately, rather than after full peer review, because she feared politicians might otherwise decide to put ChatGPT in kindergartens. She considers that absolutely harmful. It is legitimate to hold such a view. It just seems unscientific to approach a study with it, and then to design the setup so that the chance of a fitting desired result remains as high as possible. Ideologies Collide It is not easy to separate genuine AI insights from studies that trivialize and weaken well-founded AI criticism. The same goes for the opposing, AI-enthusiastic narratives, because the pro-AI side works against it with billions in resources. Ideologies collide, fed by egos, PR strategies, moral posturing, and once-in-a-lifetime opportunities. Doomsday marketing makes the search even harder: AI companies can profit from warnings about the dangers of AI, whether through the notoriety of apocalypse narratives or because, in some target groups, danger translates into power. Some seemingly negative findings are therefore quite welcome in the AI industry. If you try to get at the findings presumably less influenced by interest groups, the picture in education seems relatively clear: AI can improve educational outcomes when the right AI is used the right way, namely pedagogically. Simply dumping an AI chatbot into a classroom, by contrast, accomplishes little. Huge surprise. But something else is also obvious: whether they are allowed to or not, kids use AI for school, which is why the controlled integration of AI tools into education is, in the medium term, entirely without alternative. In the world of work, the landscape of findings is more complex and requires more differentiation. A series of serious studies points to an AI effect that suits neither the alarmists, regulation fetishists, and AI opponents, nor the trillion-dollar corporations with their armada of paid scientists, PR professionals, and ecosystems: working with AI helps the inexperienced (at least for now) considerably more than it helps the pros, in certain fields of work, and provided they know how to use it correctly. Missing Domain Knowledge Among the experienced, the professionals, and the high flyers, by contrast, despite frequent time savings, partially negative effects and new problems are emerging. Take the jagged frontier problem: AI solves task A brilliantly and fails completely at task B, even though both look similar even to professionals. Or the verification-cost problem, in which AI’s greater productivity gets eaten up by the enormous effort of checking its output. Or the illusion of competence, because AI makes new domains seem easily penetrable, until you painfully discover that deep domain knowledge is missing. Taken as a whole, the effects of working with AI do lean positive. But the promise that AI works as a turbocharger for everyone and boosts practically everything simply refuses to materialize. The AI magic the world has been feeling since ChatGPT arrived in late 2022 has so far barely shown up in most companies’ numbers. The consulting firm McKinsey has coined a term for this, the “gen AI paradox,” and believes that work processes and corporate structures would have to be rebuilt quite fundamentally to realize AI’s benefits at scale. Reuters just reported that only 3.3 percent of Microsoft’s customers have subscribed to the AI package Copilot. That may be down to the product; in other areas we continue to see soaring successes and new AI triumphs. But after the first quarter of 2026, disillusionment is the word for all too many AI projects at traditional companies: because the promised revolution of AI agents has so far failed to arrive or been postponed, and because of the leveling effect that many of the studies cited here suggest. Against Inequality The societal effects, on the other hand, appear rather encouraging. Many previous technologies operated on the Matthew principle, named for the Gospel verse about giving to those who already have: they tended to reward the more competent and more privileged. AI, however, seems more often to have an equalizing effect once a threshold of access and education is crossed. Some anecdotal insights point in this direction, for example, how an unemployed man in Leipzig successfully defended himself in court in 2025 against fraud accusations from Germany’s federal employment agency — without a lawyer, armed only with ChatGPT. The AI made mistakes and cited invented court rulings, but in the end the man walked away unpunished. And a key capability of artificial intelligence is its capacity to learn: set up correctly and fed with data, it can keep getting better. It is a question of time, or more precisely of AI innovations and training data, until even free AI chatbots write better legal briefs than law graduates with perfect exam scores. Whether that will make anyone dumb is something the world’s press will surely inform us of in due time. Subscribe Leave a comment
What England's local councils tell us about fragmenting politics
Even the most ardent advocate for local democracy would concede that council chambers are not always the most exciting places. Subscribe Whether it’s planning meetings, motions or resolutions, you’d be forgiven for switching off. Unless it’s lockdown and we’re talking about standing orders, of course. Remember Jackie Weaver, who infamously “had no authority here” at a chaotic parish council Zoom call in 2021? Yet, as a general rule since then, council meetings rarely make the headlines beyond local papers and news websites. Reform’s success After Reform’s stunning success at the local elections in May though, the leader of the party’s group on Kirklees Council suddenly found she’d gone viral online for admitting that she didn’t actually understand council procedures. “I don’t understand the constitution”, Councillor Sarah Wood, pictured above, told the council chamber. “I have not had sufficient time to read that as yet. I don’t understand what standing orders are, what they’re made up of, nor do I understand what an amendment is.” Share Channel 4 News Councillor Wood later defended her comments to the BBC, and said that “new councillors and not just us, are coming from jobs”. She claimed that the sharing of the clip mocking her online was an example of “Reform-bashing”. She added: “Yes, we need to know procedures. Yes we need to do the homework. And we have addressed that now and we have put that right.” So, with standing orders getting another moment in the spotlight, not to mention the fracturing and fragmentation from May’s results, we set out to find out how new councillors are doing across England in this new political landscape. New political landscape Where better to start then than Kirklees, in West Yorkshire. Reform is the largest party, the council is under no overall control and has chosen a new leader - Sarah Wood - after two failed attempts to elect one. It is difficult to secure interviews with new Reform councillors, but John Hardie, pictured below, told us it’s been a “whirlwind” since being elected in May. He represents the Dalton ward and told us the party’s lack of political experience hasn’t been a hindrance. “We’ve come with lots of experience, lots of business experience and life experience, and it’s been good, actually, too. And to mix with other councillors who have been in the political world, and we can learn from each other.” Indeed, more parties are now having a say than ever before. In Manchester, the Green Party followed up their victory in the parliamentary by-election in Gorton and Denton by gaining 17 seats on the city council. That makes them the official opposition to Labour, who have long dominated Manchester City Council. [ ](https://channel4news.substack.com/p/how-landmark-green-by-election-win) [ How landmark Green by-election win could change British politics ](https://channel4news.substack.com/p/how-landmark-green-by-election-win) Krishnan Guru-Murthy · Feb 27 [ Read full story ](https://channel4news.substack.com/p/how-landmark-green-by-election-win) Thirza Amina Asanga-Rae, pictured below, is one of those new councillors, representing Moss Side. We asked her how being the official opposition can make a difference. She said: “I think even the fact that we’ve made history in what we’ve done, it’s been a 50-year stronghold of Labour in Manchester, and now that we’ve broken that and chipped in that, there’s real hope that we can not only run the council in the future, but currently hold them to account. So, I think that’s powerful. It’s just going to help shape and build what I call the green wave.” The reality, though, is that several newly elected councillors across the country have already left their roles through resignations, suspensions or defections. ‘It’s a slog’ Asanga-Rae adds: “It’s a job, it’s a slog. Obviously, we’re going through hard times. Austerity is real. We’re talking about food, child poverty, furniture poverty. The list is endless, and I think people who come into a councillor role need to be willing to help, really roll the sleeves up and get involved and help, and I think a lot of the career politicians, who think it’s the ‘la-di-da’ position, get in and realise I’m not going to do this work and bounce.” Share Although Manchester still has a clear majority, many councils, including Kirklees, are now under no overall control. That is perhaps the strongest sign of the political fragmentation we are seeing. Burnley is another example of this. Reform is now the largest party, yet they’re not part of the power-sharing coalition on this council - the Liberal Democrats and a local group of independents. Zulkernehn Hayat, pictured below, is part of The Independent Group. He represents Queensgate ward and told us all councils can benefit from having more independent councillors. ‘This is where I was brought up’ He said: “This is my home. This is Burnley. This is where I was brought up. Why do I need to get approval from somebody in a head office down south somewhere, you know? “This is my biggest argument. If okay, my neighbour comes to me with an issue, I can then take that straight to the council, because I don’t need to get approval from anywhere else. And this is the benefit of being independent.” So, while voters will always inevitably want quick results, perhaps spare a thought for the newly-elected councillors who are still navigating local government - one standing order at a time. Subscribe Share Channel 4 News Leave a comment
Andy Burnham and the rise of ‘aura farming’ in politics
Is “aura farming” the new political superpower? There are some days in TV news when you find yourself standing in the middle of a farm, surrounded by baby goats, trying to explain internet slang. Subscribe This was one of those days. There I was, in wellies, trying to unpack aura farming - a Gen Z term for carefully cultivating your image online so that you look effortlessly cool, authentic and charismatic. The trick, apparently, is that it can’t look like you’re trying too hard. Which, I’ll admit, felt slightly ironic as we filmed an entire report on a farm purely because the word farming is in the title. ‘Shaped by algorithms’ Whether you like it or not, politics increasingly feels like it’s being shaped by algorithms as much as manifestos. Take Andy Burnham. Since arriving at Number 10, he’s been impossible to miss online. One minute he’s out for a casual jog with Mo Farah. Next he’s announcing policy alongside TikTok high priestess Bus Aunty. His social media paints a very deliberate picture: less polished Westminster operator, more bloke from the North who just happens to be running the country. It’s not accidental. Burnham’s “King of the North”, New Order-loving persona has become part of a carefully constructed political brand. Authenticity is now something politicians work incredibly hard to make look effortless. But Burnham isn’t inventing this playbook. Like so many of us doomscrolling on an evening, he’s been influenced online. The digital strategy of New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, pictured above right, has become a case study in viral political communication, and some of the people behind that campaign have recently been advising the Labour Party in Britain. Their message is simple: if you want to reach younger voters, you need to show up where they already spend their time. Embracing content creators And increasingly, that doesn’t mean traditional news interviews (awkward). It means speaking to content creators like Max from The Career Ladder, whose channels reach around 20 million followers worldwide. His interview with Burnham, pictured below, was posted almost immediately after he became Prime Minister. What struck me wasn’t just the audience size, but something Max told me afterwards: many people in the comments said they’d discovered Britain had a new Prime Minister through his interview. Think about that for a moment. Not through rolling news. Not through newspapers. Through a creator they were already following while scrolling. Share That’s a profound shift in how political information reaches people, one that’s been gathering momentum for some time. It also explains why politicians are embracing content creators and spending millions on digital marketing. Of course, this isn’t unique to one party. ‘Personality before policy’ In many ways, the right were quicker off the mark in building their aura online. Donald Trump built much of his political identity on social media. Nigel Farage remains one of Britain’s strongest political performers on TikTok. Politicians across the spectrum now understand that personality often reaches people before policy does. During a six-week UK general election campaign alone, overall digital ad spending routinely tops £11m. Share Channel 4 News Former Number 10 social media adviser Andrew Wong put it well when he told me that “vibes” can help someone get noticed, but they only work if they’re rooted in a genuine personality. Force it, and audiences spot it instantly. The bigger question is whether internet charisma can backfire on you - especially when you’re Prime Minister. Because behind Burnham’s carefully curated videos is a veteran politician with decades of Westminster experience. The spontaneity is produced. While the authenticity may be genuine, it’s managed. That’s not necessarily a criticism. It’s simply the reality of modern political communication. Aura farming alone is not enough to harvest change. But in the age of algorithms, winning attention may be the first battle. Subscribe Share Channel 4 News Leave a comment
WV Superintendent of Schools Launches First AI and Digital Science Framework in the Nation
Charleston, W.Va. - West Virginia Superintendent of Schools Michele L. Blatt will share the state’s Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Digital Science Framework with educators during professional development sessions at the Charleston Coliseum and Convention Center, Monday through Wednesday, July 27-29, 2026. The Framework, the first of its kind in the country, outlines an approach for digital science and AI literacy education that equips students with the knowledge, skills and credentials to succeed in this rapidly evolving workforce. It also offers educators a way to increase efficiencies in their work and better personalize learning for students.Earlier this year, Superintendent Blatt appeared before a U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee to share the state’s strategy on addressing the use of AI while also protecting students, their data and educational integrity. The Framework is the result of years of planning, collaboration and development. Digital science encompasses the evolving fields of computer science, AI literacy, data reasoning, cybersecurity awareness, media literacy and the practical application of digital technologies. The framework equips educators to prepare students with the AI and digital science knowledge and skills needed to thrive in the workforce of the future.The West Virginia AI and Digital Science Framework establishes a statewide structure for sustained success. From policy to educator development and student learning, it defines how the state will implement digital science and AI readiness at scale. It serves two priority goals:Respond to the rapidly changing technology landscapeEstablish best practices as a leader for rural models of AI readiness, workforce development and digital science educationWith three statewide commitments, educators will be equipped with understanding and the tools to support implementation. These commitments are:Student Access - Every student will have access to AI literacy learning experiences and digital science instruction before graduationEducator Capacity - All counties will sustain local AI training capacity through a train-the-trainer modelWorkforce Alignment - Every approved pathway will connect to employer demand, postsecondary alignment, and portable or verified credentialsNext week, the West Virginia Department of Education (WVDE) will launch the framework during three educator and staff development sessions. These sessions include unique opportunities for new county central office hires, the Support, Appreciate, Invest, and Learn (SAIL) Conference, and the West Virginia Middle Schools: Bridging the Future Initiative launch. Each session is designed to meet the needs of K-12 educators, professionals, paraprofessionals, service personnel and others who serve in the education community.West Virginia is a national leader in developing a framework for AI and digital science education. We are determined to elevate our model because it prepares students and educators for the future. Our partners at Prodigy Learning and Microsoft understand this commitment and believe, as do we, that our work has national implications for accessibility and scalability because we are building systems that address learning at all levels that lead to post-graduation success.Michele L. Blatt, State Superintendent of SchoolsAs part of the partnership, Prodigy Learning is providing West Virginia educators, at no additional cost, their in-person and virtual training on all products and the materials required for license renewal.
Splatoon Raiders has a loading screen Easter egg that can also crash the game
What a load of...
RUMOR: Switch 2 to get a Zelda 40th Anniversary Pro Controller
A controller to rival the Master Sword's power
Food science student finds a sweeter path to her Ph.D.
Julia Adornetto found her calling in the science of sensory evaluation, overcoming setbacks with the help of faculty mentors and scholarships.
Scientists discover sugar in interstellar space
The first detection of sugar in the interstellar medium could shed more light on how life began on Earth
UFC Freedom 250 Fails to Knock Out The Ratings
(Welcome to my weekly streaming ratings report, the single best guide to what’s popular in streaming TV and what isn’t. I’m the Entertainment Strategy Guy, a former streaming executive who now analyzes business strategy in the entertainment industry. If you were forwarded this email, please subscribe to get these insights each week.) If UFC fans wanted one image to say, “Hey, Paramount+ is crushing it with their UFC rights deal,” I could provide that image. Here it is: (Reminder: this is my creation of the Nielsen Top 30, since Nielsen doesn’t combine the lists or include sports. I take all three lists and combine them. Some streaming TV shows probably have higher ratings than many of the films on this list.) Look at that! UFC Freedom 250 is number one! It topped the Nielsen “Top 30” list for shows and films that made the top ten the week of 15-June. So if you’re a UFC fan or supporter of Paramount+, that’s the good news for you this week. This program topped the ratings charts for one week. Everything else is bad news, or at least a huge caveat to that story, which I’ll explain today in the first part of this week’s Streaming Ratings Report—for the weeks of 8-June and 15-June—which is a double issue since I’ve been writing on a bunch of topics recently. UFC Freedom 250 is one of the biggest streaming events of the year, and super relevant to Paramount+’s strategy, so it merited its own article. Let’s dive in! (Reminder: The streaming ratings report focuses on the U.S. market and compiles data from Nielsen’s weekly top ten viewership ranks, Luminate’s Top Ten Data, JustWatch and Reelgood interest data, Samba TV household viewership, company datecdotes, Netflix hours viewed data, Google Trends, and IMDb to determine the most popular content. While most data points are current, Nielsen’s data covers the weeks of June 8th to June 21st 2026. You can find a link to my terminology here.) Subscribe Check Out My Interview on UFC 250 at MMA Draw After you read this article, if you want even more thoughts on UFC and Paramount-Skydance/Paramount+, I did a written interview with MMA Draw. They asked me to answer some questions about UFC Freedom 250, and I was happy to chat with them. Find it here: [ The MMA Draw Newsletter Did Paramount really overpay for the UFC? What the data tells us so far If you know the history of American television, you also know that combat sports is often a leading indicator of the future… Read more a day ago · 10 likes · 1 comment · Nate Wilcox and Zach Arnold ](https://www.themmadraw.com/p/did-paramount-really-overpay-for?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web) I never thought I’d need a combat sports newsletter in my life, but the good folks at MMA Draw publish an excellent one on UFC, MMA, pro wrestling, boxing and more, analyzing both the sports themselves and the politics, economics and antitrust issues that impact them. Check the article and their newsletter out! Paramount+ Has Its Best Sporting Event of All Time…But Was It Worth It? Before we look at the UFC Freedom 250 data in particular, let’s talk about what we can’t say. Namely, let’s start with the lack of comparisons. First off, I’d love to put a chart out comparing this fight to past UFC fights on Paramount+…but we don’t have the data. This is the first time we’ve gotten Nielsen data about a Paramount+ UFC fight. As far as I can tell, Paramount provided data for the first fight, but it was a proprietary datecdote (saying it had “an average minute audience” of 5 million “views”) and then, for two fights, we got the linear viewership numbers when they aired on CBS, but no streaming data. Everything else was crickets. We also can’t compare this fight to other fights/combat sports on streaming, in particular the MMA and boxing, because Netflix also didn’t use Nielsen to track those events, opting for TVision and VideoAmp, respectively. (This isn’t Paramount’s fault, but does still suck.) We also can’t compare to UFC’s fights that used to be on ESPN+, since we don’t have any data for that, plus Disney+ didn’t have marquee fights. The comparisons would not be apples-to-apples. Can we compare to past Pay-Per-View fights? Absolutely not. The comparisons would absolutely NOT be apples-to-apples. That didn’t stop Paramount+, though, who bragged that their UFC events have reached drastically more people than past PPV fights. Duh. Sorry, but I gotta make this point again. A basic tenet of economics is that the cheaper something becomes, the more people consume or buy it. That’s Econ 101. (Sometimes pundits call things “Econ 101” that are actually like Econ 210 or even PhD-level economics, but no, this is really like first or second class basic economics.) Yet I still see one analytics firm consistently say that more people watch films on streaming than PVOD proves streaming which means that the streaming window is more valuable than the PVOD window. No, it’s not! Same thing here. Pay-Per-View events back in the day could be really, really, really expensive! So whole groups of people pitched in to buy them. That increased the perceived value of, say, the Mike Tyson fight. Or a UFC numbered event. So yes, the fact that Paramount+ makes numbered UFC fights essentially “free” if you’re already a Paramount+ member means consumption will go up. Obviously. Same for Netflix and their boxing matches. They’re talking about fights that used to cost consumers, in some cases, $50 in 1996…which is over $100 in today’s dollars. Over 1.6 million people paid that to watch the Tyson-Holyfield fight! Again, streaming is essentially “free”. Or $10 to $20, depending on what streamer we’re talking about and what tier you’re on. No wonder more people are “watching”. (Plus, Nielsen’s out-of-home viewing also helps these numbers.) UFC Freedom 250 Did Well…But I Have A Lot of Worries So what can we compare the fights to? Well, the good news is Nielsen put out that the fight averaged 7.0 million viewers for UFC Freedom 250, which is a solid number for a fight. We also know the length, at roughly 4 and a half hours. (I saw different run times, but this seems to be the consensus considering it started at 8 pm, had a delay and then finished after midnight on the East Coast. If you assume a shorter run time, then yes, the total hours viewed would go down.) That means I have the two numbers needed to add this to my Nielsen database. And then…I can compare this viewership to the NFL: And, uh, not great. But also within striking distance, mainly because the runtime for this event was so long. I’d also add that this event had viewership equal to a regular season NFL game on streaming, but if anything, it was more comparable to an NFL playoff or Super Bowl-esque event. And you can compare viewership to the top football games on broadcast, cable and streaming, and it’s not impressive at all: We can also compare it to other sports that week, including the NBA Finals and start of the World Cup: Again, not great. The NBA generated roughly four times as many average viewers each game for its NBA Finals. The World Cup has similarly big numbers. Also, that’s just a tiny fraction of the 25 most watched sporting events each week. The NBA, NHL and FIFA World Cup had many, many more games racking up hours. We could also compare this to other streaming programs to get an idea of “is this a good investment?” and here is how it ranks compared to other top Paramount+ programs: The worry here? Well, unlike scripted programming, which has rewatchability, older fights/sporting events have very little library value. Very, very few people are rewatching these fights, especially years from now. Paramount has also released datecdotes bragging about their subscriber numbers. Earlier this year, they claimed that the first UFC fight on Paramount+ brought in 1 million subscribers. Then, in their quarterly earnings report, they only ended up with 700K subs. Not great! They claimed they dropped lower-value international subscribers, but that’s why I tend to discount subscriber additions when they’re leaked to the press.1 I expect we may see a bump again for UFC Freedom 250, but I’d caution using subscriber growth so soon after these events to judge the success, since new subs with high churn (see Peacock) aren’t great either. Also, analysts often want to attribute all subscriber growth to their favorite/pet show, and that just doesn’t make sense. The biggest caveat for UFC Freedom 250 and Paramount’s very first UFC marquee event is that these could be high watermarks for the sport. UFC Freedom 250 had an incredible amount of earned media coverage compared to most UFC fights. I mean, it had wall-to-wall national news coverage in the lead up to the event. (The first fight also had a lot of promotion from Paramount since it was first.) Other fights could reach this bar—say the Conor McGregor return to the Octagon—but they’ll be fewer and far between. Was This Deal Worth It? All to ask: is this Paramount deal worth it? In this case, I think the UFC Freedom 250 numbers are more distracting than helpful. This fight did well and compares well to other top sporting events. But we know that the first marquee event was at least a third smaller, if Paramount’s own data is to be believed. And it’s likely the other fights are much, much, much smaller. And then you get to the paycheck that Paramount-Skydance paid. FIFA’s World Cup cost about the same for Fox, but clearly generated multiples more total viewership. (Though it’s only every four years.) The NBA is much more expensive, but until the playoffs, they likely didn’t pay for itself. Even still, Disney, NBCUniversal and Amazon Prime Video likely overpaid. So, in that context, the NBA may be an overpay that makes the UFC look not so bad. But two overpays don’t make an underpay, to paraphrase the old cliché about wrongs and rights. And looking at UFC Freedom 250 as the likely ceiling of MMA on Paramount+, Paramount-Skydance likely paid too much. Share 1 I would love regular reports on subscriber additions by programs, but as is, it’s mostly leaked or rumored in haphazard ways.
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
Science can serve dark as well as light
I’m not sure how many of you are watching “Star City,” Apple TV’s spin-off of its “For All Mankind” program (2019-present), but it’s one of the better sci-fi series I’ve seen in a while, with an impressively dark political message. (Some light spoilers below.) For the uninitiated, “For All Mankind” presented a slightly tweaked history of the U.S. space program in which it was the USSR that landed on the Moon first in 1969, and shortly thereafter put a woman cosmonaut on the lunar surface. This sparks an ongoing space race that, in the original series, yields a lot of benefits for humanity. President Nixon’s insistence on a female astronaut corps to compete with the Soviets boosts the feminist movement of the 1970s and the ERA passes. New fuels generated for the space program create clean and cheap energy around Earth. There are also some darker changes — the USSR is thriving well into the 2000s, there are terrorist counter-technology movements around the globe, laborers on Mars work in nightmarish conditions and organize strikes and riots, etc. the @smotus report is a reader-supported publication. To support this work, please become a paid subscriber. Subscribe That show offers glimpses into the subtle ways this Earth is different. Teddy Kennedy never went to Chappaquidick because he was racing back to Washington to deal with the space program crisis; he gets elected President in 1972. John Lennon survives his early 1980s shooting but Pope John Paul II does not. The Apple Newton succeeded. Pretty much the whole of season 4 is a setup for an Al Gore joke. Again, mostly, the vision that “For All Mankind” presents is a positive one, with technology advancing many human interests. “Star City” goes in a very different direction. This spin-off show is about the same set of events but from the Soviet perspective. As we meet them, the team of scientists and cosmonauts responsible for the lunar landing are still basking in their hero status, but their program is embedded deep in the Soviet security state of the late 1960s. Everyone’s apartment is bugged. Whole teams of clerical staff spend their days transcribing recordings of people’s lives. People in the program, including respected cosmonauts, are regularly arrested. An incredibly menacing Colonel Lyudmilla Raskova (Anna Maxwell Martin) forces confessions and tortures and kills, expressing little more than annoyance in the process. Meanwhile, the space program’s highly respected Chief Designer (Rhys Ifans) has a vision for the program that he knows the government will not approve. He insists that they need to think past the Moon to focus on colonizing the solar system, starting with Venus. (This is a rough parallel to the Americans’ pivot to Mars in the original show.) He essentially builds a secret space program within the space program, calculating that the government will embrace the mission after it has succeeded. (As an aside, I’m not sure why the Venus obsession, as a successful mission can’t produce the biggest public relations payoff: a cosmonaut standing on the surface holding the Soviet flag. Anyone standing on Venus would be immediately crushed by the 92-bar atmosphere and then cremated in the 900°F temperatures. But in a country with no free press perhaps the visual payoff was less valued.) But the overall vision is that the technological advances have only amplified the most fearsome aspects of the Soviet system. The state is paranoid (but not incorrect) about American spies and does monstrous things to protect its secrets. People are terrified to trust each other. Classic banality-of-evil figures order people to harm those they care about; those people comply rather than get shot. Others are forced into criminal behavior to protect loved ones. We’re reminded all the time these days of what happens when a government despises science. It manifests in the defunding of schools, the elevation of fossil fuels as the rest of the world pivots to solar, outbreaks of measles and diarrhea, etc. But “Star City” offers a vision of a bad government that likes science. It’s not encouraging. It’s not yet clear if there will be a season two of this show. But I strongly recommend season one. It’s both thoughtful and gripping. Share
Why I Agreed to Lead the UAP Science Advisory Council for the U.S. Government
A month and a half ago, I was visited by a representative from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). He raised a…
The States Try to Topple WarnerMount…Thus Begins the Local Antitrust Era
(Welcome to the “Most Important Story of the Week”, my bi-weekly strategy column analyzing the most important (but often not buzziest) news story of the last two weeks. I’m the Entertainment Strategy Guy, a former streaming executive who now analyzes business strategy in the entertainment industry. Please subscribe.) Well, it looks like it’s time for another strategy column. Can I finally avoid writing about M&A? No, it seems I cannot. Admittedly, I’m a week early with this column, since I usually put it out every other week. But this news couldn’t wait. This will make three “Most Important Stories” in a row with a merger or acquisition as its centerpiece. First, Roku-Fox (an acquisition), then Comcast-NBCUniversal (a divestment!), and now the State AGs and the WGA’s lawsuits against Paramount’s pursuit of Warner Bros. Discovery (antitrust). M&A is usually the “most important” topic any given week, simply because a giant company merging or breaking up (or preventing those outcomes) can have the biggest impact on the streaming board. If you think about these companies as players in a game, changing the number of players is one of the biggest changes you can make. I shouldn’t really complain, either, since this lawsuit is very good news for customers and suppliers (econ speak for talent, workers and indie studios in Hollywood). So let me answer some questions about this potential trial, along with (shudder) making some heavily caveated predictions. I’ll also look at whether Hollywood must consolidate, whether or not the states can win, trouble at X-Box, Netflix’s YouTube binge, and more. Plus, I have five images that visualize this merger and the harm, including three brand new data looks you’ve never seen before. Subscribe Most Important Story of the Week - Can The States and the WGA Stop Hollywood’s Consolidation (Crisis)? If every other newsletter and news outlet is writing about the same story, I try to avoid writing about it as well, but I can’t ignore a story this consequential. The story of the last year was the fate of Warner Bros. Discovery, and this development potentially extends that saga into 2027. As I tried to figure out my angle, I realized, like my last column, I’m again faced with a series of questions. These questions, though, are much more forward-looking. Will the states win? Will the WGA win? If so, what happens to Warner Bros. Discovery? Either way, will this chill the market for future mergers? So you know what that means: predictions. About the future, no less, the hardest thing to predict.1 Just remember: nothing here comes with a guarantee. And the more confident someone is in their predictions, the less you should trust them. This situation is incredibly fluid, nuanced, uncertain and tenuous. So let’s try to explain what may happen. Question: Why File this Lawsuit? I’ll admit, a few months back, I was fairly pessimistic about the fate of this lawsuit. Rumors had started bubbling up that the state Attorneys General (in particular California) wanted to settle with either some minor divestments (usually CNN) or behavioral remedies. And that tracked for me: the states usually settle lawsuits, like the recent John Deere right-to-repair suit. Yet, they plan to fight this. (As they did the LiveNation-Ticketmaster monopolization trial and the Nexstar-Tegna merger.) Honestly, that also makes a ton of sense. Frankly, this move is just good politics for these State AGs. Most are still running for higher and higher office in blue states—some folks have emphasized that only Democratic AGs joined this suit, but given the Ellison/Trump ties, and fears of retribution, that tracks—and a high profile case like this will help them move up the electoral ladder, especially since Paramount and its leadership (the Ellisons, father and heir) have sided with the other side of the political aisle. That makes them unsympathetic to Democratic voters and Hollywood workers in particular. Why did this lawsuit happen? In addition to the very real concerns about industry consolidation, this is why. That said, I don’t think we would have seen this lawsuit for Netflix and Warner Bros., simply because they’re more sympathetic and aligned with Democrats. But those consolidation concerns are real. The “town”—meaning Hollywood and such—really is seeing the damage of mergers on this industry. That’s why the WGA also filed its own lawsuit in defense of workers as well. (Wildcard: What about Europe? Will they try to stop the deal, too? There have been some rumors out of the UK they may try to fight the deal, and UK enforcers just stopped a Getty Images-Shutterstock tie up, so there is precedence. This argument could go either way, though. On one hand, the EU doesn’t need to step in, cause they states are handling it. On the other hand, this could make the EU’s case easier. Just imagine if both sides coordinated. I’ll simply say, “We’ll see!”) Question: Will The State AGs or the WGA Win? Can the state AGs play David to Paramount-Skydance’s Goliath here? That’s really the whole thing, isn’t it? If you know this result, you could make a lot of money. When things are uncertain, it’s tempting to shrug and say, “Eh” meaning it’s a 50/50 proposition. I wouldn’t, though. When in doubt, you should expect that the merging parties succeed. AT&T did successfully buy Warner Bros., after all, and Disney bought Fox without any challenges. Many judges are extremely sympathetic to mergers, and I’d bet the state AGs get a judge who will allow the merger. (Even Obama-appointed judges often allow mergers.) As I understand it, we’ll see two main attacks. First, theatrical films. The AGs are arguing that, when it comes to share of box office and the number of both “wide releases” and blockbuster (or “tentpole”) films, the merging parties will have over 27% market share. Now, the Supreme Court once ruled from on high that any merger that exceeds 30% is presumptively illegal, but that’s guidance, not an ironclad bar. Still, the states will have to argue that this is close to having too much power, and with that power, this will likely further worsen the theater/studio splits in particular. Indeed, as Matthew Stoller pointed out, “just five studios are responsible for 95% of all blockbusters; if this merger goes through, then Paramount and Disney will control 60% of that.” So yes, movie studios will be very concentrated after this merger. Want me to visualize some of that? Well, here’s the share of films that grossed over $200 million at the domestic box office since 2022. (Note: this isn’t all films released in over 3,000 screens, but it is a good look at market power.) First, here are the 43 films by studio: Notice all the blue (Disney), orange (Universal), and purple (Warner Bros)? Yeah, those studios are powerful, and this combines Paramount with one of them. Here’s the look by studio and share of the films that grossed over $200 million: Now, if you look at that and also think, “Huh, should we break up Disney?” I’m with you. I’ve seen some folks poo-poo this idea that this is a real category, but it is! For an upcoming article, I’ve been pulling data on the share of top 100 films at the box office as a share of total box office, and it’s massive. Here’s the chart: (This analysis looks at The-Number’s top 100 films and total domestic box office each year.) To be clear, tentpoles make up 80.7% of the box office each year, so I do think it’s a genuine market. (To be clear, films grossing over $50 million make up 80% of the domestic box office, and films grossing over $100 million make up 64.1%.) I mean, the top 100 films at the box office make up 95% of each year’s grosses. Worse, the combined studios will likely cut output to flex that market power. Everyone can just look at what happened to Disney and Fox to see the precedent. (With fewer films, the remaining theaters have to give more for those few films that remain.) Here’s an image I’ve used a lot, the share of wide-release films from Disney and Fox over time: The AGs will also argue that this consolidation will also impact the cable industry. In this case, the consolidation is actually worse, but that environment is…complicated. Paramount will argue that the cable industry is shrinking. That said, predictions that cable will “go to zero” also don’t look very well supported by the data, as the declines are shrinking, meaning “cable” or “vMVPDs” will likely stabilize at some point. Can the state Attorneys General win on those two main arguments? I honestly don’t know. Again, I’d bet no, since history in general supports that, but it depends on the judge/jury and how they interpret the arguments. Notably, Paramount won’t face accusations about monopoly power in other areas, like streaming, news, sports rights, or vertical integration. I tend to disagree with leaving out sports rights, but I also see the appeal for a simpler case. The states also aren’t really pushing novel theories about labor harm either, which should help. (By the way, Sean McNulty at The Ankler wrote a great run through of potential options, and Capitol Forum also wrote a great paper on theatrical consolidation. Both these pieces predated the lawsuit. Matthew Stoller is also out with his analysis of the pros and cons of the case too.) In some ways, the WGA’s case is even stronger. Quoting Sean McNulty’s summary: “The WGA is citing WARNAMOUNT as crossing a 30% market share in multiple sectors, a number that the Supreme Court has precedent for deeming “presumptively anticompetitive” in a market. According to the WGA numbers, WARNAMOUNT would have represented: - 35% of film writing jobs between 2021 and 2024 - 36% of TV writing projects between 2022 and 2025 - 38% of overall deals between 2021 and 2024” Notably, antitrust enforcers did win recently in the Penguin-Simon & Schuster merger by focusing on labor impact, so don’t count this thinking out. (Wildcard: Will the states try to get a jury trial? Most likely no, they’ll let a judge handle it. If I’m them, though, I’d try to put this in front of a jury. Juries tend to understand monopoly power in a more realistic way than judges faced with legions of economists.) Question: What if They Win? What if They Lose?
Real Estate Photography Business: Nathan Cool's 2026 Plan
Nathan Cool shares 15 years of real estate photography experience on rebuilding a sustainable business in 2026. Master skill-building, targeted marketing, full-service bundling, and pricing strategy to attract quality clients.
Business Value of AI Is Spiking, Driven by Increased Adoption and Agentic Expectations, SAP Finds
A new SAP and Oxford Economics study shows businesses are increasingly driving value from AI, even as challenges continue to accrue.
Scientists’ credibility depends on audience and perceived motives
A new study from Virginia Tech found that scientists’ credibility often hinges on their perceived motivations. “Our study finds that perceptions of scientists’ motivation to serve the public good are the strongest predictor of whether Americans trust them, accept their information as credible, and support science-based policies,” said Dara Wald, associate professor in environmental policy and planning.
John P. Morgan honored with emeritus status
A member of the Virginia Tech community for more than 26 years, Morgan provided many years of distinguished contributions and leadership to the Department of Statistics and the College of Science.
The Quintessential Trump-era Politician
In 2020, I wrote an article about collaboration and collaborators. The title was History Will Judge the Complicit, and it started with the story of two famous East Germans, Markus Wolf and Wolfgang Leonhard, who both landed in East Berlin just after the end of the war. Although they came from very similar backgrounds, the former stuck with the regime, eventually becoming its spy boss; the latter, horrified by the brutal reality of Soviet-style communism, escaped. By way of juxtaposition, I also wrote about Lyndsey Graham and Mitt Romney. These two men also made very different decisions when confronted by Donald Trump’s assault on the ideals that they had both grown up believing: A glance at their biographies would not have led many to predict what happened next. On paper, Graham would have seemed, in 2016, like the man with deeper ties to the military, to the rule of law, and to an old-fashioned idea of American patriotism and American responsibility in the world. Romney, by contrast, with his shifts between the center and the right, with his multiple careers in business and politics, would have seemed less deeply attached to those same old-fashioned patriotic ideals. Most of us register soldiers as loyal patriots, and management consultants as self-interested. We assume people from small towns in South Carolina are more likely to resist political pressure than people who have lived in many places. Intuitively, we think that loyalty to a particular place implies loyalty to a set of values. But in this case the clichés were wrong. It was Graham who made excuses for Trump’s abuse of power. It was Graham—a JAG Corps lawyer—who downplayed the evidence that the president had attempted to manipulate foreign courts and blackmail a foreign leader into launching a phony investigation into a political rival. It was Graham who abandoned his own stated support for bipartisanship and instead pushed for a hyperpartisan Senate Judiciary Committee investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden’s son. It was Graham who played golf with Trump, who made excuses for him on television, who supported the president even as he slowly destroyed the American alliances—with Europeans, with the Kurds—that Graham had defended all his life. By contrast, it was Romney who, in February, became the only Republican senator to break ranks with his colleagues, voting to impeach the president. “Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office,” he said, is “perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine.” In the wake of Graham’s unexpected death on Saturday, I wrote about him again. He was, in many ways, the quintessential politician of Trump’s Washington, a man who shifted 180 degrees. Graham had been a fervent American patriot, proud reserve officer and military lawyer; he became one of the most important defenders of a president who believes soldiers are “suckers and losers” and shows no respect for law of any kind. As his politics changed, his language grew coarser and his behavior grew worse: He urged Israel to “level the place” in Gaza, and insulted the Danish prime minister in Munich, prompting a colleague, Senator Elissa Slotkin, to issue an apology. Here’s an excerpt from the article, which you can read in The Atlantic (gift link here) Like his close friend John McCain, Graham believed that America should stand at the center of a broad democratic alliance. The few times I met him were in that context, at the Munich Security Conference or at other European-American gatherings, which he once attended with great regularity. He also took seriously the practice of American democracy at home. In a 2014 conversation with The Atlantic, he described himself as a pragmatic politician who eschewed populist slogans. “I know Washington is broken, but what’s broken about it is everybody yelling and nobody trying to fix it,” he said. “I’m trying.” When Donald Trump first appeared in U.S. politics, Graham recognized him immediately for what he was: the spokesman for an alien ideology, one radically different from the idealistic patriotism that Graham had practiced and preached since childhood. Trump privately mocked the military that Graham loved as nothing but “suckers and losers.” He put falsehoods, cynicism, and personal greed at the center of his politics, while expressing disdain for transparency, accountability, and democracy itself. In 2015, Graham described Trump as a “race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot” who should “go to hell.” Also as a “nutjob.” When Trump won, Graham understood, as did so many others, that he would have to make some important choices. For a while, he went silent. In the spring of 2016, I saw him at one of those conferences in Europe. He seemed too depressed to speak. But then, like many other Republicans—and, more important, like many other people who have lived under political occupation or experienced radical regime change—he made the decision to abandon his previous ideals, to bury the patriotism that was once so important to him, and to become, instead, a loud, opportunistic collaborator. As I wrote in 2020, it’s very hard to look in to anyone’s heart and to understand their motivations from the outside. But it does seem that Graham had a deep need to be relevant, to be in the game, to be a player, at any cost. And that, rather than any particular achievement, is what he will be remembered for. Continuing to monitor conflicts of interest, ostentatious emoluments, outright corruption and policy changes that will facilitate outright corruption. (Read my original article, Kleptocracy Inc and check out the SNF Agora Institute chart) June 27 Trump diverted funds from more than 900 projects nationwide—including safety upgrades at national parks—to finance beautification projects around Washington, including $700,000 used to fix a White House walkway. June 28 After a years-long Department of Justice investigation into Abbott Laboratories over its management of a baby formula facility where potentially deadly bacteria turned up enough evidence to criminally charge the firm, top department officials instead opted for a financial penalty—illustrating the department’s move away from strict corporate enforcement under the Trump administration. June 29 Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stacked the Defense Policy Board—which is charged with providing independent national security recommendations to the Office of the Secretary of Defense—with Trump allies, including tech billionaire Marc Andreessen, who has invested in defense contractors like OpenAI and SpaceX, after purging the panel last year. Trump purchased between $1 million and $5 million worth of stock in Axon—which makes about 90% of US tasers—two weeks before ICE solicited bids for a $220 million taser contract. The White House unveiled limited-edition US passports for America’s 250th birthday, featuring a portrait of Trump overlaid on the Declaration of Independence. June 30 Trump made around $1.2 billion from his various crypto companies last year, including more than $500 million from World Liberty Financial and $600 million from sales of his meme coin. Trump is considering issuing 250 pardons to commemorate America’s 250th birthday. These are expected to be largely doled out through the Office of the Pardon Attorney’s informal network of intermediaries. White-collar defense attorneys say they can typically win pardons for clients for $2 million. Last year, Trump administration officials awarded a no-bid contract worth up to $500 million to Clark Construction for the White House ballroom—negotiations in which the president was directly involved. July 1 The Amazon MGM Studios documentary about Melania Trump earned the First Lady more than $10 million. Trump made hundreds of individual stock purchases worth as much as $12.8 million the day before his announcement pausing “Liberation Day” tariffs for 90 days sent the S&P 500 soaring nearly 10%—one of the largest single-day gains ever. Mar-a-Lago and Trump National Doral saw record surges in revenue during Trump’s first year in office, earning $77.5 million and $121.9 million respectively, compared to average annual revenues of $25 million and $75 million during Trump’s first term. Entities across the Persian Gulf paid more than $300 million to Trump’s businesses last year, including $263 million from the sale of half his stake in World Liberty Financial to a firm backed by Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, a top UAE royal and brother of the country’s president. Kash Patel failed to properly disclose his stock purchase of a Department of Justice contractor, MicroStrategy, worth up to $250,000 last year, despite laws requiring disclosure within 45 days of the trade. July 2 Trump has been directing administration officials to steer more government contracts—so far worth more than $2.4 billion—to Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin aerospace firm, after Amazon gave $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund, donated to the White House ballroom project, and reached a $40 million deal to license a Melania Trump documentary. Alongside the billions he made from cryptocurrency last year, Trump earned millions of dollars from real estate licensing fees, including $21 million from organizations in the UAE and $9.2 million in Saudi Arabia, along with smaller sums from merchandise sales, including $4.7 million from Trump Watches and $35,920 from 45 Guitar, a guitar brand endorsed by the president. House Democrats accused consultants tied to the Trump administration of financial fraud, alleging they gave prospective donors to America250—the bipartisan committee created by Congress to celebrate the nation’s semiquincentennial—the banking and routing numbers for Freedom 250, the White House’s fund for events like the UFC cage fight. Democrats also allege that Freedom 250’s CEO traveled to the World Economic Forum in Davos to solicit donations from foreign government officials and business leaders. The Trump administration’s proposed rollback of gun regulations would lift the prohibition on mailing handguns to individuals, a significant win for GrabAGun—the direct-to-consumer firearm retailer on whose board Donald Trump Jr. sits and in which he holds a 1.1% ownership stake. GrabAGun currently must rely on a middleman to transfer firearms to customers. Trump’s financial disclosure revealed that he made more than 21,000 securities trades during his first year back in office, growing his investment account to at least $858 million across stakes in around 1,600 companies, compared to the 13 total trades Joe Biden made during his entire presidency. July 4 Nearly 1 million people who bought the president’s meme coin—Trump Coin—collectively lost $3.8 billion on the token, while he walked away with $636 million. July 6 Shares of Dell closed up 4.4% after Trump recommended people buy the firm’s computers during a speech announcing the launch of Trump investment accounts for children, boosting the more than $1 million worth of shares the president owns in the company. July 9 Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh named crypto investor and Trump ally Marc Andreessen to a task force aimed at modernizing the Federal Reserve, including rethinking its approach to inflation—a key factor keeping interest rates elevated. Palm Beach International Airport has officially changed its name to Trump International Airport—a move that will require Florida to pay royalties to the president’s family for licensing his name. I was there a few months ago, during a trip to Barcelona. The sculptures were a revelation, I’d never seen so many together before. Each one has its own personality. Enjoy the good weather, if you are lucky enough to have it. History Will Judge the Complicit The Quintessential Politician Autocracy Inc Open Letters, from Anne Applebaum is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe
At Family Science Night, Wonder Comes Before Answers.
BAR HARBOR—Family Science Night isn’t really about science. It’s about wonder. It’s about watching a five-year-old realize that the tiny creature under a microscope is a real living thing. It’s about a teenager discovering that the scientist explaining genetics or regeneration isn’t much older than they are. It’s about parents seeing curiosity spread across a child’s face the way excitement spreads across a crowd at a Fourth of July parade. For one evening, families realize that the laboratory isn’t some secretive place where knowledge is hidden behind white coats and closed doors. They learn that the lab is a place their neighbors work, their friends’ parents work, and it becomes a place where questions matter more than answers. It’s a place where wonder is the origin for knowledge. At the lab, children learn that it’s okay not to know. Adults remember that they once asked “Why?” about everything. Scientists are reminded why they fell in love with discovery in the first place. There are experiments, games, obstacle courses, and demonstrations, of course. But those are really just invitations—to touch, to explore, to laugh, to make mistakes, and to ask one more question. In a world that often rewards certainty, Family Science Night celebrates curiosity. And perhaps that’s its greatest gift. Long after the microscopes are packed away and the experiments are over, what families take home isn’t just a few new facts about biology. They take home the feeling that discovery belongs to everyone—that science isn’t something happening somewhere else by someone else. It’s simply what happens when people are given permission to wonder. A Family Science Night at the Mount Desert Island Biological Laboratory is one of those rare community events where children and adults can experience science as something they do, not just something they read about. Hands on discovery allows hands-on learning and joy. Real scientists, some local, some scientist-interns (but still scientists) just in college make science real, approachable, and exciting. And there, complex ideas like forever chemical-filtration, DNA and so much more become not complex. Instead, they become fun. Summer fellows are challenged to explain cutting-edge biomedical research in ways a first-grader—and their grandparent—can understand. Past activities have explored gene expression, kidney function, axolotl regeneration, worms, microplastics, and phytoplankton through games and creative demonstrations. Though it’s called family night, you can also see adults going from station to station, exploring, learning together across ages. Family Science Night reflects the laboratory’s broader mission of breaking down barriers between researchers and the public, helping people understand how scientific discoveries relate to everyday life and the health of Maine’s environment. Family Science Night transforms a world-class research laboratory into a giant interactive classroom, where curiosity is encouraged, questions are celebrated, and families discover that science isn’t just something that happens in a lab—it’s an adventure anyone can join. About MDI Biological Laboratory For more than 125 years, MDI Bio Lab has been a center for training and research in comparative biology. In the last two decades its biomedical research has focused on aging, regeneration, and environmental toxins. The Laboratory houses 11 research groups staffed by an international team of world-class scientists and graduate students. It also leads a statewide network of colleges, universities and research institutions that collaborate to provide training, research experiences and financial support to help young Mainers play a bigger role in today’s biomedical revolution. Located on Maine’s rugged coast, the Laboratory’s 100+ acre campus houses research facilities, cottages and dorms that house visiting scientists and students. It is also home to MDI Bioscience, a subsidiary working to design innovative techniques to speed the drug discovery process. LINKS TO LEARN MORE NIH INBRE MDI BIOLOGICAL LABORATORY Photos: Carrie Jones and Shaun Farrar/Bar Harbor Story HELP SUPPORT THE BAR HARBOR STORY When we started The Bar Harbor Story, we didn’t know if anyone would read it. But you showed up. You shared. You sent tips. Now—over 400,000 views every month later—it’s clear: people here care about their community and each other. We’ve kept everything free because news should never be out of reach, but every one of our stories takes time to write, and your support keeps The Bar Harbor Story going. If you value our work, please consider a paid subscription, a founding membership, or a sponsorship. It truly helps us cover one more meeting, tell one more story, shine one more light. Even $5 a month makes a difference. Click here to become a one-time supporter now. Thank you so much for being here. Founding member information can be found here. Have questions about sponsorships? Just send Shaun an email at sfarrar86@gmail.com, he’d love to hear from you. Subscribe Share Bar Harbor Story Share Leave a comment
They're Building Half A Bridge to Save Science...
Today’s post is about science: what you can do now to protect it from unprecedented threats, and how your action is the first half of a long-term program that Congress must take up next. Let me start with describing the embryonic state of science advocacy. There are many well-meaning organizations: the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Research!America, and subject-specific organizations such as the Society for Neuroscience and the American Physical Society. Their general approach is to emphasize the common good: the remarkable value that science and innovation have provided to all Americans. However, these organizations are offering an incomplete solution. Before I start, a preliminary: If you already know about the threat, go ahead and weigh in with OMB at this link. Ideas about what to say come from Research!America and the American Physical Society. You have until Monday, July 13 at 11:59pm Eastern. Then come back here and read the rest of this post. Finally, get in touch with whoever is likely to be your next member of Congress in 2027. The threat: An end to merit-based science… The onslaught of attacks on science is accelerating. It’s not just cuts to grants, which was the last battle. That battle is not done yet, but there is a new and worse threat. Now comes a proposed public rule from the Office of Management and Budget. The rule would take decision-making power over grants away from experts and put it into the hands of political appointees. Former NIH official Elizabeth Ginexi wrote an excellent summary of what OMB is trying to do, which is codify the executive branch’s ability to award or terminate grants, for arbitrary cause or no stated cause. Since World War II, a necessary step in scientific grant-making has been consideration of scientific merit. This approach has made America into a dominant scientific superpower, the envy of the world. Of course, political considerations do come into the mix. The proposed rule tilts the balance dramatically away from merit. …but why? Many people have difficulty comprehending why Russell Vought and OMB would want to damage science in this way. If you’re a working scientist, you are likely to be particularly uncomprehending. Who would hurt an activity so self-evidently good? The answer is: this is part of the program to replace the rule of law with a personalist regime. OMB Director Russell Vought, a Christian nationalist, would like to implement what legal scholars call a “unitary executive,” and what I would call a dictatorship. Or if you like, a personalist authoritarian regime. I am a working scientist. This rule will debilitate my research. It may chill the speech of scientists for speaking freely in the public sphere. It is a form of personalizing power and decision-making within the executive branch. In short, it sacrifices science in the service of tyranny. To Russell Vought, a decrease in the quality of science might be an acceptable cost. He might even consider it an added benefit to weaken a pillar of soft U.S. power based on knowledge and skepticism. The professional societies are building half a bridge The nonprofits are asking you to make public comment. Public comment is like building the first half of a bridge. Before implementation, OMB is compelled by law to have a period of public comment. Rules have to be consistent with the law and the Constitution. They express the federal government’s stance toward how those laws will be implemented. When a presidential administration works in good faith, these public comments are used to inform their eventual action, and sometimes mitigate it. The comment period reflects our First Amendment right to petition our government. The executive branch is then supposed to take those comments into account - completing the bridge between us, the people, and our government. Project 2025 seeks to take away the second half of the bridge. We have to replace it. The first half of the bridge Organizations like AAAS, Research!America, and SfN are partly right. You should certainly comment. Their core model is earnest: if enough of us make noise, then we will achieve change. This idealistic point of view is offered in good faith. That point of view is also currently bullshit. The fundamental reason is that the federal rulemaking process has two parts: There has to be a period of public comment. OMB makes the final rule…but is free to disregard public comment. Oops. That’s a loophole. However, not all is lost. Congress can complete the bridge Congress has enormous power. That power suggests a roadmap for how to proceed. This lawless administration is still going to issue that rule. Nonetheless, your comments still play an essential role. Here are two steps you can take. Step 1: Send your comment to your Representative and Senator. Whether they are Democrats or Republicans, many of them support science. Whatever you wrote as public comment in the Federal Register, also send it to your member of Congress. You can include information about jobs in your district or state by looking at Joshua Weitz’s ScienceMatters interactive map. Call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and give your town, zip code, or state, then deliver your message. Step 2: Politicize the hell out of science. You heard me, politicize it as an issue. We hear a lot from the old scientific establishment about science being nonpartisan. This is obsolete, sentimental thinking. Under normal conditions, it was true. But we can no longer make that assumption. We can keep on pretending, but we’re putting science at risk. There is a way forward. Rules are subordinate to the law…and Congress makes laws. Therefore Congress can step in. In this fall’s election, it is likely that Democrats will retake the House of Representatives. That puts at least one chamber of Congress in the hands of Democrats. They are far more inclined than the current Congress to investigate and legislate. This opens a path to undoing the damage. It also creates a permission structure for pro-science Republicans to find a way back from the brink. We have to encourage them. In the House, every district is up every two years. In your district, contact both of the major party candidates. If your state has a Senate race, contact those candidates too. Specifically mention the proposed OMB rule. Ask for two things: For this year’s appropriations process in August and September, ask that amendments be added to stop the implementation of the new rule. Those amendments should support peer-reviewed science and stop political interference. Looking ahead to next year, ask the Congressman/Congresswoman/Senator to work to hold hearings in 2027 on the importance and benefits of peer-reviewed science for health and prosperity. What hearings and amendments will accomplish Congress can use its investigatory power to summon heads of agencies and the director of the OMB. That will allow fact-finding regarding the consequences of this rule. Congress can override the rule through the appropriations process. They can write into statute a requirement to follow peer review and best scientific practices. In this way, Congress can stop the attacks on science. Postscript: Moving forward Now I have a request for you, to help me. As many of you know, I ran for Congress in order to save democracy and science. Although I did not win, that battle continues by other means. I met and heard from thousands of supporters both here in New Jersey and nationally. I learned that pro-science, pro-democracy activists have the potential to become a much greater force. In the weeks and months ahead, I will be building ways to harness that energy. I will be announcing those plans soon. In the meantime, an important step is to wind down the Congressional campaign, which has a few remaining bills to pay. Please help me retire that last debt.
The First Test of Bar Harbor's New Entertainment Rules.
The Bar Harbor Story is generously sponsored by the Bar Harbor Historical Society. BAR HARBOR—The Finback Alehouse was the first real test of the town’s new special amusement permit process, July 7 while eight other permits sailed through the process last week. The permit allows music in places where liquor is served. The town’s ordinance which was recently tweaked for a new process allows for the regulation of noise and hours of activity. The only discussion at the July Town Council meeting was about the Finback Alehouse on Cottage Street, in the heart of Bar Harbor’s downtown district. The Finback’s distinctive design—a front wall that is like a garage door that can be opened and closed—was a key to that discussion. The restaurant, which often hosts live bands, singers, and karaoke, at night, has had one substantiated noise complaint this season, which is documented on its application. According to Bar Harbor Police Chief David Kerns, most complaints about noise happen after 10 p.m., and if the Finback had two more violations within a year, they’d have to stop having music. One town councilor said that he’d have no problem reissuing the permit if the door was down. The permit passed through the process with no conditions. Vice Chair Earl Brechlin moved the motion with two time changes for two holiday weekend dates. It passed unanimously. The council asked the Finback why they’d chosen an indoor license with a wall that can be opened to the street. Dale Stockburger, representing the Finback, said he’d applied for an indoor permit rather than an outdoor structure or partial structure (which is usually applied to tents or pavilions). The restaurant has traditionally had an indoor license. Stockburger said that whether the door is open or closed is immaterial because he now stands outside with a decibel reader to make sure that the music isn’t too loud. OTHER SPECIAL AMUSEMENT PERMITS New Councilor Deborah Vickers worried that she had potential conflicts of interests on two other renewals due to the location of her employee housing. Vickers co-owns the Black Friar Inn. They have employee housing directly behind the Finback, which is also 300 yards from the Bar Harbor Inn, she explained. The Bar Harbor Inn also had a permit up for renewal. The councilors unanimously voted she did not have a conflict of interest. The councilors approved permits at The Bluenose Inn, 90 Eden St, Class A; Acadia Hotel Downtown, 20 Mount Desert St, Class A and C; the Bar Harbor Inn, 8 Newport Dr, Class A, B, C and D; C-Ray Lobster, 882 State Hwy 3, Class D; Holiday Inn Bar Harbor Regency, 123 Eden Street, Class B; Finback Alehouse, 30 Cottage St, Class B; Project Social, 278 Main St, Class C and D; Bar Harbor Beer Works, 119 Main St, Class B and D; and Mainely Meat BBQ Dreamwood Hill, 369 State Hwy 3, Class D. That process is laid out in the Special Amusement Ordinance of the Bar Harbor Town Code which is Chapter 14 of the town code. Special amusement permits have class codes. These are the meanings: Number - how many musicians are allowed by the permit. Class A - Indoor non-amplified entertainment. Class B - Indoor amplified entertainment or dancing. Class C - Outdoor non-amplified entertainment. Class D - Outdoor amplified entertainment. RESIDENCE LICENSES RENEWED AND A TAXI LICENSE The councilors also renewed the licenses for three specific sorts of residences that require that yearly renewal per the town code. The employee living quarters at Atlantic Oceanside Hotel, 119 Eden St and another at 278 Main Street were renewed. The shared accommodations license renewal at 39 Kebo Street also occurred. These are annual renewals. Bernard Taxi Services’ license was also renewed. This license had been added to the agenda at the meeting. Bar Harbor Update on Leaf and Grass Clipping Disposal BAR HARBOR — Bar Harbor residents will still have a place to throw away their leaf and grass clippings this summer. The town’s agreement with EMR in Southwest Harbor for disposing of those items will continue through November 30. The agreement, according to a town press release, will continue “while the Town continues evaluating long term composting solutions and the required state permitting process.” As of July 1, residents bringing their grass and leaves across the island to the facility in Southwest Harbor will have to fill out a property registration card. Each property can throw out up to 85 pounds of the grass and leaves. “Any disposal exceeding the 85 pound allowance during this period will be the responsibility of the property owner at the applicable disposal rate,” the press release explains. LINKS TO LEARN MORE Watch the meeting Meeting agenda QUICK NOTE: We’d released the Bar Harbor Leaf information as a brief, but wanted to make sure that people saw it, so we’ve included it here, too. HELP SUPPORT THE BAR HARBOR STORY When we started The Bar Harbor Story, we didn’t know if anyone would read it. But you showed up. You shared. You sent tips. Now—over 400,000 views every month later—it’s clear: people here care about their community and each other. We’ve kept everything free because news should never be out of reach, but every one of our stories takes time to write, and your support keeps The Bar Harbor Story going. If you value our work, please consider a paid subscription, a founding membership, or a sponsorship. It truly helps us cover one more meeting, tell one more story, shine one more light. Even $5 a month makes a difference. Click here to become a one-time supporter now. Thank you so much for being here. Founding member information can be found here. Have questions about sponsorships? Just send Shaun an email at sfarrar86@gmail.com, he’d love to hear from you. Subscribe Share Bar Harbor Story Share Leave a comment
MAGA's attack on science is even worse than it looks
In my post on America’s 250-year anniversary, I argued that respect for the individual was the “secret sauce” in the U.S.’ long-lasting preeminence among nations. But it was certainly not the only factor. There were plenty of institutional innovations that helped the U.S. stay on top — economically, militarily, and in terms of the attractiveness of its society. One of these was American science. Today we take things like the modern research university, government grants for science, public-to-private research spinoffs, etc. for granted, but a lot of that infrastructure wasn’t there before World War 2. It was either invented or scaled up massively by the U.S. government in the postwar period, led by far-sighted scientist-bureaucrats like Vannevar Bush (pictured above). If you want to read about this history, a good place to start would be Jonathan Gruber and Simon Johnson’s excellent book Jump-Starting America. Those scientific institutions didn’t exist in a vacuum, however. They were backed by the U.S. government’s abiding faith in the power of science — and, even more fundamentally, by deep popular trust in the scientific enterprise. Science gave us radar and the atom bomb in wartime, and in peacetime it gave us plastics, vaccines, cheap food, and a thousand other things that made our lives easier. Science was also the driver behind American industry — chemicals, aerospace, telecommunications, computers, electronics, and so on. We owed science our jobs, our livelihoods, our comfortable living standards, and our greatness and power as a nation. It’s little wonder that both political parties, even as they fought viciously over other issues, were steadfast in their support of science. For a long time, the only people who distrusted science were a hippie fringe on the left who disliked modernity (or thought they did, anyway), who also disliked American industry and American power, and who subscribed to an early version of degrowth environmentalism. America’s scientific enterprise is still strong, especially compared to the systems in Europe, Japan, Korea, and other developed countries. It has lost a lot of ground to China in a relative sense, but a lot of that is because of China’s incredible growth; as China has poured untold amounts of money and talent into its research labs, spending and output have overtaken the U.S. by some measures. There are a few ways in which China’s rise creates problems for American science — for example, top scientists can choose to work in China instead of in the U.S. — and of course there’s the concern that China’s technological strength will help its military to reign supreme. But overall, China’s rise in science should be good for American science, since American scientists can use Chinese discoveries for free and build on them. The much bigger problem is that the scientific enterprise America built during and after World War 2 is now being threatened with absolute decline. The biggest problem, of course, is that much of the country — the Republican half — has basically lost faith in the scientific enterprise. To what degree this loss of faith is justified is an open question, and deserves to be discussed openly. But the larger point — that the system that powered American dominance is under threat — is true either way. Most Americans still trust science, but MAGA Republicans don’t There’s a myth, popular in right-wing circles, that scientists have lost the trust of regular Americans — either due to the increasingly left-wing composition of academic departments, or to misbehavior during Covid, or to DEI-related research taking over science, etc. This also fits with a wider narrative that Americans are losing trust in all of our institutions. But it just isn’t true. Poll after poll shows that on the whole, Americans still trust scientists and want to spend more on science. For example, here’s a Pew poll from late 2025 showing that although about a fifth of Republicans did lose confidence in science in 2020, two thirds still have at least “a fair amount” of confidence: That same poll found that scientists are among America’s most trusted groups — even better trusted than the military! In fact, Americans trust scientists more than people in most other countries do. Other polls show that although Republican trust in science has dropped somewhat, Republican support for spending more on science remains very strong: A Pew poll in 2023 found the exact same thing: So when MAGA types tell you about scientists losing their credibility, or a drop in trust in science, they’re only talking about themselves. Whatever left-wing politicization of science happened during the Biden administration — and there was definitely some of that — it was not enough to make most Republicans lose faith in the scientific enterprise, or favor research cuts in order to purge unwanted ideology from the system. That doesn’t mean I think progressives should continue down the path of politicizing scientific research. They should not, and Biden made real missteps in this area. Objectivity clearly matters for public trust of science in the long term. But as of right now, there’s no crisis of trust in science, except among the smallish minority of people who are running around screaming that there’s a crisis of trust in science. But despite science’s overwhelming popularity and public trust, Trump and his administration are launching an unprecedented and devastating attack on American science — cutting funding, and forcing science projects to undergo ideological review by government commissars. Trump’s comprehensive attack on science
Scientists’ credibility depends on audience and perceived motives
A new study identifies five audience "classes" based on people's perceptions of scientists’ credibility.
Michigan ranks sixth among best states for business. See top 10
The annual ranking said four Great Lakes states were among the best in the country for businesses.
Social-Media UAP Influencers Misunderstand How Science Works!
When I noticed that the photographs taken by the Apollo astronauts half a century ago had blue dots on the parts of the Kodak film that…
Materials science and engineering students gain hands-on experience as part of a national manufacturing competition
Five engineering students put their design and manufacturing skills to the test in the Steel Founders' Society of America's Cast in Steel competition. The first season of the organization's YouTube series premieres on July 9.
16 Owls Selected to Athlon Sports’ Preseason All-CUSA
KENNESAW, Ga. – Kennesaw State football continued to receive preseason honors as Athlon Sports announced a whopping 16 preseason all-Conference USA selections for the Owls this week.
AI Is Changing How Customers Choose Your Business
As AI increasingly mediates how customers research, evaluate, and choose suppliers, competitive advantage is shifting from direct customer understanding to managing AI-shaped interactions. Drawing on the experiences of three small-to-medium sized businesses they worked with, the authors show how firms can adapt. A manufacturer improved sales efficiency by screening AI-generated inquiries before investing engineering time in quotations. A boutique hotel learned to monitor how AI tools described its business and revised public content to improve accuracy and differentiation. A B2B software company replaced periodic customer reviews with continuous monitoring of customer feedback and AI-generated market perceptions. Across all three cases, the lesson is that firms must treat AI as a new intermediary in the customer relationship. Winning companies will not necessarily spend the most on technology; they will build systems for continuously listening, interpreting signals, and adapting strategy in markets where both customers and the information they rely on are increasingly AI-mediated.
Brazil vs. Norway - Live Score
Live coverage of Brazil vs. Norway game on FOX Sports including live score, highlights, updated stats, odds and more - played on July 05, 2026.
Long Reads for the Long Weekend
(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.) Happy Fourth of July weekend! As has been a tradition of mine going back to the beginning of the EntStrategyGuy website, I’m sharing my favorite long reads of the last year, like I did in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2024, and 2025. Let’s dive right in! Subscribe “Different Prices for the Same Ride: How Uber and Lyft Use AI to Get More Money Out of You“ by Derek Kravitz in Consumer Reports I don’t think surveillance pricing, like the kind described in this brilliant Consumer Reports article, is long for the world—it’s toxically unpopular—but we’ll see if either party takes on this issue. If I ran a political party focused on affordability, I would focus on a few pro-consumer and pro-market policies: Banning non-compete agreements. Ending surveillance pricing Eliminating junk fees (read more here...) Ensuring “right to repair” for consumer (and military!) products Capping excessive app store fees Stopping digital/algorithmic price-fixing tools. Preventing automatic subscription price increases. And more. If you want to fight inflation, there are a lot of great ways to do it quickly. Speaking of higher prices... “Secret Documents Show Pepsi and Walmart Colluded to Raise Food Prices Across the Economy“ by Matt Stoller in BIG Again, I think a political party should focus on lowering prices for consumers. And deals like this—Walmart making a deal/forcing Pepsi to offer the lowest prices at its stores and nowhere else—hypothetically lower prices at Walmart...but raise them everywhere else. “15 DUIs, still driving: California’s failure to take repeat drunk drivers off the road“ by Robert Lewis and Lauren Hepler in CalMatters CalMatters does terrific reporting in California, something the Golden State desperately needs more of, and this article is a great example of that. “PugLips: The next insanely popular thing you’ve never heard of…” by Simon Carless in Game Discover Co I thought that this parody article (and yes, it’s a parody, but I was definitely unsure at first) was hilarious and totally nailed how much tech/business journalism feels these days. Actually, three of my favorite articles this year were on hype in the video game industry, including Georg Zoller’s “The Video Game Industries Very Dark Night”—which I linked to recently and wrote a follow-up here—and Owen Mahoney’s “Derek Zoolander, Videogame Exec”. In particular, I like Mahoney’s focus on user experience as a guide to what trends will actually grab hold of customers. “The Matrix Lies“ by Evan Shapiro in Media War & Peace Evan Shapiro’s first person account of his experience with AI was hilarious. I think LLMs capabilities have significantly grown from last summer, and yet...my editor/researcher just had an abysmal experience using an LLM to do a quite basic task (which our LLM normally does each week) and the LLM made a mistake on every single data entry...along with seven different mistakes affecting twelve of the twenty or so entries, including mistakes that are explicitly spelled out in the prompt. That’s a brutal failure rate. Again, if you use AI/LLM for data collection, you need to take a lot of extra steps to verify and check the data. “Ghosts in the Balcony: A Cross-Country Trip to 58 Theaters Fighting to Survive“ by Matthew Frank in The Ankler I thought Matthew Frank’s pitch to head across America to visit theaters sounded insane aggressive at the time—at least it felt that way to someone a decade older than him; man, to be in your twenties again, am I right?—but I knew the result would be great. And it was, a terrific feature by a great young writer. Also, I loved Matthew’s recent article on who’s getting the precious few entry level jobs in Hollywood. (Hint: nepotism.) “Disney erased FiveThirtyEight“ and “Did Las Vegas get too greedy?” by Nate Silver in Silver Bulletin I love media history and analysis, and there’s no one better to get the history of FiveThirtyEight than from Nate Silver, who wrote about his personal experience in one of my favorite pieces from this year. I also loved Nate’s breakdown of what’s causing Vegas’ woes, but I’ll offer one criticism, summarized as “Might I suggest antitrust?” Many centrists/center-right/libertarian thinkers (Nate is self-described as the latter) often don’t consider consolidation or antitrust as factors in policy issues like housing, America’s military readiness, or, in this case, Las Vegas. Even if libertarians want to debunk antitrust/consolidation concerns, I’d love to read that debunking. In this case, Vegas is incredibly consolidated (though it also has been for a long time) and I’d have loved to read Nate at least contending with this factor, since he addresses almost every other potential factor for Vegas’ decline. “Why Microsoft’s Carbon Removal Pullback Is Such a Big Deal“ by Robinson Meyer in Heatmap News I’m a big supporter of carbon removal efforts, but this nascent industry faces a lot of headwinds, including this big move most recently. I think it’s clear that solar panels and batteries should be able to get the world to its carbon footprint goals, but effective carbon renewal remains necessary to prevent the worst impacts of global warming. “AI is killing the cheap smartphone“ by David Oks LLMs and AI will impact the world in ways we’re not ready for, and already, third world countries are seeing the prices of cheap cellphones skyrocket due to the cost of chips skyrocketing. This article by David Oks is a terrific breakdown. “100 Days of Madness: Netflix, Paramount, Warner and the Future of Hollywood“ by Wade Major at Hollywood Heretic Wade Major dove deep into Hollywood/streaming’s financials in this must read piece. Not that I agree with everything in this article (read my take on Warner Bros./Paramount here) but the analysis is top notch. I think many people discount how quality thinking, regardless of the argument/conclusion, will make you a better thinker. “Erased by the UFC: Frank Shamrock, The MMA GOAT of the 20th Century“ by Nate Wilcox in The MMA Draw Newsletter Growing up playing the UFC fighting game on the Dreamcast, Frank Shamrock was my favorite MMA fighter, and this history/tribute to him was great. Other Fun Reads “The Hardest Part Of History To Tell Is How It Felt“ by Craig Fehrman at Defector “Unmasking the Sea Star Killer“ by Craig Welch at bioGraphic “What Could Save the Industry? Fin-Syn“ by Richard Rushfield in The Ankler Alex Rollins Berg in Underexposed on movie bumpers, pillow shots, Disney trash cinema, cult films, and Casablanca. David H. Montgomery in YouGov’s The Surveyor on punctuation marks, condiments, dinosaurs, and comic strips and kids media. “How Medium finally pivoted its way to profitability“ and “Why the best journalists on YouTube are all former Vox employees“ by Simon Owens in Simon Owens’s Media Newsletter “It’s Not Just You, Netflix Shows Have Gotten Slightly Shorter: Here’s What the Data Says“ by Kasey Moore at What’s on Netflix “Numlock Awards: How Diane Warren became the biggest loser in Oscar history“ by Nathaniel Rakich and “Numlock Awards: The Oscar Bait era is over. The Oscar Chum era is here.” by Walt Hickey & Michael Domanico at Numlock Awards
Inside the recruiting practices at the hottest AI coding startups
At Replit, X profiles have become the "main medium" for recruiting, said the company's chief people officer.
On the Partnership Between the U.S. Government and Science in Figuring Out the Nature of UAP
Below is the transcript of an interview that I just had with Shannon Cake on Newsmax (which is accessible in video format here). Shannon’s…
Oakland sports standings: Roots playoff push, ultimate frisbee dominance
Plus the Ballers' home run leader, the Unicorns’ promising cricket season and the rise of some local youth weightlifting champions.
Apple to launch 5 new iPhone models to gain market share amid memory crunch
Company raises production target for first foldable phone to about 10 million units
Computer scientists develop a new AI tool that rivals AlphaFold 3 in mapping RNA
The method, called RNAbpFlow, was described in a study published on June 30 in Nature Methods, among the most selective journals in computational life sciences.
China's Xiaomi, Oppo, Vivo cut 2026 smartphone targets again: sources
Rising costs and component shortages lead some brands to slash outlook by up to 30%
Netflix and Superheroes Are Having a Rough Stretch on Streaming....
(Welcome to my weekly streaming ratings report, the single best guide to what’s popular in streaming TV and what isn’t. I’m the Entertainment Strategy Guy, a former streaming executive who now analyzes business strategy in the entertainment industry. If you were forwarded this email, please subscribe to get these insights each week.) I have a quick prediction before we start today’s article: You might see this data in future news articles. Not my specific charts or analysis, but the core trend I’ve been monitoring—Netflix is having a lackluster Q2—will become inescapable. Often, folks want to know “What does the data say?” Well, that’s what it says. I haven’t seen this analysis hit the trades really yet, but I have a feeling some other outlets are going to start making this case soon. Remember, you read it here first. You probably have read about the problems facing superhero films at the box office this weekend. Well, this week, I explore whether superheroes are dying on TV as well! And the data says: definitely maybe! We have a lot to cover in today’s Streaming Ratings Report, which covers the two weeks of 18-May and 25-May. Today, I’m just looking at TV, like Netflix’s disappointing Q2, superhero shows underwhelming, a few TV shows dropping off the charts, The Pitt finally ending its epic run on the viewership charts (and whether “view counts” change its status as one of the biggest shows of all time), all the flops, bombs and misses, and a whole lot more. Tomorrow, I’ve got a great rundown of the film side of things. Let’s dive right in! (Reminder: The streaming ratings report focuses on the U.S. market and compiles data from Nielsen’s weekly top ten viewership ranks, Luminate’s Top Ten Data, Showlabs, TV Time trend data, Samba TV household viewership, company datecdotes, Netflix hours viewed data, Google Trends, and IMDb to determine the most popular content. While most data points are current, Nielsen’s data covers the weeks of May 18th to May 31st, 2026. You can find a link to my terminology here.) Subscribe Television - Netflix’s Q2 Slump Continues Having analyzed streaming ratings for going on half a decade, I have learned to trust my gut, but I’m always relieved when I can find actual data to back it up. For example, after a string of very popular shows like Stranger Things, Bridgerton, The Lincoln Lawyer and The Night Agent came out, week after week, in January and February, my gut wondered if Netflix had enough new and returning TV shows to sustain them throughout the year. Since then, Netflix’s post-March slate of shows has not impressed me. This week seemed to feature a potential new hit, but then, like a classic Duffer Bros. TV show, there was a twist. I speak of The Boroughs, Netflix’s latest (and last) Duffer Bros. produced show. The pitch is “Stranger Things with older actors”. And it topped the Nielsen charts: With just two weeks of viewership, The Boroughs would have been a top 25 debut show last year: But here’s the twist: Netflix has already cancelled The Boroughs! What happened? Likely a few things. First, the show didn’t do as well globally as it did in the US. As What’s on Netflix showed, it lagged behind several other shows that got cancelled. Second, its completion rate was likely low; after an initial burst of interest, it quickly dropped off on the Samba TV and Luminate charts. Third, the Duffer Bros. left Netflix for Paramount, and that may have factored into Netflix’s decision here. (Though I tend to believe that if a show is doing well, Netflix would have kept greenlighting seasons.) Still, just because I can explain why Netflix may have cancelled this show doesn’t mean I’m justifying it. In particular, as I’ve noted before, Netflix is losing a lot of their bigger shows as they reach their natural ends, and they need to replace those shows. This show had the hallmarks of a big new genre show, and it’s their biggest hit of the last few months (in the US at least), but now it’s done. Netflix’s other show this week—The Four Seasons, the second season of the “hit” show from last year—definitely disappointed. Its sophomore season had about half the viewership of the first, only 12.7 million hours. It also only had a two week run on Samba TV, and its numbers were all down on Luminate too. In other words, even with two successes, the Q2 slump for Netflix looks real: I could add to the list of disappointments: Both Lord of the Files and Man on Fire had short runs on the Nielsen charts. Running Point’s sophomore season also opened to about half its viewership, similar to The Four Seasons. A Good Girl’s Guide to Murder’s second season—see below—didn’t even make any of the three viewership charts I track, unlike the first season. Netflix is absolutely having a dismal second three months of 2026. If this Nielsen data is any indication, and I think it is, I think this will show up in Netflix’s engagement report, and maybe even their financial outcomes. And the rest of June doesn’t look much better. We have two hit shows coming back—Sweet Magnolias, one of their quietest big shows, and Avatar: The Last Airbender, a big hit for them in 2024—but the other big swings are limited series crime thrillers i.e. no future season potential. Like I said above, sometimes when I uncover a juicy nugget like this, other outlets end up writing very similar articles mimicking the data without credit. We’ll see if that happens this time! Share Television - The State of Superhero Shows on Streaming When I first heard the pitch for Spider-Noir—a Sony TV show on Prime Video that binge-released eight episodes first on MGM+ then on Prime Video two days later—I had my doubts. It’s a live-action Spider-Man show set in the 1930s, starring Nicholas Cage, based on a cameo of a character in Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse. No, seriously, that’s the pitch. That could either go terrifically well or horribly wrong. Great because, Spider-Man. He’s the biggest superhero we have. I’ve seen tracking numbers that put the new _Spider-Man: Brand New Da_y as the blockbuster of the year and initial pre-sales back that up. And yet this Spider-Noir pitch feels very esoteric. (Also, the eight-episode binge release feels very “Amazon copying Netflix” again.) So what’s the data say? And what does this say about the future of superhero shows?
Small and medium businesses aren't waiting for an AI invitation—they're already leading
SMBs are using secure AI to build trust, integrate workflows, and turn security into a foundation for scalable growth. Learn more.
Hodder Tugboat acquires Seaspan's towing business
Hodder Tugboat Co. Ltd., Richmond, British Columbia, has finalized its purchase of the legacy chip and hog fuel barge division of Seaspan Marine, North Vancouver, British Columbia, the companies annou
Experts on history, politics reflect on U.S. 250th birthday milestone
As our nation’s celebration of its 250th birthday approaches, experts in history and political science at Virginia Tech can provide perspectives on how far the United States of America has advanced since its founding and the issues that will influence where it goes next.
Coles awards more than $3.5 million to help turn producers’ ideas into reality
June 21, 2026 -- More than $3.5 million in grants has been awarded to eight small and medium-sized businesses across Australia through the lates...
Want to Slow Your Aging? Multivitamins, Diet, and Fitness May Help
Recent research has explored the possible effects of diet, daily multivitamins, and cardiorespiratory fitness on aging. Learn about the findings here.
NYT Pips hints, answers for June 20, 2026
Stuck on Easy, Medium, or Hard? We have everything you need right here.
White House Creates a UAP Science Council
Below is a transcript of an interview I just had with Elizabeth Vargas on NewsNation. Her questions are labeled below by EV and my answers…
Experts on history, politics reflect on U.S. 250th birthday milestone
As our nation’s celebration of its 250th birthday approaches, experts in history and political science at Virginia Tech can provide perspectives on how far the United States of America has advanced since its founding and the issues that will influence where it goes next.
More Details on the UAP Science Advisory Council
Below is a set of questions that I was asked today about my new leadership position regarding the UAP Science Advisory Council.
Accenture to Acquire Alfahealth, Expanding Digital Health Capabilities to Accelerate Healthcare Transformation in Italy
Accenture has agreed to acquire Alfahealth, a subsidiary of Engineering Group.
Merchants of Doubt and the attacks on Extreme Event Attribution science
Last week, I attended a meeting at Columbia University on attribution science and climate law, hosted by the Sabin Center. It was a fantastic event, bringing together scientists and legal experts working at the intersection of extreme event attribution and climate law. Subscribe For those unfamiliar with it, extreme event attribution attempts to quantify the contribution of climate change to an extreme event. For example, several groups analyzed the impact of climate change on Hurricane Harvey’s enormous rainfall totals over Houston, Texas and they found that climate change increased rainfall by 15 to 38%. One thing that came up again and again was how terrified fossil-fuel interests are of extreme event attribution science. They are acutely aware that this research could land them in court. And losing those cases would leave them legally liable for billions of dollars in climate damages. Because the legal stakes are so high, the blowback has turned ugly. I spoke with several scientists at the meeting who are facing ongoing harassment over their work. This blowback is a coordinated campaign to make the entire field look suspect. The goal is to create the impression that attribution science is too uncertain, too political, or too conflicted to be useful in court or in public policy. The strategy is not based on actual science or evidence of misconduct, but on the generation of doubt. The new Merchants of Doubt We’ve seen this before. In fact, not that long ago: We only have to go back a year to the Department of Energy (DOE) Climate Working Group (CWG) report to see an example of using doubt as the tool to push back against well-established science. This strategy is laid out in an email from a member of the CWG, Dr. Roy Spencer, that was released during litigation over the Climate Working Group process. The key quote is: About all I can hope is that what we write will provide sufficient “reasonable scientific doubt” regarding the science claims in the 2009 TSD [technical support document], based upon almost 2 decades of new science, to call into question the original reasoning for the EPA Administrator’s decision that CO2 presents a threat to human health and welfare. This statement is strong evidence that at least some members of the committee were working to support a particular policy outcome: revoking the Endangerment Finding. The email also explains how they planned to do it: by attempting to generate “reasonable doubt”. This is going to be hard, Spencer implies. Despite falsely claiming that “2 decades of new science” weakens the case, Spencer explicitly acknowledges that the actual peer-reviewed science of climate change overwhelmingly rejects his position: But if the science argument is decided upon by a vote, or by the number of published citations, we lose the science argument. We can go back even further: This CWG email shares unmistakable DNA with the infamous 1969 tobacco memo that declared: “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” The tobacco memo also acknowledges the limit of this strategy: Like the CWG, they knew the science was not on their side. Share The new new Merchants of Doubt The people attacking the IPCC chapter on extreme event attribution are the newest iteration of the Merchants of Doubt. Their goal, like all Merchants before them, is to introduce doubt into the process. Because the report is not even out yet, they cannot attack its conclusions. So they are attacking the authors instead. Here is a press release from the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee: In the letter, the Chairmen express concerns about potential conflicts of interest involving members of the Attribution Committee, stating that “publicly available information suggests a troubling pattern” in which committee members are affiliated with nonprofits that support climate accountability lawsuits, “raising the appearance of impropriety and member bias.” To be clear, this is just innuendo. There is no actual evidence of bias. And given the robust process that these reports go through, including multiple lines of peer review, it seems very unlikely that significant bias can survive into the report. When the report comes out, critics will have the opportunity to make legitimate criticisms of the report — if any exist. If none do, however, they’ll still make criticisms, but they’ll be bogus, simply designed to generate doubt. We’ll see. A note to the press: Fix your frame To any journalists reading this: The public debate over extreme event attribution science is not going away. The science is simply too dangerous to fossil-fuel interests for them to stop fighting it. You very well might be assigned to write an article about this area of research in the future. When you do, do not automatically adopt the framing that climate misinformers want you to use. They want you to frame the story around questions like: Are climate scientists trying to put their thumb on the scale to achieve a predetermined, politically motivated result? Are climate scientists improperly letting their politics invade the science of the IPCC? That frame is a trap. Instead, you need to view this through the historical lens of the Merchants of Doubt. How does the ecosystem of doubt operate? Who funds it? What methods do they use to misrepresent science and slime researchers? What scientific results are they trying to keep people from understanding are legitimate? Ultimately, you instead need to focus your article on the generation of doubt as a way to maintain the fossil fuel industry’s social and legal license to keep burning oil, gas, and coal. If you treat the misinformers’ frame as a legitimate, good-faith scientific critique, you are helping them produce doubt. Don’t do it. Don’t be a Merchant of Doubt. Thanks for reading The Climate Brink! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work. Subscribe other stuff The Staying Curious Substack has an interesting post about the different flavors of climate sensitivity. This is crucial information if you want to understand how scientists think about how much warming the Earth will experience. I’d be grateful if you could hit the like button ❤️ below! It helps more people discover these ideas and lets me know what’s connecting with readers.
87 Percent of Creators Say Creative AI Is Growing Their Business and Audience, According to Adobe’s 2026 Creators’ Toolkit Report
Adobe’s 2026 Creators’ Toolkit Report, based on a global survey of more than 16,000 creators, finds that creative AI is accelerating business growth, becoming essential to creative workflows and reshaping how creators think about the future of AI.
Massachusetts looks for ‘happy medium’ on swipe fee reforms
Mass. lawmakers are hoping that business groups, banks, credit card companies, and payment processors will help them cut a path through the thicket of credit card swipe fees.
The shifting landscape for Black-owned businesses: An update to the Black Business Parity Dashboard
The latest Black Business Parity Dashboard reveals where Black-owned employer businesses are growing, where ownership gaps persist, and how closing those gaps could generate jobs, wages, and economic growth nationwide.
New Research Reveals Growing Paradox at the Center of Business Travel
The 2026 SAP Concur Global Business Travel Survey shows business travel delivers value, but gaps between org and employee expectations widen.
Why Squeezing Big Business Harder Won’t Close the UK Tax Gap
The UK’s tax authority should use artificial intelligence to monitor small and medium-sized businesses the way it does large corporations to help close the nation’s tax gap, Ryan’s Jenny Batchelor says.
Paper or pixel? Science settles divisive debate over best way to read
Here's the word on the best medium for reading
A UAP Science Advisory Council to the U.S.
On June 12, 2026, Steven Spielberg publicly released his film Disclosure Day while on the same day the U.S. Government disclosed the third…
South Africa banks chase underserved mid-sized businesses to drive growth
(Corrects paragraph 7 to say in excess of 30% not about 30%, paragraph 9 to make clear that clients will grow by 7,000 not to 7,000) By Nqobile Dludla JOHANNESBURG, June 11 (Reuters) - In the glass-walled boardrooms of South Africa's biggest banks, executives are ramping up efforts to win clients from a once overlooked corporate segment: medium-sized companies that are now too lucrative to
Business Travel Holds Steady as Travel Costs Rise
SAP Concur data shows companies have maintained business travel in 2026 despite rising fuel prices and higher travel costs. Learn more.
Small Businesses Outgrow Domestic Payments as Global Sourcing Spreads
An entire generation of American small- to medium-sized businesses (SMBs) have been conducting multinational operations without multinational
What It Takes To Be A Top Tier Entertainment Lawyer in 2026
Share I’ve recently run several popular posts breaking down data related to sought after legal jobs. General Counsel Big Law Appellate Attorney Here is another in this series. Two Lawyers, One Elite Market Entertainment law can sound like a single professional category. In practice, the lawyers who reach the top of the Hollywood market often look quite different from one another. Consider two attorneys from the 2025 top-entertainment-law universe. Lesley Freeman represents one route: the company-side entertainment lawyer. She is chief legal officer of AGBO, where she oversees company-wide business and legal affairs across film, television, video game and interactive experiences, and technological innovation, after senior legal roles at MGM, Amazon MGM Studios, HBO, and O’Melveny. Daniel Petrocelli represents another route: the outside-counsel trial lawyer. He is chair of O’Melveny’s trial practice and a vice chair of the firm, with a national litigation practice that includes entertainment, sports, and media disputes. Their careers differ by platform, role, practice area, and professional identity. One sits inside an entertainment company; the other practices from a major law firm. One is associated with corporate and governance work; the other with litigation. Yet both fall within the same publicly recognized top tier of Hollywood lawyers. That contrast points to the article’s central question. If there is no single mold for a top entertainment lawyer, are the paths simply idiosyncratic, or do they follow recurring patterns? The data suggest the latter. The attorneys recognized on The Hollywood Reporter and Variety’s 2025 top-attorney lists do not follow one career template, but their paths are not random. They cluster around several defined routes: entertainment-focused private practice, company-side or operator experience, corporate and finance conversion, litigation conversion, public-service-to-litigation pathways, and smaller specialized lanes in labor, employment, and celebrity family law. Across those routes, the recurring ingredients are platform strength, educational capital or Los Angeles market proximity, long career tenure, specialized practice identity, and entertainment-industry fluency. The article examines five dimensions of the top-attorney sample: route into entertainment law, firm or organizational platform, education pipeline, seniority, and practice specialization. Data and Methodology The dataset includes 103 attorneys drawn from The Hollywood Reporter and Variety’s 2025 lists of top entertainment or Hollywood attorneys. For each attorney, the dataset tracks current organization, law school, J.D. year where available, first-known bar admission year, practice area, prior roles, platform type, and route into entertainment law. The sample is best understood as a recognized-attorney dataset, not a census of all entertainment lawyers. It captures lawyers who reached public top-tier recognition in 2025, rather than every lawyer practicing in the entertainment sector. Multiple but Defined Routes Into Entertainment Law The first question is how these lawyers entered the entertainment-law market. Because every attorney in the dataset is entertainment-related by definition, the key distinction is not whether they practice entertainment law. It is how they got there. The largest group followed what might be called the entertainment private-practice route. These attorneys appear to have built their practices around entertainment, media, talent, music, rights, production, intellectual property, or adjacent industry work relatively early. That route accounts for 40 of the 103 attorneys in the sample, or 38.8%.
Startup Stage: Bliink targets Southeast Asia's SME business travel market
The startup is building an AI-powered corporate travel platform designed to bring managed travel services to small and medium-sized enterprises across Southeast Asia.
Health Costs Jumping 18% For Small And Medium-Sized Businesses
Healthcare costs are rising 18% for small-and mid-sized businesses as employers grapple with a surge in inflation and medical expenses, a Morgan Health report shows.
Health Costs Jumping 18% For Small And Medium-Sized Businesses
Healthcare costs are rising 18% for small-and mid-sized businesses as employers grapple with a surge in inflation and medical expenses, a Morgan Health report shows.
Rewriting the Narrative: Jewish Voices in the Entertainment Industry | AJC Global Forum 2026
At AJC Global Forum 2026, writer, producer, actor, and comedian Jamie Denbo joins Grammy-nominated songwriter, music publisher, and entrepreneur Billy Mann; Deborah Marcus; and Lori York for a conversation moderated by Dov Wilker, AJC Vice President, Advocacy and Innovation; Regional Director, AJC Atlanta.
The Rabbit Hole of Everyday Questions with Emily Zhang
Emily Zhang has created dozens of YouTube videos, receiving over 300 million views on subjects from the physics of bowling to the invention of blue LED. This year she started Rabbit Hole, a channel that offers “extraordinary answers to everyday questions.” We spoke with Zhang — a 2025 winner of the National Academies’ Eric and Wendy Schmidt Awards for Excellence in Science Communications — about Rabbit Hole and her experiences with YouTube as a medium for science communication.
Triggering the 'symphonic biology' of exercise for better health
Physician-scientist R. Sanders Williams of Duke University has worked across academia and industry exploring key questions in exercise medicine. The National Academy of Medicine member will deliver the season’s final Maury Strauss Distinguished Public Lecture at the Fralin Biomedical Research Institute at VTC on Thursday, June 4.
Optiv Sells Consulting Business To Focus On Managed Services, Security Solutions: Exclusive
Optiv Security has completed the sale of its advisory, consulting and transformation (ACT) business to investment firm Vobis Ventures, which will create a new entity operating as Optiv Consulting, the company told CRN exclusively.
How Science Works
The 2nd Weather and Climate Livestream is now underway. It is organized by a group of early-career researchers concerned about declining funding for the field and eager to demonstrate how weather and climate research makes a difference in our lives. Last year’s event was a great success, drawing terrific press coverage including a piece in the NY Times. This year features a strong lineup of talks aimed at a general audience — I highly recommend tuning in. Share I gave a talk yesterday about How Science Works in Three Steps. You can see the short presentation here (I’ve appended a transcript below): And please tune into the livestream here. It runs through tomorrow at 6 pm ET. Thanks for reading The Climate Brink! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work. Subscribe Cleaned up transcript: Thank you, and thanks to everyone tuning in. I want to talk about something I think a lot of people don’t really understand: how science actually works. Arguments over any scientific topic — climate change, vaccines, you name it — revolve around competing claims. For climate change, the claims are: Is the Earth warming? Are humans to blame? What will the impacts be? Over the last 150 years, the scientific community has developed a remarkably robust method for sorting out which claims are true and which aren’t. That method is what I want to walk through. So how does science generate knowledge? If you ask a high schooler, they’ll give you the version they learned in ninth grade: an individual scientist forms a hypothesis, runs an experiment, and draws a conclusion. That’s more or less what happens at the individual level, though in practice it’s more iterative — you design, test, and refine all at once, landing on a slightly different idea each time until you reach a conclusion about whatever hypothesis you’ve ended up with. But this isn’t science. It’s only step one. Any individual scientist can make mistakes — scientists are human. Maybe there’s a bug in the code, maybe there’s an error in the experiment. Just because someone ran an experiment and reached a conclusion doesn’t mean it’s right, and scientists don’t treat a single result as settled truth. Step two is peer review, the first layer of quality control. The scientist writes up what they did and submits it to a journal, which sends the paper to other experts in the field. Those experts judge whether the methods are sound, whether it properly references prior work, and whether the conclusions actually follow from the data. Ask any scientist and they’ll tell you peer review is miserable — the comments come back brutal, often harsh, and you have to revise and resubmit, sometimes multiple times, before an editor finally accepts the paper. Peer review catches an immense amount of bad science, but it can’t catch all of it. Reviewers get sloppy or overworked, they miss obvious mistakes, and they can’t catch hidden errors — a bug in the code, a misread instrument. So a peer-reviewed paper making it into a journal doesn’t mean the paper is right. Nobody treats a single paper as the final word. That’s where step three comes in: the crucible of science. Important results get retested by the broader community. If you publish something interesting, it gets dissected. Sometimes people try to reproduce your work directly but more often they test its implications. If someone claims X is true, and that implies that Y is also true, then scientists will go check Y. If a claim survives this gauntlet long enough, it becomes accepted. That’s how we generate knowledge. Let me give an example: the ozone hole. In 1985 — and I doubt many people watching were around then, but I remember it well — Joe Farman and his colleagues published observations from Antarctica showing that a huge chunk of ozone was disappearing every year. This was shocking because most atmospheric chemists had expected ozone loss to occur at mid-latitudes and high altitudes, not over the South Pole. When scientists see something they don’t understand, they rush to explain it, and several competing hypotheses quickly appeared in the peer-reviewed literature. One pointed to chlorine chemistry from chlorofluorocarbons. A second blamed nitrogen chemistry, possibly driven by solar proton events — meaning the sun was responsible. A third argued it wasn’t chemistry at all but dynamics: winds were carrying naturally low-ozone air from the lower atmosphere up into the stratosphere. Then the community went to work testing which theory could survive the crucible. Aircraft flew into the ozone hole and found no nitrogen, ruling out the nitrogen theory. Measurements showed the air in the polar vortex was descending, not rising — which would bring high-ozone air down, eliminating the dynamics theory. Meanwhile, those same flights measured enormous amounts of chlorine, strongly correlated with exactly the regions where ozone was being destroyed. That became known as the “smoking gun” paper, and it established that chlorine chemistry was the cause. Through this process, a consensus emerged. And it’s worth being clear that this consensus is organic. There’s no vote, no poll, no meeting where it gets decided. Scientists go to conferences, talk to one another, and independently arrived at the same answer. It’s the ultimate free market of ideas. After the consensus was established, the peer-reviewed literature doesn’t even mention the rival theories — it simply takes chlorine chemistry as given. That’s what a consensus looks like. It doesn’t mean every single scientist agrees, but it does mean there’s no longer any legitimate debate. So where can you see what scientists actually think? It’s all in the peer-reviewed literature, which contains the entire historical record of the argument: the discovery, the competing theories, the debate, the testing, and finally the community coalescing around one answer. But there’s a lot of room for misrepresentation. You can dig up an old paper claiming the ozone hole was caused by dynamics and wave it around as if there still was a debate about the cause of the ozone hole — without mentioning that the idea was disproven long ago and that even its own authors no longer believe it. There’s a bigger problem, though: the peer-reviewed literature is written in a language I call “nerd.” It’s extremely hard to read — honestly, some of it is hard for me to follow. It takes graduate students years to work through the literature in a single field, so we can’t expect policymakers or ordinary people to do it. This is where scientific assessments come in. The most famous is the IPCC — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The job of an assessment is to read and summarize the peer-reviewed literature, synthesizing what’s settled, what’s been disproven, and what remains genuinely debated. To ensure the assessments accurately summarize the peer-reviewed literature, assessments are written by large teams, which are far less prone to bias than individuals and which dilute the influence of any one scientist with an axe to grind. The teams are deliberately assembled to avoid stacking the deck, and the reports themselves go through multiple rounds of peer review. That rigorous process is exactly why you can trust them and why people consider the IPCC to be the gold standard of what we know about the climate system. An assessment produced through a different process may well not be credible. You can even watch the consensus evolve across assessments. Take the attribution of warming. The 1990 IPCC report said the observed warming was broadly consistent with model predictions but also comparable to natural variability — in other words, we don’t know whether humans are responsible. By 1995, it concluded that the balance of evidence suggested a discernible human influence — a sentence only a committee could write, and one that barely commits to anything. By 2001, most of the warming over the previous 50 years was judged “likely” due to greenhouse gases; by 2007, “very likely”; by 2013, “extremely likely.” The 2023 report says essentially the same as 2013 — there’s not much stronger language available. So, to wrap up: science is our ultimate tool for deciphering the universe — the most successful method we’ve ever developed for determining what’s true and what isn’t. Our understanding is written into the peer-reviewed literature, so if you want to know what scientists think, that’s where to look. And for those of us who don’t speak nerd, scientific assessments are the Rosetta Stone — they translate nerd into English. Let me open the floor to questions. Thank you.
National Lab Makes Science and AI-Enabled Cybersecurity Move Faster
The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s commercially available artificial intelligence tool breaks down cybersecurity data silos.
Meeting the Moment in Maternal Health
BMC's Curbside Care program unveiled its new vehicle, designed to enhance care delivery to families directly in their neighborhood.
Minnesota Twins vs. Athletics - Live Score
View the Minnesota Twins vs. Athletics game played on August 25, 2026. Box score, stats, play-by-play timeline, highlights, odds & more
Montevideo Wanderers vs. Danubio - Live Score
View the Montevideo Wanderers vs. Danubio game played on June 05, 2026. Box score, stats, play-by-play timeline, highlights, odds & more
Ebola, chemical plants and health, hantavirus, common colds, heat and more
As they say, bugs have ears. Public health has had a relentless May. Chemical plant (near) explosions, Ebola, hantavirus, and that's before you even get to the usual suspects: common colds, heat, and ticks. Here’s an attempt to keep you up to speed and, more importantly, what it means for you and your community. But first, an announcement: World Cup The World Cup starts in 15 days (not like anyone is counting down), and we are hanging TVs in the Health Security Operations Center. It’s going to be a gorgeous, chaotic celebration of basically every culture on earth. And it’s going to take a team effort—from communities to individuals, from public health to health care—to keep people healthy. That’s where you come in. If you’re going to the games or live within 30 miles of a stadium, we would love to hear from you. Sign up for a weekly survey here. Thanks to the more than 1,280 people who have already signed up…you will be hearing from us soon!! Global disease “weather report” Hantavirus: Two more cases The global count of cruise ship passengers with hantavirus has now increased to 13 cases (11 confirmed), with three deaths. The two new cases are overseas and among people who were already quarantining: A crew member in the Netherlands. A Spanish national passenger who was quarantining at home tested positive through daily monitoring. They are now in a biocontainment unit. In the U.S., everyone remains negative. There may be more cases, given that the incubation period of hantavirus (the time from exposure to infection) is 45 days. But this week, we will reach a major milestone: the median incubation window is 18 days, and that will pass on May 29. What this means for you: Your risk from this cruise ship outbreak remains essentially nil at this point. Ebola rages on in Central Africa Big thanks to Dr. Craig Spencer, a humanitarian physician who has treated and survived Ebola, for jumping in to provide the YLE community with an update. Craig, take it from here… The combined confirmed and suspected Ebola cases in DRC are now more than 1,000. All signs are pointing to a very long and catastrophic outbreak in Central Africa: This is a vast undercount. We know this because the test positivity rate is hovering around 50%, only 20% of contacts are being traced (and in some areas, no contacts at all), and more cases keep popping up with no known connection. This all points to widespread and undetected community transmission. This is in only a week of detection. Compared to previous outbreaks, the growth is very fast, as the huge West Africa outbreak in 2016 was first detected at 49 cases and rose to 208 cases a month later. It took four months for that outbreak to reach the size of the current one in the DR Congo. The cases are spread out across 16 health zones. There are now multiple epicenters, making containment very difficult. Next door in Uganda, the case count is seven. While this number is low compared to DRC, a concerning development is that two health care workers recently tested positive with uncertain exposure histories. If they weren’t treating known Ebola cases, this means it’s spreading undetected in Uganda as well. On the ground, backlash, including the burning of health centers, has emerged, a pattern seen in nearly every outbreak and rooted in deep community distrust. It often stems from outside actors working in communities without fully understanding or addressing local priorities. Affected populations may recognize the severity of Ebola while still holding other concerns as more pressing, such as where their loved ones are buried. Community trust is essential to an effective response, but difficult to build during an active emergency. It is best established long before a crisis begins. U.S. priorities are made clear, and may backfire. The U.S. Administration has shown that its first priority is keeping Ebola out, with helping end the outbreak in the DRC a secondary concern. That's meant travel restrictions broader than anything we've imposed before — covering travelers from across the region, and reportedly some green card holders and permanent residents as well. For example, just these past two days, news broke that high-risk American travelers will be subject to a mandatory quarantine in Kenya before they are allowed to return. If an American is infected, the U.S. government plans to send them to a hospital it is standing up from scratch in Kenya. (Currently, Americans who were in the area are allowed to return but are diverted to three airports—Houston, Atlanta, and DC—for further screening.) Past administrations have used travel notices and stepped-up screening; this goes much further. At first blush, these strict precautions may sound prudent. But this approach could backfire in three ways: Restrictions this blunt give people every reason to hide where they’ve been and whom they’ve been near — making the people we most need to find harder to track, not easier. They also breed a false sense that this is someone else’s problem. But diseases are humbling. They find the small cracks in even the most impenetrable-seeming defenses. Lives lost. There is no treatment for this Ebola strain, which means survival depends heavily on the quality of the health system. We have that system in the States, but we are choosing not to use it for infected Americans. This is unbelievable and infuriating. (See a deeper dive from me here.) The only real way to lower the risk to Americans — and everyone else — is to end the outbreak in the DRC and across the region. What this means for you: If you have travel plans to this region, it’s time to cancel them. This is a high-risk situation in Central Africa, and CDC released a Level 4 Travel Advisory. There is also great uncertainty if and when the Administration will let you back in. To the general public in the U.S., your risk remains very, very low right now. U.S. disease “weather report” Ticks: past peak season? Good news, especially for people in the Northeast and Midwest: tick numbers continue to decline. Though we are at the peak of the season, this unusually early year is trending favorably. Heat-related illnesses in the North Heat risk is certainly not blanketing the entire country yet, but this week it will be moderate in the Midwest and the Southeast. What this means for you: Be sure to check the CDC HeatRisk tool. A red day isn’t the best day for that soccer game for a kid with asthma, and a stretch of orange days is a great time to check on your elderly neighbor. Common colds surging As far as respiratory viruses go, the only thing really going around right now is the common cold. It is higher this year than last year, but should peak very soon before returning this fall. Spotlight: Chemical plants Over the weekend, YLE California covered the serious situation that unfolded around a chemical plant in Orange County, California. Thankfully, the worst-case scenario (a chemical explosion) was mitigated, but only through luck. The health implications in a densely populated area could have been catastrophic. As the situation was winding down, another chemical explosion struck Washington State. This one was fatal. Health officials say the risk to surrounding residents from chemicals in the air and ground remains low, though the community deserves far greater clarity. Clean air and clean water consistently rank as Americans’ top public health concerns — yet when chemical disasters strike, communities are too often met with reassurances rather than transparency and accountability. Residents near the 2023 East Palestine, Ohio train derailment, for example, are still waiting to understand the long-term impact on their health, with few clear answers. What this means for you: Many are wondering if facilities processing potentially dangerous materials are in their neighborhoods. This interactive map allows you to enter your ZIP code and see all facilities monitored by the EPA, including any violations. Good news Ebola vaccines and treatment for the Bundibugyo species are in development. Two vaccine platforms are being explored, at least one of which may be deployable in as little as 2 months. One vaccine is being developed by Oxford, and the other uses the same biotechnology as the FDA-approved Zaire species of Ebola. (It may provide cross-protection, but it’s unclear at this point.) On the treatment side, two promising monoclonal antibody cocktails are likely to be deployed, though doses are limited and logistical hurdles remain significant challenges. Anni over at The Biotech Tea had a great explainer about the Ebola vaccine gap, if you want to read more. [ The Biotech Tea The Ebola vaccine gap, reading vessel damage, & the Makary exit 🗝️ Paid subscribers get the Biotech Term of the Week at $30/year (~$2.50/month). I try to keep it intentionally accessible, but if cost is ever a barrier, send me a message. A few people asked about expensing your subscription, so I put together a short email template… Read more 6 days ago · 10 likes · Annicka Evans, PhD ](https://www.thebiotechtea.com/p/the-ebola-vaccine-gap-reading-vessel?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web) Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) has been officially renamed polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome (PMOS), following more than a decade of debate and input from roughly 22,000 clinicians, researchers, and patients worldwide. This is good because the old name was medically misleading, leading to patients without visible cysts being dismissed or overlooked entirely. The WHO estimates that 70% of people with the condition remain undiagnosed. A more accurate name should improve recognition, reduce stigma, and ultimately help the millions of people living with this condition get diagnosed and treated sooner. Poll Loading... Bottom line Public health situations are everywhere right now. Staying healthy takes public health professionals and systems working tirelessly behind the scenes and each of us showing up for our neighbors and communities. Love, YLE Big thanks to Ed Nirenberg for staying on top of the Ebola vaccines, Hannah Totte for all the figures, Dr. Craig Spencer for the Ebola insight, and Dr. Matt Willis for covering the chemical situation in CA. Your Local Epidemiologist (YLE) comprises a team of experts, ranging from physicians to immunologists to epidemiologists to nutritionists, working together with one goal: to “Translate” ever-evolving public health science so that people are well-equipped to make evidence-based decisions. YLE suite of newsletters reaches over 475,000 people across more than 132 countries. This newsletter is free to everyone, thanks to the generous support of fellow YLE community members. To support the effort, subscribe or upgrade below: Subscribe
Mina the Hollower Review - Refined Throwback
Mina the Hollower looks like a nostalgic throwback, and it undeniably is, but its thoughtful design and larger sensibilities make it play and feel like a contemporary video game – one that has taken the right lessons from the medium’s history.