SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " explains " 1,309 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
CNBC Sport: Pro Padel League CEO explains business of rapidly growing sport
CNBC's Alex Sherman sits down with Michael Dorfman, CEO of the Professional Padel League.
John Harbaugh Explains Giants' Decision to Try Out Terrion Arnold
The New York Giants broke from their traditional caution by inviting Terrion Arnold to East Rutherford for a tryout Wednesday. First-year head coach John Harbaugh explained what went into that decision and how Arnold performed while working out at the Quest Diagnostics Training Center. Arnold has now tried out for at least four teams, most recently the Giants on Wednesday, a day after working out for the New Orleans Saints.
Duke's digital twin technology could take hemodynamic assessments to a whole other level
Researchers at Duke are hard at work on digital twins that could help care teams make important treatment decisions.
Consumer Reports: Should you trust AI with health questions?
More people are turning to ChatGPT and other AI tools for health questions. But Consumer Reports explains that they aren't always accurate.
Are wake sports bad for Wisconsin’s lakes?
They don't have to be. The president of Lakes at Stake Wisconsin explains that following depth and distance guidelines can help healthy lakes and wake sports coexist.
Should You Try Ube?
Ube is a vibrant purple yam that packs vitamin C, fiber and antioxidants into every bite. A registered dietitian explains how it can benefit your health.
Guide to Austin politics: The Daily Texan explains city government, local leaders’ roles
The city of Austin is currently developing their annual city budget and considering a bond issue, while several charter amendments (link once story is up) are up for a vote in November. With all this activity in City Hall, the Texan is providing a guide to new UT students on how Austin politics works and...
Walking is one of the best exercises for heart health — but experts say strength training matters too
Heart health is closely tied to everyday energy and resilience. A trainer explains what actually makes the biggest difference — and where most people get it wrong.
Sean Murray Explains Why We Haven't Seen More Of Light No Fire
The No Man's Sky director is in no rush to spoil the surprise
Ex-NFL kicker Jay Feely explains his decision to enter politics
Jay Feeley says he always toyed with the idea of entering politics during a more than decade-long career as a placekicker in the NFL and a subsequent stint i…
Four-star Jaxton Itaaehau explains what made Utah home
The Davis High standout reveals how a deep bond with Morgan Scalley and the coaching staff convinced the elite playmaker to spearhead the Utes' next generation.
A pilot couple explains how they make money buying and renting RVs
Full-time pilots Carrie and Brian Smiths learned early on that owning an RV fleet would not be "a cakewalk."
Vice President Vance says migrant communities show 'clear pattern' in federal fraud as investigations widen
JD Vance reveals $230 billion in fraud uncovered since Trump took office and explains why recouping stolen federal funds remains a major challenge.
Ben Allen explains why he should be California's next insurance commissioner
Ben Allen, a current State Senator, is running for insurance commissioner, citing his experience during last year’s Los Angeles-area wildfires as a key motivator for his campaign.
Science 4 Everyone: The difference between a storm and sanitary sewer system
What happens to the sewage system when it rains a lot? Storm Team4 meteorologist and science teacher Ryan Miller explains the difference between a storm and sanitary sewer system.
LSU and the BUSINESS OF COLLEGE SPORTS
LSU CFO Matthew LaBorde explains how revenue sharing, NIL, facility economics, football scheduling and financial uncertainty are reshaping the business of college sports.
How can a youth sports experience form a life? A US Senator explains
Cory Booker seeks to end "vulture practices" by private equity in youth sports. He shares his life-changing sports story that led him to Stanford.
Anthony Scaramucci, Podcast Star, Explains U.S. Politics to the World
He spent 11 days in the Trump White House nine years ago. Now he has a hit podcast, helping the British public, among others, understand what’s going on.
Chester County doctor explains prostate cancer spread as Joe Biden's health worsens, son says
Hunter Biden, son of former President Joe Biden, said his father's cancer has spread to his bones and is "very debilitating" and "painful".
Google's top hacker hunter explains why hacking groups get codenames
Google recently changed how it refers and assigns names to hacking groups. TechCrunch spoke with one of the world’s foremost experts on tracking hackers to understand why companies give hackers codenames.
Colton Hood Explains Approach to Giants' CB Battle
The New York Giants' No. 2 cornerback spot is there for Colton Hood to grab. The rookie cornerback spoke about his ongoing competition against Deonte Banks and veteran Greg Newsome II and addressed why he's not concerning himself with the depth chart just yet. Hood was the Giants' second-round pick (No. 37) and is perceived as the cornerback of the future.
'If trust breaks, your business breaks': How Alphonzo Terrell is building Spill to be a different kind of social platform
Spill's CEO explains how Spill puts focus on community, trust, equity, and the future of fandom.
Consumer Reports cautions using AI chatbots for health inquiries
As time goes on, more people are turning to ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence tools for health questions. However, as Consumer Reports explains, they are not always accurate or reliable.
Take-Two Boss Explains Why GTA 6 Is $80 And NBA 2K27 Is $70
'Given the hype around this title, I think we could have made any number of other pricing choices,' said Strauss Zelnick
Ask the Tax Editor, August 7: Is It a Hobby or a Business?
In this week's Ask the Editor Q&A, Joy Taylor explains the income tax differences between a hobby and a Schedule C business engaged in for profit.
UFC Vegas 120 Fighter Explains Late Withdrawal
UFC Vegas 120 fighter Jessie Rosas, who was set to make his UFC debut, explained why he was forced to withdraw from the card at late notice. As first reported by Heavy.com’s Marcel Dorff, Rosas was forced to pull out of his featherweight fight for Saturday’s UFC Vegas 120 card against Miles Johns. In his […] The post UFC Vegas 120 Fighter Explains Late Withdrawal appeared first on HEAVY.
Epic Spaceman Uses Animation, VFX To Explain Science. Without AI
Toby Lockerbie explains how he turned self-taught animation and VFX skills into one of YouTube’s top science channels, and why genAI has no place in his videos.
Science with Stevie: Why do sunflowers chase the sun?
Meteorologist Stevie Daniels explains how sunflowers can actually chase the sunshine in this Science with Stevie article!
Isabella Rossellini Explains Why She Lives in US Despite Bad Politics
The Italian-American actress, model and filmmaker also explained why "I don’t like TV shows" after being honored with the Swiss fest's Excellence Award the night before.
Science Explains Why Working Out with Friends Feels Easier
Your workout buddies change how you experience fatigue—and in the process, your friendships grow stronger.
Fact vs. Fiction: Separating the Myths from the Science Behind GLP-1 Medications
From social media claims to questions about safety, UConn Health OB/GYN and obesity medicine specialist Dr. Jason Schneider explains what patients should re ...
Joe Brady Explains Why His Relationship With Josh Allen Works
Bills head coach Joe Brady says honesty, trust, and accountability are the foundation of his successful working relationship with Josh Allen.
Chartbook 464 The"China squeeze" - the politics of development counterfactuals.
There are three types of China shock discourse. Each has a distinct temporal register. China shock 1.0 was a phrase coined by US academics in the 2010s to retrospectively summarize the impact on particular US labour markets, which they identified through painstaking empirical investigation. China shock 2.0 on everyone’s lips in Europe in the mid 2020s is an alarm raised by trans-Atlantic policy thinkers warning of a coming disaster which they project onto Europe’s ailing car industry. The third type of China shock discourse - commonly known as the “China squeeze” launched most recently by Indian economists Shoumitro Chatterjee and Arvind Subramanian in the pages of Foreign Affairs - mobilizes a different, more speculative temporal register: the counterfactual realm of alternate history. The China squeeze argument asks not what has happened, or what is going to happen, but what might have been. Specifically, what options for economic development might have been open to Global South economies like India or the economies of sub-Saharan Africa, had it not been for China’s spectacular industrialization since the late 1990s and the persistent competitiveness of China’s manufacture in low-skilled segments. Chatterjee and Subramanian’s argument is that whilst China has built a powerful position in electrical machinery and other high-skill manufacturing, which is now delivering China Shock 2.0, it also continues to run a trade surplus in low-skill, labour-intensive manufacturing. This surplus is large and has remained largely unchanged in fifteen years. Indeed, in the 2010s, in trade with low-income countries, China’s surplus rapidly increased. On their reading, this squeezes low-income producers in low-skill sectors in which they “should” be able to compete. Source: “China’s Mercantilist Squeeze on Developing Countries” Shoumitro Chatterjee and Arvind Subramanian. Peterson Institute for International Economics 26-7 May 2026 Chatterjee and Subramanian’s wording is telling: (emphasis mine) The canonical trajectory of economic development in the post-World War II period is for countries to transition from agriculture to manufacturing, first in low-skilled manufacturing and then later on to high-skill manufacturing (Herrendorf, Rogerson, and Valentinyi 2013). At the global level, this implies that high-income countries (HICs) that once specialized in low-skilled activities cede manufacturing export space to poorer countries that come along to occupy that space. In 1965, advanced economies accounted for about 60 percent of global value-added exports in four key low-skilled manufacturing sectors, i.e., apparel, leather, textiles, and footwear. Over time this share declined and began to be occupied first by the East Asian tigers and, beginning in the late 1990s, by China. Today China accounts for about 50 percent of the global market. The question is whether China, with its rising prosperity, is continuing to behave like its richer counterparts and ceding export space to poorer followers or to behave unlike them and continuing to occupy space. In terms of the conceptual maneuvers it performs, of the three China shock discourses, the “China squeeze” argument is by far the most ambitious. After all, it bases its critique of China on a counterfactual imagining of the world. Like any counterfactual argument, to construct this alternative reality it must rely on a heuristic model. To make their argument Chatterjee and Subramanian mobilize two key claims. The first reference point is the actual history of rich-country industrialization, what they refer to as the “canonical path”. The idea is that countries transition from agriculture to light industry and low-skilled manufacturing and from there up the value chain. To make this useful as a standard of comparison and a means to construct a normative standard, they adjust sectoral export shares for two factors: 1. the underlying level of economic development of the exporting country, as measured by national income and 2. the degree to which the sector in question is internationalized. The idea being that for a high income country to have a high export share in low-skill sectors is anomalous and even more so if that particular product is highly internationalized and thus suitable for being “conceded” to lower-income competitors. Where should this process end? Here Chatterjee and Subramanian introduce their second benchmark. Their normative idea of a global development path is one in which, in due course, low-skill manufacturing exports are distributed in proportion to a country’s share in the global labour force. They imagine, in other words, a world of proportional, polycentric global development without much national specialization in low-skill manufacturing. A useful benchmark is that, in labor-intensive manufacturing sectors, a country’s share of world exports should be broadly commensurate with its share of the world’s low-skilled labor endowment. … In the Heckscher-Ohlin model, this would be true if value added per worker and export propensities, i.e., fraction of output that is exported, are the same across countries. It is this pleasant liberal vista of orderly global development, progressing towards a general distribution of low-skilled manufacturing against which they judge reality and conclude that the low-income countries are suffering a “China squeeze”. China is not exiting low-skill sectors fast enough Allowing for its gdp level and the degree of globalization, China’s share of low-skill manufacturing exports is far higher than it “should” be. Relative to population, its low-skill share of exports is far too high. That in turn yields the conclusion that huge numbers of jobs - the authors suggest tens of millions - are being hoarded by China. For the four sectors captured in figure 4, this excess in value-added exports is $110 billion in 2022. For all low-skilled sectors overall captured in appendix figure D.1, excess value-added exports amount to $365 billion. The crowding out of LMIC exports by China is therefore substantial. Both these claims have in common that they are strong structuralisms. The first is that development paths ought to resemble each other. The second is that broadly speaking as far as low-skilled manufacturing is concerned, all countries are alike. If the world currently diverges from the distribution of trade implied by these assumptions, if China is not following the advanced economy path and has huge exports, this must be the result of “policy”, which the authors then put in question as illegitimate or unfair. Thus the naturalistic construction of a canonical path leading to a “level” distribution of low-skilled manufacturing reveals itself to be a polemical tool. From the point of view of China shock polemics, this discourse is no doubt welcome. But as an account of economic history, it must surely be regarded as nothing short of bamboozling. Development paths do not follow a regular, natural sequence. As David Fishman put it aptly, “development is not a queue”. They are always and everywhere, through and through political. Development is not so much a process, as a project. Each such project is more or less well adjusted to its context. As Gerschenkron taught uneven and combined development implies differentiation rather than simple imitation on a single parth. It may be true that Europe and the US exited relatively early from low-skill work. But clearly technology has changed. As C&S themselves point out, China no longer enjoys a low wage environment. Do they really believe that such huge differences can be accounted for either by industrial policy, which as they admit does not operate powerfully in low-skill sectors, or by exchange rate manipulation? What is overwhelmingly dominant in explaining the persistence of “low-skill” manufacturing in China are surely the network effects of complex supply chains. Indeed the label of “low-skill” may miss the point. The degree of globalization which Chatterjee and Subramanian decide to conjure away in their model of the development path - to allow for the fact that Europe and American textiles exporters did not enjoy just-in-time logistics in the 1950s - obscures the point that the networks through which Chinese factories supply the world are themselves key parts of the low-skill industrialization project. China isn’t knocking out 1970s style “cheap”. It has redefined the entire product cycle. C&S’s casual reference to “T-shirts” is telling. In today’s “fast fashion”, there is weight on both terms. Fashion and fast. China’s success in delivering on both at unprecedentedly high speed and at unprecedentedly low cost, isn’t a low-skill operation at all. If we see development trajectories not as the serial repetition of the same, but as distinctive, crafted projects that cumulate in complex agglomerations of skill, technology and labor, then this explains why the assumption that low-skilled manufacturing should follow the distribution of population flies in the face of all experience. As countless cases attest, low-wage, low-income developed economies are not by themselves the makings of a competitive production base. As Leon Liao puts it quite fairly: “International trade has never been allocated according to population. A country’s population gives it no natural claim to an equivalent share of global exports." And the remarkable fact is that Subramanian alone and with co-authors has long been making this point, not to pillory China, as is the case of the tendentious _Foreign Affair_s and Peterson pieces, but to highlight the great counterpart to China’s industrial success, namely India’s relative failure. The much-quoted Foreign Affairs piece showed low-skill export shares only for China, not for India. If you put both countries in the picture as Chaterjee and Subramanian have done on other occasions, the picture looks like this. China is far above the line, but India, almost as large in terms of population, is no less anomalous, just in the opposite direction. As far as global populations are concerned, and the imagining of tens of millions of “squeezed” jobs, it is this Sino-Indian pair that account for a huge share of the action. What this graph reveals is not China’s cheating, but India’s “greatest development failure”, at least this is the argument made Arvind Subramanian, this time in co-authorship with Devesh Kapur, in their major book, A Sixth of Humanity. Independent India’s Development Odyssey which appeared with Oxford University Press earlier this year. In this highly critical work on India’s development, China is repeatedly evoked, not to criticize but as a benchmark against which to illuminate what India’s political economy has not delivered i.e. large-scale formal employment for hundreds of millions of citizens. Kapur and Subramanian leave no doubt, if you want to understand why China, not India was the main driver of manufacturing globalization from the 1980s, don’t look to slots opening up in the division of labour thanks to the liberal mindedness of advanced economies, look to the contrasting political economy of the Maoist PRC and India’s post-independence political economy. As Kapur and Subramian note: The great divergence between China and India did not begin in 1978 with the Deng reforms—it was well underway by then. In one of the great ironies of modern history, the conditions created by Maoism turned out to be a great launching pad for industrial globalization. As the comparison of India and China in 1980 makes clear, to imagine manufacturing would be equally distributed when populations are so differently endowed in terms of educational and nutritional is fanciful. Here is the data from Kapur and Subramanian, data which I explored back at the very beginning of Chartbook. As Kapur and Subramanian insist, the striking fact is that even as India’s growth accelerated from the 1980s, structural change has not. Formal employment in India lags woefully behind. Why? As Kapur and Subramanian note, the path-dependent impact of India’s poor early start was devastating. The list of factors they mention is long and weighty: We argue for a new five-fold explanation applicable at different stages of Indian history: in the initial stages, the legacy of two key pre-1980s policies, the neglect of agriculture and the strangling of the domestic private sector, were critical. The failure of broad-based agricultural growth militated against rural industrialization, which would have been devoted to satisfying local needs that would have necessarily been labour intensive. Then, when the boom came after 1980, the thicket of regulation and broader labour protections that were legislated prematurely in a nascent democracy, underpinned by a deep ideological aversion to private capital in general and big capital specifically, became a barrier to attaining the size that would be necessary to compete globally. Similarly, the reforms after 1991, while wide-ranging, did not quite encompass non-tradeable inputs critical to manufacturing, namely, land, logistics infrastructure and power. A combination of low investment (logistics infrastructure), regulation (land) and the continued monopoly supply by state governments (power), combined with residual socialism, kept costs at 75–100 per cent above efficient supply. These factors were compounded on the supply side by the government, which dominated the formal labour market and established exorbitantly high wages at the lower end of the skill spectrum. This made their employment in the labour-intensive sector by the private sector less attractive. Finally, when the services sector and its exports boomed, wages soared even further via a Dutch Disease effect: one successful tradeable sector killed and cannibalized another less-skilled tradable sector, namely, manufacturing. Thus, scarcity-inducing policies of the planning era, precocious democracy and a Gandhian aversion to size; inefficient, monopolistic supply of critical non-tradable inputs; the behemoth of government; and super-successful skill-intensive services successively undermined India’s unskilled labour employment opportunities. The employment failure seems to have been over-determined. … Less quantifiable but no less important are some of the sociological factors that have undermined manufacturing and factory jobs. Take the impact of the success of the IT sector—located in urban areas with better working conditions, such as air-conditioned offices, good schools for children and attractive entertainment options. It became a more attractive place for engineering and management graduates to flock to. … Consider manufacturing and female employment. Indian society makes it difficult for women to work, reflected in India’s unusually low female labour force participation (elaborated in Chapter XIII). Indian society, in particular the routine harassment of women in public spaces, makes it even more difficult for them to travel long distances to take up work.37 Combined with onerous regulations on creating hostels and dormitories for women—which, in turn, prevents multiple shifts of operation—factories need to be located in areas with a large female labour pool. While firms can take apparel plants to female labour or bring them to the plants by building large-scale dormitories, this raises costs. If there was a case for subsidies to encourage labour-intensive manufacturing, housing subsidies to build dormitories for women workers would be a good place to start. All of this meant, that when opportunities did open up, in part thanks to adjustments in China, India was in no position to take advantage. Here is the account of the 2020s from Kapur and Subramanian. It stands in dizzying contrast to the one-sided, “China squeeze” argument delivered in the Peterson and Foreign Affairs pieces: In 2022, for example, India’s share of global exports in clothing (the canonical labour-intensive sector) was 3.1 per cent compared to 32 per cent for China. This is extremely disappointing because China started vacating export space in this sector after the Global Financial Crisis as its wages started rising; it then vacated further space in the aftermath of geopolitical developments that led investors to seek alternative investment locations. Between its peak and today, China lost about 7.5 percentage points of global export share (worth about $43 billion in 2022); over this period, India’s export share remained stagnant at 3 per cent, while that of Vietnam and Bangladesh rose by 3.5 to 4 percentage points. China’s loss did not translate into any gain for India in terms of low-skill exports and employment. Put differently, when the conditions for dynamism and prosperity were established after 1991, and even more tantalizingly when the global export opportunities opened up, it was as if India was a high-wage economy and only skilled labour could benefit from the dynamism. It had converted its physically abundant unskilled workforce into an economically expensive resource, penalizing its use. It is not my mission here to argue for or against Kapur and Subramanian’s interpretation of India’s development trajectory. The point in this context is simply that the “China squeeze” such as it is can only be understood, in relation to the heavy burden of domestic constraints that Kapur and Subramanian so unsparingly enumerate. I am concentrating here on India because it is the great counterpart to China and the unspoken reference point of the “China squeeze” discourse. But the point is more general. Can anyone with a straight face suggest that the main problems afflicting the development of South Africa or Nigeria, the great centers of mass underemployment in sub-saharan Africa, are cheap competition from China driven by Beijing’s industrial policy and an undervalued RMB? Likewise, is the main problem of the American working-class the threat of Chinese competition or the manifest crisis of social reproduction in the United States itself? The point here, as in the discourse around China shock 2.0 in Europe, is to insist that we should not normalize the world and pathologize China, without actually investigating what is going on in America’s industrial wastelands, the German car industry, or India’s lopsided labour market. One-sided pathologization should be understood for what it is, a polemical gesture. Concepts like China shock and China squeeze are, what Reinhart Koselleck, following Carl Schmitt, would have described as “asymmetrische Kampfbegriffe”, or “asymmetrical counter-concepts” or “asymmetrical combat concepts”. If the function of arguments like the “China squeeze” is to alert elites in the rest of the world of the need to rejuvenate and energize their development projects, so be it. But let us see the resulting discourses as the mobilizing interventions that they are. Interestingly, a significant slice of China’s public sphere - the so-called industrial party - have been obsessed for the last twenty years with precisely these questions of counterfactual economic history. Since the mid 2000s, a massive online discourse developed around an alternative history in which Chinese techno-patriots were asked to imagine how they would proceed if they had the possibility of traveling back in time to transport modern technology into the Ming dynasty (1368-1644) thus averting the “great divergence” of the 18th and 19th centuries. It is a fantasy of course, but also a goad. The point was not directed at Westerners. The alternate history is dramatically nationalist, but few n the West had even heard of it until recently. The adherents of the industrial party are not liberal moralists. They don’t project natural ladders of international development and ask why others don’t cede space. They take the Realpolitik of global economic development for granted. Their pointe was directed against fellow Chinese. The rallying cry of the alternative narrative was this: Now that we are beginning to gain steam and push forward on our national development path, now that we are breaking out of the inferior position assigned to us even in the early years following WTO accession, do not lose yourself in humanistic imaginings about better futures. In the spirit of Deng, they called on China to embrace the hard truth of development. Perhaps one might of the Industrial Party as a cultural trend born out of desire for symbolic revenge against those who had inflicted the century of humiliation. In terms of the various temporalities of the “China shock” - retrospective, prospective and counterfactual - one might think of the Industrial Policy discourse as truly speculative, conjuring up the China shock that never was. Or perhaps one might better think of it as imagining a world in which a powerful China was no shock at all, but simply a defining fact of modern history. I love putting out Chartbook. I am particularly pleased that it goes out for free to thousands of subscribers around the world. But, writing this newsletter takes a lot of work. If you are enjoying it and would like to support the project, sign up for one of the subscription options here. It is the equivalent of a fancy cup of coffee per month! Subscribe
OpenAI explains what will happen when ChatGPT Atlas shuts down this weekend
It’s the end of a very short road for ChatGPT Atlas, OpenAI’s dedicated web browser for Mac. OpenAI has shared...
URI business professor explains ‘financial unicorns’ and SpaceX, Anthropic IPOs
KINGSTON, R.I. – Aug. 04, 2026 – In mythology, unicorns are fictional. In finance, however, unicorns are very real. Just over a month ago, millions of people witnessed one financial unicorn, and another is quickly approaching. For the first time, privately held company SpaceX was listed on the NASDAQ. Valued at more than $1 trillion, […]
MrBeast Sales Slow, Angel Stock Falls, MUBI and Neon Look for Hits, and Will an NBA Franchise Set a Sales Record?
(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.) You probably remember egg prices spiking a few years ago. This led to a lot of debate between the pro-market/pro-competition/antitrust/Neo-Brandesian crowd and the center/center-right/center-left/abundance/libertarian crowd over the cause, whether it was the avian flu outbreak or whether industry consolidation led to price fixing, using avian flu as a convenient cover. Basel Musharbash wrote a whole investigation at BIG looking at it. Well, two years later, we have our answer: it was price fixing. The Justice Department found proof, via emails, of price fixing. Indeed, just the threat of an investigation brought prices down two years ago: I bring this up because at least half a dozen of my favorite political writers and pundits, who were skeptical about price fixing at the time, haven’t written any mea culpas on this issue. It’s really dispiriting and makes it much, much harder to trust their work on other issues. If you take a hard stand on an issue, then you get it wrong, you need to explain how and why you got it wrong. Or update your priors. This is how epistemological bubbles are formed! All of which is to say, it’s time for another installment of “What I Got Right, What I Got Wrong”. Last issue, I mostly focused on the “wrong” side of the equation, so today’s is a bit more balanced, but with one big mea culpa (though I still stand by my original concerns). Let’s dive right in! Subscribe CORRECTION: UFC Didn’t Release Subscriber Data (But Seems to Have Bragged About It Internally) In my analysis of the viewership of UFC Freedom 250, I wrote... “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.” Well, that datecdote did not come from a PR rep, but from great reporting from James Faris at Business Insider. The actual quote was this: “Paramount’s flagship streaming service generated about a million new subscribers on the day of its first-ever UFC event, Paramount product chief Dane Glasgow told employees in a town hall on Tuesday morning, three staffers who attended the meeting told Business Insider.“ This wasn’t the biggest goof in the world; even Faris emphasized to me that this is more a “clarification” than a correction. Still, it sounds like, internally, the folks at Paramount were very happy about this result—and I’m guessing they were happy with this news getting out—even though the gains didn’t last through the quarter, dropping to 700K adds. RIGHT: MrBeast’s Struggles Continue... I’m very skeptical about MrBeast’s burgeoning media “empire” and, in particular, its $5 billion valuation, as I wrote earlier this year and last year. Sure enough, according to Business Insider, regarding its “booming” consumer products division_:_ “US sales volume grew 13% year-over-year in 2025, following a 33% leap the previous year, according to a presentation deck dated May 2026....A February 2025 investor deck viewed by Business Insider showed Feastables’ net revenue more than doubled in 2024 from 2023, to $215 million, and was forecast to grow 74% in 2025, to $375 million.” [Emphasis mine.] If you told investors that you projected 74% growth but delivered 13%,1 that’s not ideal. But it’s not just MrBeast. Logan Paul and KSI’s Prime had sales drop in half for their energy drinks. It’s one thing to build a successful entertainment company and an entirely different thing to succeed in the heavily-consolidated-but-also-very-competitive consumer packaged goods space! CPGs are dominated by a few firms with very wide moats compared to YouTube, which has few barriers to entry. These businesses require different skill sets and have completely different business environments. WRONG: Does the NBA Have an $8 Billion Bidder? Almost as soon as I published my article about the NBA’s finances, casting skepticism on NBA expansion, I saw this Front Office Sports headline: One group “claims to have already raised $8 billion” for the Vegas expansion team. I mean, wow. That’s just $2 billion less than what the Los Angeles Lakers were valued at when they were sold just last year. And they’re arguably the most popular team in the NBA. (Side note: the new owner is now under an investigation for fraud in how he went about financing the Lakers and the Dodgers purchases.) So much for the “dried up” language I used in that article. (This is why I usually stick to my “Entertainment Nuance Guy” tone in articles...) I went off old information—from April, when I read/heard about the NBA downplaying expansion efforts—instead of doing a quick double-check for new news. That said...if you read the article, the market for Seattle is “slow”, with just one reported bidder. So I wasn’t entirely off. This goof has annoyed me since I first published it, mainly because it undercut that article’s real point, which I stand by: NBA franchises are really overvalued right now. Now, I get why NBA teams are overvalued. When it comes to owning sports teams, it’s basically never wrong to assume that some rich person somewhere will care more about owning a team (or just being part of a group since they’re so expensive) than the actual financials. There are only so many teams to own, and opportunities to buy in preferred markets don’t come along very often. This explains why the teams sell for such high multiples (usually above a 10 to 12.5 revenue multiple, which is very high). You only need one person to overpay! Beyond the ultra-wealthy luxury good explanation, I worry NBA teams are becoming speculative assets. More and more private equity investors are buying into NBA teams. But the value, in owning a team, comes from selling it later, not any meaningful relationship to revenue or profit growth. In other words, the newer NBA owners are increasingly expecting someone later to buy their inflated asset. That’s not sound economics; that’s the “greater fool” theory at work.2 At some point, actually making money has to matter. Especially since revenue growth is now below the growth of the stock market. (And this matters because the NBA doesn’t have easy levers to pull to drastically lower their costs—half of their revenue has to go to players and then you actually have to run a team, including coaching, training, travel, media expenses, and more—or raise revenues aside from one-off expansions in America and overseas.) I just don’t see how investors make their money back buying NBA teams, except for selling at a higher price later on down the line. But if revenue/profit growth continues to slow, at some point, someone will be left holding the bag. RIGHT: Baseball and Basketball are about equally popular. Related to the above, I wanted to cite two quick pieces of evidence for one of my other theories: that the NBA and MLB are about as popular as each other, but the NBA gets much, much better media coverage. One YouGov survey has that fans prefer basketball to baseball by 52% to 48%, which I’m guessing is within the margin of error for that poll. That’s virtually even, meaning they’re about the same popularity. Over on NBC, a recent Red Sox-Yankees game averaged 4 million viewers, higher than Sunday Night Basketball’s average of 3.4 million on the same network. A Yankees-Dodgers game averaged 3.9 million two weeks ago. Not every game averages this much, but it shows you that baseball isn’t far off from basketball, depending on the matchup. Altogether, the NBA is just slightly more popular than baseball, but NBC is paying MLB a fraction of what they pay the NBA, a point I’ve made before. RIGHT: Angel, MUBI and Neon Updates... I’ve long been skeptical about many of Hollywood’s buzziest startups/smaller indie studios. It’s not that they don’t make great movies—films like Anora and Everything Everywhere All at Once are amazing—or that they’re not (rightfully) pushing the majors to make better films, but...they get a ton of hype, and that hype often doesn’t live up to the reality or difficulty in scaling up. Starting with MUBI, well, The Wall Street Journal wrote a feature on MUBI’s struggles last April, best summarized by the subheader “After Sequoia valued Mubi at $1 billion, a left-wing revolt sent the indie film company into a tailspin”. MUBI lost $7.3 million on $200 million in revenue in Q4 2025, but reportedly hit a record 1.7 million subscribers at the end of Q1. As for Neon, Department M purchased a “significant stake” in the company earlier this year. How much is that “stake” worth? According to Deadline, “No financial figures for the Neon-Department M deal were disclosed.” So...that’s not great! If it was a big valuation, we’d hear about. Also, I found this curious: “Both Neon and Department M already have separate partnerships with Qatar. The Qatar Film Committee has a slate deal in place with the former, and a biopic production pact with the latter.” Color me skeptical about much Middle Eastern investment dollars. See: LIV Golf. Finally, as for Angel (formerly Angel Studios), their stock very, very slightly popped last month after Young Washington ($20 million budget) which made $45 million in the US, but their stock is still way down from its opening. Smaller Updates RIGHT: The WGA should focus on antitrust concerns! I’ve been on this for years. Post-WGA/AMTPT deal in 2023, I wrote an article for the Ankler calling on the WGA to focus and organize against industry consolidation. Sure enough, the WGA filed a lawsuit against the Paramount-WBD merger, and people are organizing around this issue now. I wish this energy had coalesced earlier (specifically to lobby Washington much earlier), but better late than never! WRONG: Actually, the chip shortage might be due to market manipulation. In my last “Long Reads for the Long Summer” article, I shared an article about how LLMs are causing memory chip prices to spike, which will make all electronics more expensive. Well, turns out, three RAM manufacturers control 90% of the market, and now a private lawsuit accuses them of price-fixing. So yeah. WRONG/UPDATE: The Odyssey will hold! Two weeks ago, I wrote, “As of this moment, we haven’t had a super-blockbuster, though The Odyssey, Spider-Man: Brand New Day and Avengers: Doomsday could all cross the $500 million mark. (At this point, The Odyssey would need a very strong hold to get there.)” Well, it’s safe to say it’s going to have that hold! It only dropped 30% in weekend two and IMAX screenings are sold out all month. Spider-Man: Brand New Day is also off to a great start. RIGHT: People are rushing to get shows out yearly. I’ve long been bullish on yearly, weekly-released shows, and Leslie Goldberg at The Ankler wrote about how many people in town are now listening. WRONG: Mark Carney reverses Canada’s stance on homegrown production. After writing about Canada installing domestic production quotas, Canada has backed off. WRONG: I don’t trust Spider-Man: Brand New Day’s online “views”. When I originally wrote about the latest Spider-Man film’s record-breaking trailer, I thought this was just YouTube views, but after watching this Corridor Crew video and doing more research, well, it’s all social views of the trailer globally. Really? That stat includes TikTok, Reels and YouTube Shorts views. Basically, I don’t trust it anymore. (This film will probably set record, but I trust the pre-sales data more.) RIGHT: Celebrity Production companies are still struggling. I’ve written about this for years, but the company that I didn’t track was Kevin Hart’s HartBeat, which was valued at $650 million but is struggling now and might just end soon, especially after Kevin Hart pulled his endorsement deals. And Bad Robot is moving to NYC. CORRECTION: SpongeBob is a “second run” title. In my 2025 recap article, I had _SpongeBob SquarePants_labelled as a “library” title, when it is still a “second run” show, with new episodes still coming out on Nickelodeon. CORRECTION: In my last “What I Got Right, What I Got Wrong” update, I offered a correction from Doug Creutz and misspelled TD Cowen. Thanks, Grammarly! 1 Though he could have increased prices to make up for the gap, he couldn’t have increased them that much. 2 There’s a theory, which I think that Daryl Morey created and Bill Simmons popularized, that, to be successful building your team, you only need a handful of bad GMs in the league to take advantage of. To be clear, Daryl Morey’s theory was also for signing bad contracts, that you could always get out of bad contracts. Basically, there’s always someone who will make a bad trade. It’s not the same exact thing, but similar enough to the Greater Fool Theory that I really like it.
Ariana Grande pauses concert, explains why she’s taking break in emotional speech: ‘Boundaries need to be set’
“My fans were worried that negativity was running things for me,” Grande said on stage, later adding that “human beings can need a break sometimes.”
Scott Eastwood explains what dad Clint Eastwood’s infamous clash with Kevin Costner on set taught him
Scott Eastwood learned something from the way dad Clint handled Kevin Costner not being on set on time while making their 1993 movie ‘A Perfect World.’
The No. 1 Daily Exercise to Boost Gut Health, According to a GI Doctor
In TODAY.com’s Expert Tip of the Day, a doctor explains how physical activity supports better digestion and gut health.
Former FBI profiler: What separates serial killers from the rest
Former FBI profiler Candice DeLong spent two decades investigating crime. She explains why some killers stop after one murder while others keep going.
Burcum: Q&A with U President Cunningham on Trump admin threats to science
As U.S. Senate leaders weigh blocking a controversial OMB rule, Rebecca Cunningham explains what’s at risk if political appointees, not experts, decide where federal funding flows, columnist Jill Burcum writes.
What Bifidobacteria tell us about gut health and how diet can help
In this interview, microbiome researcher Sudarshan Shetty explains what shapes Bifidobacteria, how they change with age, and what diet can do
Former public health director helps launch new healthcare model in Rochester
During "Connections with Evan Dawson" on 8/4/26, Dr. Michael Mendoza explains a new healthcare model available to local seniors. Then, in "Connections Summer Sessions," teens on curbing gun violence.
Ex-NFL Quarterback Talks Trajectory Of Vikings Competition
The Minnesota Vikings quarterback competition is moving along, and one former NFL quarterback explains why it's favoring Kyler Murray. The post Ex-NFL Quarterback Talks Trajectory Of Vikings Competition appeared first on HEAVY.
WR Romeo Doubs shares unique way he memorizes Patriots' offense
Patriots newcomer Romeo Doubs explains how he memorizes the offense in his first year in the system.
Louisville Water scientist explains the science behind safe drinking water
Louisville Water’s Casey LaFollette shares how scientists test, research and protect the community’s drinking water supply.
Science with Stevie: Summertime storms
Meteorologist Stevie Daniels explains why thunderstorms often develop during hot summer days in this Science with Stevie article!
How Friendships Can Benefit the Health of Your Mind and Body
Strong friendships have many benefits for the mind and body, including reducing the risk of chronic illness, so board-certified psychiatrist and author Sue Varma stops by TODAY to share her expert tips for making friends. She explains that it can take “50 hours to make a regular, casual friend” and up to “200 hours to make a bestie,” so she recommends showing up to places consistently, making small plans, being vulnerable, and focusing on “being interested versus interesting.”
Help your body fight inflammation through diet, meal timing
Does eating lighter at night help your body long-term? A Sanford Health dietitian explains this and other anti-inflammatory food claims.
Debt Digest | Federal Debt is a Health Care Problem
Welcome David Ditch to the Debt Dispatch! We are pleased to announce a new regular contributor: David Ditch will be joining the Cato Institute as a Policy Analyst for Budget and Entitlement Policy later this week. David has more than a decade of experience in fiscal policy issues, with a particular focus on federal spending. He previously worked at the Senate Budget Committee, the Heritage Foundation, and the Economic Policy Innovation Center. David’s areas of expertise include appropriations, transportation, agriculture, federalism, grantmaking, and policy options for deficit reduction. Originally from the Rochester, N.Y. area, David has a BA in Economics and Political Science from the University of Rochester and a MA in Political Management from George Washington University. David currently lives in Arlington, VA. You may have enjoyed his earlier guest posts: CBO: New Highway Bill Has More Spending, Taxes, and Deficits Trump Administration’s Proposed Changes to Federal Grants Highlight Problems of Big Government Here are this week’s reading links and fiscal facts: The federal debt is largely a health care problem. In a new report, the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation find that “In 2026, federal subsidies for health insurance, net of related payments to the government, are projected to equal $2.4 trillion, or 7.4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). In CBO and JCT’s projections, those subsidies grow by 65 percent, reaching $3.9 trillion, or 8.4 percent of GDP, in 2036. Subsidies for Medicare contribute most to that overall growth, increasing by $900 billion. Over the entire 2026–2036 period, federal subsidies for health insurance total $33.6 trillion.” Cato’s Michael Cannon emphasizes, “The long-term federal debt problem is a health care problem. […] Only two categories of federal outlays will grow faster than gross domestic product (GDP): health care subsidies and interest payments on the debt. The former is, therefore, the primary driver of the latter.” The bond market fears deficits, not the loss of tariff revenue. Responding to a New York Times essay claiming tariff revenue has grown too important for a future administration to unwind, Cato’s Kyle Handley argues: “Bond investors are not attached to customs duties as a line item revenue source. They care about the government’s overall fiscal position.” He continues, “tariff revenue is a side hustle. And the Trump administration has already promised to dole out the funds through schemes like tariff dividend rebates, farm subsidies, and pay-fors on tax cuts or other spending.” Furthermore, “tariff revenue is simply not large enough to transform the government’s fiscal trajectory.” Take net interest for example: it “reached $970 billion in fiscal year 2025, absorbing 18.5 percent of federal receipts. Customs duties accounted for only 3.7 percent of receipts—and that was before refunds (see Figure 2).” Handley concludes, “The real bond-market concern is a large and growing interest bill, persistent budget deficits, and a political system unwilling to bring spending and revenue into alignment.” Medicare’s spending growth is driven by more volume and utilization. A Congressional Research Service report finds that Medicare spending “grew at an average annual rate of 7.3%” from 1985 through 2025, and the trustees project health care expenditures will keep rising “faster than gross domestic product (GDP) in most future years.” Citing CBO, the report attributes Medicare’s projected 2026–2036 spending growth to “23% from higher enrollment, 31% from inflation, and 47% from the growth of inflation-adjusted spending per beneficiary. In other words**, the largest single driver of Medicare spending growth during the next decade is expected to be higher volume and intensity of health care services.”** Boccia and Thakur explain: “as the economy grows, Medicare spending tends to grow at least as fast—and often faster—because the program automatically pays the bill for more and more healthcare consumption by seniors, even as prices rise.” The Fed has little control over market interest rates. Cato’s Jai Kedia documents that the Fed has held its rate target steady since December, yet “nearly every rate Americans actually borrow at has climbed over the same stretch.” Kedia continues, “The Fed did nothing, and the cost of credit went up anyway. […] Markets spent these months repricing macroeconomic events such as sticky core inflation, a volatile energy market driven by the conflict in the Middle East, and global trade disrupted by tariffs, among others. None of that required a policy change to show up in borrowing costs because markets, not the FOMC, set prices.” He concludes, “Accurately priced borrowing rates will come from credible disinflation and disciplined budgets and from a Fed content to follow the economy rather than pretend it leads it.” Nearly half of US farm income comes from taxpayers. Former Reagan OMB director David Stockman notes that “in the most recently completed full year (FY 2025) farmer incomes in the US totaled $97.8 billion, but fully 42.7% or $41.8 billion of that amount came from taxpayers, not the marketplace. Nor is this some kind of one-year aberration. If we look at the most recent decade as a whole, total farm income posted at nearly $708 billion, but, as indicated, fully $322 billion or 45% of this came compliments of US taxpayers.” Cato’s Chris Edwards explains why so little of that income is market-earned: “Farmers are businesspeople, but the government shields them from just about every type of weather and market risk. Furthermore, just about every part of the agricultural industry is subsidized, including insurance, loans, marketing, research, export sales, and land improvements.” The Debt Dispatch is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe
‘House of the Dragon’ director explains the big dragon surprises ahead of season 3 finale
‘House of the Dragon’ director unpacks those big dragon surprises ahead of the season 3 finale.
Michael Gates explains why he should be California's next Attorney General
Michael Gates, a Republican attorney from Huntington Beach, is running for California attorney general, emphasizing his extensive legal experience and a commitment to addressing crime, corruption, and what he calls compliance with federal laws.
Bucks Co-Owner Explains the Giannis Antetokounmpo Trade
Milwaukee Bucks co-owner Jimmy Haslam explained why long-time franchise superstar Giannis Antetokounmpo was traded to the Miami Heat.After spending the first 13 seasons of his NBA career in Milwaukee, the Bucks traded Antetokounmpo to the Heat for a package of young players and draft picks in what was a franchise-altering move for a team that […] The post Bucks Co-Owner Explains the Giannis Antetokounmpo Trade appeared first on HEAVY.
Politics on the Plaza Debut Gathering
Pioneer of Ordinance No. 4687 Referendum Petition Kay McAdams explains why she began this movement. McAdams says, "I just would like to have to see a vote in this city
The Science Of Why You Sweat In A Sauna
A weather expert explains the science of why saunas make us sweat and potential health benefits.
Jihaad Campbell explains how experience is helping him in Year 2
Eagles linebacker Jihaad Campbell is benefitting from experience gained in his rookie season.
Sailing on inflated ticket prices: Entertainment expert on 'The Odyssey' & other box office hits
Entertainment Expert Rick Bentley is here to give us a breakdown why the big box office numbers are reflecting higher ticket prices and not more people coming back to the movies. Bentley explains that economic hardships are likely making going to the movies something people choose to skip out on. 17 News at Sunrise
‘Big Brother’ star Jason De Puy on if he felt bullied by Kamu and why he’s never speaking to him again
‘Big Brother’ star Jason De Puy talks about if he felt bullied by Kamu, and explains why he’s never speaking to him again.
The competition passed on a flying toy. We built it into $100 million dollar business
In his new book, Spin Master's Ronnen Harary explains how three founders in their 20s took a toy everyone rejected and turned it into Air Hogs.
Shohei Ohtani card sells for $11 million, becomes third-most-expensive sports card
The buyer explains how the negotiation for the biggest chase card in the hobby went down.
Safety a top priority as more heart procedures move to outpatient settings
The push to move certain procedures to ambulatory surgical centers is one of the biggest business trends in electrophysiology. Medical societies are watching this space closely to ensure high quality remains the goal.
The US ‘golden age’ science strategy: what Europeans need to know
The US has unveiled what officials claim is the most radical overhaul of the public R&D system in a generation, which if implemented could have significant implications for transatlantic research collaboration. Science: A New Golden Age derides universities as “legacy institutions” and instead wants to prioritise funding on technological challenges, new research labs and funding that follows individual scientists, rather than being linked to their institutions. “Too much of our research enterprise has come to serve itself rather than the scientists within it,” writes Michael Kratsios, director of the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the only named author of the report. “Federal funding agencies should support a broader range of performers.” But some critics argue that the strategy is a smokescreen, using genuine problems in academia as an excuse to further weaken US universities, which US vice-president JD Vance has labelled “the enemy..”Even as it talks of a “golden age” for science, the White House has proposed halving the 2027 budget of the US National Science Foundation (NSF), and has put forward double-digit cuts for other funding bodies, such as the National Institutes for Health. It asked for similarly steep savings in 2026, but Congress stopped them going through. Science: A New Golden Age says success will be measured by the extent to which scientists are “free” to pursue the most “vital questions,,” painting academia as currently hidebound by bureaucracy, sluggishness and consensual conservatism. And yet the Trump administration is simultaneously planning new rules that will hand political appointees unprecedented powers to screen and cancel grants. The report has pretentions to be the successor to Science: The Endless Frontier, the seminal 1945 document in which presidential science advisor Vannevar Bush set out the case for post-war government funding of basic research, helping to spur the creation of funders such as the NSF. Even the title page font is the same. But it remains unclear if the latest report will leave anything like as lasting a legacy.Here, Science|Business explains some of the biggest proposed changes in Science: A New Golden Age, and how Europeans think it might change the landscape of their biggest science partner.Universities under fireA key target of the report are US universities, which it repeatedly suggests are outmoded as research institutions. It criticises the NSF for channelling resources “overwhelmingly to a single type of performer, the university-based, principal investigator-led research group..” Universities “extract” money from researchers’ grants to support “growing administrative bloat,” alongside legitimate uses. The Trump administration has been trying to cut the overhead costs in federal research grants that flow to universities. Instead, new institutions are being built. In May, the NSF announced it would spend $1.5 billion on two new so-called X-Labs, focused on scientific instrumentation and quantum systems. The idea is that they fill a niche in the landscape, tackling problems that are too big for a university lab, but too early stage for private start-up funding. Parallel with Europe?This shift to new research organisations parallels moves in Europe to set up new innovation agencies, such as Germany’s Sprind, the UK’s Advanced Research and Invention Agency, and the EU’s European Innovation Council. The Dutch and French governments are looking to set up their own entities too. There’s now an emerging consensus, evident in a number of new strategies, that public R&D needs to be shaken up, Charles McIvor, an economist at the OECD, has written in response to Kratsios’s plans. “What stands out for me across these strategies [in the US, Germany, South Korea and Japan] is that governments are realising that the old ways of delivering STI [science, technology and innovation] programming no longer works,” he said in a LinkedIn post. Metascience wins?The document is, at least on the face of it, also a big win for some policy thinkers in the US who want far more experimentation with new forms of research grant and institution.It name-checks a litany of new public R&D ideas, from focused research organisations and advance market commitments to “golden tickets,” which allow grant reviewers the power to hand applicants money without requiring the consensus of other review panellists.Related articlesEuropean researchers sound the alarm that Trump rule changes will hit cooperationFocused research organisations: what are they, and how do you set them up? NIH turmoil risks reciprocal EU-US access to health research funding In addition, every federal research funding agency should set up a metascience unit, the strategy says, “with authority to run controlled experiments on review and funding mechanisms.” The UK has already set one up, the strategy points out. This mirrors recommendations to the European Commission. In 2024, a report led by former Portuguese science minister Manuel Heitor also advised the EU to set up an “experimental unit” to test out new methods of funding research. So far, however, Brussels hasn’t put forward any plans to do so. Bypass universitiesBut there’s a worry that the Trump administration is using the metascience movement to justify an overhaul of public R&D that punishes universities, which it sees as centres of political resistance. Last year, it threatened to cut Harvard University’s federal funding unless it hired and admitted a “critical mass” of new faculty and students to create “viewpoint diversity” across campus. It’s also attempted to strip academics of funding for working on politically forbidden areas, like LGBTIQ people’s health.The new strategy appears to be a “move to bypass the power of universities full stop and allow funders and political bureaucracies to handpick the projects and people who will execute them,” said Jean-Claude Burgelman, a former senior official in the Commission’s research directorate, on LinkedIn.The EU’s science counsellor in Washington, Florent Bernard, wrote that the plans risk diverting public research funding so that it “solely serves private interests.” “Who, if not independent universities, will do research that demonstrates the impact of tobacco on lung cancer or the role of human activities in our current climate crisis?” he wrote.Should we take it seriously?“I would view the overall document as a bad faith argument,” said Cole Donovan, director of science policy at the campaigning group Stand Up for Science, and a former OSTP official. “I don’t see the project itself as something that can be isolated from the broader attack on the system.” He thinks the argument that academia has become dysfunctional and in need of radical reform is being deployed as part of a “PR argument” to legitimate moves against US scientists. The strategy presents ideas like metascience units as new, whereas there were moves to set them up at the NSF during the previous administration of Joe Biden, Donovan said. The other caveat here is that the OSTP has limited power to carry out any of these recommendations. While Kratsios has issued a memo to research agencies telling them to implement the recommendations in the report, he doesn’t have direct budgetary control. “As a former OSTPer myself, this does not seem like a document that is realistic,” said Donovan.
Digital habits that rob attention and energy — and how to combat them
There's a reason why double- or triple-screening your devices makes you feel tired, says NPR's Manoush Zomorodi. She explains the science of information overload and how to reclaim calm and focus.
Video: Liberali scores screamer in Como friendly, explains Milan snub
Italian talent Mattia Liberali scored a stunning goal in a Como friendly against Villarreal last night and explained why he picked Cesc Fabregas’ side over a return to Milan: ‘Since the very first...
What is a p‑value? Expert explains the most misunderstood number in science
If you've ever tried to read a scientific paper, you've almost certainly run into a p-value. And if you found it confusing, you're in good company: Plenty of working scientists misunderstand it too.
Doctor Reveals No. 1 Sign Your Stress Is Becoming a Chronic Condition
In TODAY.com’s Expert Tip of the Day, NBC News medical journalist Dr. Akshay Syal explains the main trait he looks for when diagnosing chronic stress in patients.
Xabi Alonso's Chelsea rebuild: How Bayer Leverkusen glory explains the plan to recruit role models at Stamford Bridge
Following the news that Chelsea are looking to sign Danny Welbeck and Jordan Henderson this summer, Adam Bate reflects on whether there are lessons from Xabi Alonsos spectacular success at Bayer Leverkusen that offer clues to explain his thinking...
The Business Of Grief: A Psychiatrist's Guide For Leaders
A psychiatrist explains what leaders get wrong about grief at work, why presence beats platitudes, and how to support grieving employees through loss and recovery
What is a p-value? An expert explains the most misunderstood number in science
Boiling scientific truth down to a single number has had bad consequences for our understanding of the world.
Shigeru Miyamoto Sums Up Everything Wrong With The Industry In One Sentence
And explains why Nintendo continues to succeed while its biggest competitors keep flailing
New STS guideline tackles the prevention of AFib after cardiac surgery
Among the guideline's most significant changes is a Class I recommendation for prophylactic amiodarone.
How Trump’s ‘America first’ administration could shut US scientists out of the next Nobel-worthy discovery
A proposed White House rule would give political appointees unprecedented control over scientific funding. One physicist, who helped discover the Higgs boson, explains how the rule would’ve stifled that breakthrough.
Ex-BioWare Dev Explains Why He Thinks Dragon Age Is Basically Dead
Hard to argue with that
Carly Simon explains ‘difficult, frustrating’ diagnosis with Parkinson’s after skin cancer
Carly Simon revealed a major health update amid her ‘difficult, frustrating’ diagnosis with Parkinson’s disease, which followed surgery for skin cancer: ‘I am still very much here.’
The State of Politics: What Explains Evers Endorsement of David Crowley for Governor?
He had expressly avoided endorsing anyone for governor, including 3 Democrats who worked for him.
You think U.S. politics have never been worse? It has, says this Utah professor and podcaster.
Rabic partisanship and fake news are not new ideas in America, a Utah Valley University professor argues. He explains why in his new book.
Can you really trust your smartwatch? A doctor explains
What a doctor wants you to know about sleep scores, heart rate data and wearable health tech.
How Trump’s “America First” Administration Could Shut U.S. Scientists Out of the Next Nobel-Worthy Discovery
A proposed White House rule would give political appointees unprecedented control over scientific funding. One physicist, who helped discover the Higgs boson, explains how the rule would’ve stifled that breakthrough.
Jane Kim explains why she should be California's next Insurance Commissioner
Jane Kim, an attorney and former San Francisco Supervisor, is running to be California's next insurance commissioner.
Collectable popcorn buckets are big business for movie theaters
Theaters that are always in search of revenue streams have clearly hit upon a winner in those very lucrative collectable popcorn buckets that seem to be ubiquitous with blockbuster movies. KTLA's David Lazarus explains.
Chris Evans explains how filming ‘Doomsday’ was like making the first ‘Avengers’ in 2011 (exclusive)
‘Avengers: Doomsday’ star Chris Evans sits down with EW for an exclusive Comic-Con interview, where he explains why making the movie gave him the same feels as filming ‘The Avengers’ in 2011.
Capcom explains why it's putting out so many Resident Evil remakes and why there aren't a lot of spin-offs
Capcom’s Masachika Kawata has commented on why we’ve been seeing a bunch of Resident Evil remakes over the past few years, but not so much in the way of spin-offs. You could easily make the case that we’re in a golden age with Resident Evil right now. New games have been a hit with fans and critics alike. In between...
President Trump just implemented new tariffs. How are small businesses coping?
An NPR business correspondent explains how to cover the complex story of how small businesses are coping with tariffs.
Why Democrats Need to Think Smaller to Win Bigger
Democratic whisperer Ben Wikler explains why state races, not Washington, will determine his party’s future.
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
John Cusack makes rare comment about why he pivoted away from film career
Actor John Cusack explains why he’s not working as much in Hollywood these days
Bank of America Stadium renovation plans don’t include a dome. Here’s why
The newly unveiled, $1.3 billion Bank of America Stadium renovation plans didn’t include a dome. Tepper Sports’ CEO explains.
The Benefits of Exercise for Mental Health
Exercise is just as good for your brain as it is for your body. A psychiatrist explains how getting physical can boost your mental health.
'Stuart Fails to Save the Universe' Multiverse Science Explained
'Stuart Fails to Save the Universe' co-creator Bill Prady explains the science behind the show's multiverse travel.
Why creative leadership drives business growth
Ndidi Oteh explains why creativity isn’t just a cultural value—it’s a critical force behind innovation, transformation, and long-term business success.
Ancient lore meets small-town politics: Why fans are flocking to 'Widow’s Bay'
UC Berkeley Professor Abigail De Kosnik explains why the new horror-comedy’s mix of genre play, dark humor and original storytelling has resonated so widely.
CCTA being used more and more to plan ahead before complex PCI
Interventional cardiologist Yader Sandoval, MD, discusses the growing trend of using CCTA imaging to plan ahead before complex PCI procedures.
SCCT highlights payment gains, policy challenges as coronary CT use surges
An increase of nearly 200% in the use of CCTA over the past year has driven policy changes.
When you have advanced prostate cancer: What living with the disease looks like
President Joe Biden recently gave an update on his treatment for metastatic prostate cancer. A urologist explains ways to manage this advanced prostate cancer.
The Heart-Healthy ‘Superpower’ Nutrient That Doctors Love
In TODAY.com’s Expert Tip of the Day, a doctor explains why the nutrient helps lower harmful cholesterol and helps to stabilize blood sugar.
Meet the man whose groundbreaking book is being devoured by the left
Anton Jäger has been lauded for his exceptional ability to make sense of these strange political times – and he’s only 32. The writer and academic explains why we’re living in an age of hyperpolitics
Disgaea Creator Explains Why Physical Games Are So Important
The former NIS president had some harsh words for the decision
‘Marvel’s Wolverine’ star Liam McIntyre explains why he was ‘really scared to go all out’ (exclusive)
‘Marvel’s Wolverine’ star Liam McIntyre says he was ‘really scared to go all out’ with ‘feral Logan,’ but explains how he could ultimately ‘take some really huge swings.’
Measles cases in the U.S. hit a new 34-year high
The U.S. hasn't seen measles numbers like this since 1992. An epidemiologist explains what's driving the surge.