SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " probably " 511 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Can Diet Soda Actually Outperform Water For Weight Loss? Here’s What Science Found
If you’re trying to lose weight, you’ve probably heard that diet soda is a trap.
Is Mold in Coffee a Real Problem? Here Is What the Science Says Before You Panic
Is mold in your morning coffee actually a problem? Food scientists say probably not and here is why.
Is Mold in Coffee a Real Problem? Here Is What the Science Says Before You Panic
Is mold in your morning coffee actually a problem? Food scientists say probably not and here is why.
Gemini's Personal Intelligence is coming to cars
It's probably time to audit your Gemini settings.
Sundar Pichai: Google’s Frontier Imperative, Compute Scarcity Dilemmas, Future AI Products and Businesses
Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai has little patience for doubts about Google’s willingness or capacity to compete at the frontier of AI. His company’s latest Gemini 4 Argon model — long-promised and recently delivered — beats OpenAI and Anthropic’s latest public models on coding, math, science, and knowledge-work benchmarks and has placed Google’s AI back among the world’s best. Amid chatter that Google was fine with good-enough lightweight ‘Flash’ models, Pichai pushed back hard against any suggestion that company is limiting its research ambitions. “We won’t do it any other way,” he told me in a Big Technology Podcast interview recorded this week at Google’s Mountain View headquarters. Pursuing cutting-edge research is costly for Google, requiring compute and chips that otherwise could be sold at a high markup by its cloud business. But Pichai said allocating resources to frontier AI development is “ground zero” for Google. “Our cloud business is at any given moment in time forgoing short-term revenues because we are making compute trade-offs to support frontier AI development,” Pichai told me. In our conversation, we discussed Argon (which Pichai says processed three times as many tokens as Gemini 3 in the 72 hours after launch), AI’s role in developing better models, the AI interface of the future, competition with OpenAI, Google’s partnerships with Anthropic and Apple, data centers in space, and the nature of his optimism. You can read the full conversation, lightly edited for length and clarity, below, or listen to it on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or your podcast app of choice. Alex Kantrowitz: Google is back at the frontier with Gemini 4 Argon, which beats OpenAI’s and Anthropic’s public models on benchmarks spanning coding, math, science, and knowledge work. The conventional wisdom was that Google had given up on the frontier to focus on fast, good-enough models for its products. That was wrong? Sundar Pichai: Very wrong. Look, we are so committed to being at the frontier. It’s in our DNA. We won’t do it any other way. We’ve been thinking about the AI frontier for well over a decade now. The frontier is very dynamic. It’s very competitive. It’s very exciting. I couldn’t be more pleased with how Argon has come together. We took our time with it. We made sure we tested it safely and deployed it carefully. We took a bit longer than our other models, given its capabilities. Across the board, be it for agentic work, knowledge work, coding, creative tasks, Argon is one of the really good frontier models. The first 72 hours since we launched, it’s almost up to 25 trillion tokens used, which is about three times what Gemini 3.0 had in the first 72 hours. And we are capacity constrained as we are serving it. Excited, but there are always areas….. You know, the frontier is very dynamic, and you have to keep evolving the models. There are areas which we can see we need to improve as well. We’ll be at work on all of that as well. Which areas? On any given model, Argon would be across the board better at everything if you just look even two months back. But the space is so evolving. Even on coding, for example, there are pockets where we know we need to do better, and there’s clear feedback. We’ll make it better. The argument for standard models is that they’re already good enough to build great products, with the frontier valuable only for certain tasks. Meta built Muse with good models rather than the best, and Google could put standard models into Maps, Gmail, and Search. Why isn’t that sufficient? It’s definitely not how I have thought about it at all. We are deeply committed to driving the state of the art and actually pushing where this technology can go, all the way from transformers. That’s a journey we’ve been on. You will see us continue to do that. When you’re at the frontier, you get an earlier look into the emerging capabilities, earlier than others, which helps you better prepare for the future. We are fortunate to have a wide set of opportunities across consumer and enterprise. Some of our cloud customers, for sure, want the model at the frontier. The frontier models will be better at developing the next set of models in an era of recursive self-improvement. I would argue it matters there. Internally, we have definitely seen a steep point of inflection by deploying Argon to our developers. It definitely tackles problems which our previous models could not do. Being at the frontier puts you at the innovation frontier and helps you drive that as well. There is room for models of all sizes and capabilities. That’s why we did Flash, Flash-Lite, etc. I agree with you that you can develop very good product experiences with not necessarily the most frontier model, because they tend to be slower and more expensive too. But we care about the Pareto frontier, and we’re committed to doing all of that. You said developing frontier models gives you a look at what’s coming. What do you see on the horizon? What makes this moment so exciting is you build something which you think is a culmination of months of work, and you put it out. You already see clear headroom ahead. We’ve all been working on these agentic, long-horizon capabilities, but clearly the frontier is going to have multiple of these agents working together to do things. That’s an example of an exciting paradigm underway. It’s also clear to me that users, both in consumer and enterprise, will have access to some multi-agent framework for them, working all the time doing things. It feels like a moment of infinite possibilities. Sergey Brin said one of Argon’s core innovations was relying more on the model to help develop the model. Yet incidents involving OpenAI’s bots breaking containment and Google’s bots accessing a site they shouldn’t have suggest these systems still aren’t perfectly aligned. Isn’t there reasonable cause for concern about accelerating toward recursive self-improvement? There are three parts to your question. Let’s first talk about RSI itself. You’re right, Sergey mentioned RSI being a critical contributor as we are developing Argon. But to be very clear, today, in a continuum, we are pretty far from the end state of RSI or something like that. The right way to describe it is you have RSI loops along with AI researchers in various aspects of model development. You almost have agents helping AI researchers in some automated way work together to build these models. It’s good to at least understand where we are today, and it’s super exciting. I expect that continuum to keep making progress as we go into next year. The second question is around safety. Security comes from defense in depth. You’re talking about alignment, obviously. We all are doing a lot of work to make sure the models are as aligned as possible. But it’s an active area of research, and there are clear gaps. That’s not the only thing we rely on. You have the work you do on alignment, but beyond that, we put a lot of effort into real-time monitoring as these models are working. Making sure you have good telemetry into what’s happening so that you can intervene in real time if you see unexpected behaviors. How you do that, the architecture with which you do that, how you make sure it’s all sandboxed and isolated in a way that it can continue doing its job during real-time monitoring — these are all areas of investment. Obviously, when we deploy these models, giving customers, enterprises, control, both with real-time monitoring, but their ability to decide where they deploy, what type of data which models ever have access to, etc. All that work is very, very important, and we are doing a lot of that. As an industry, we need to constantly up our game and take the time to do all this stuff, including dedicating the compute required to make sure you can safely deploy these models. The third part is: Is it all enough? This is why there are a lot of conversations in the industry, and I think it’s reasonable to be worried. The right way to approach something you worry about is early on thinking about what more we can do. As an industry, you’re definitely seeing increased levels of work on alignment, testing for safety, etc., as we deploy these models. The next step would be developing better standards so there are cross-industry standards of how we do these things, including the ability to evaluate using independent evaluators. If you look at areas like financial controls, we have accounting standards, we have independent auditors. Those are all the next natural steps for us as an industry to work toward, and regulation will end up playing a role as we go through all of that as well. Google pursues both language models and world models, while some other AI companies like OpenAI have focused more heavily on LLMs as the path to AGI. Why is world-model research important to you? As humans, you obviously perceive the world around you, and you’re taking all those inputs. Making sure these models are able to understand the laws of physics, simulate the world in high fidelity. All that, I think, are key enabling blocks for intelligence. We are working across all possible applications of this. Take an area like robotics. It’s not an accident: If you look at embodied reasoning benchmarks, Argon is state of the art. That all comes from our experience building world models. Inherently, I would expect there will be architectures which will converge all of this in the future. But for us, we view this as, today, this jagged frontier that is intelligence. We want to be at the frontier of all the possible approaches, and that will help us both drive better research, better insights, and develop a much better AGI model, is how we think about it. Some people argue Google should focus on selling its computing resources rather than using them for AI research. Cloud wants to sell compute at a high markup, while researchers need a very big computer to build the best models. How do you balance those demands? Ground zero for us is making sure we are investing in the compute that’s needed to be at the AI frontier. In 2015, I set the company to be AI-first. AI is that key horizontal ingredient across everything we do, all the way from Search to Cloud to Waymo. That is ground zero for us, making sure both for research and developing the models that we have enough compute needed. Beyond that, we have these independent businesses which each have their own long-range plans. They’re using those long-range plans to project forward, and we plan for compute for all of them. The cloud team, they have a business and they have a projection and they have demand signals. They have committed contracts. With that help, we can plan on a long-term compute trajectory for them. We’re fortunate to have this wide set of opportunities. There’s no company in the world which isn’t making trade-offs at any given moment in time. But the first principles we operate on is making sure we have enough compute to invest in the frontier, and that’s non-negotiable, and everything else works on top. Remember, we are building our own compute, our own data centers. There are long lead times. The compute we have today is a function of decisions I made in 2024. Even if you think back to a year from today, last year the agentic coding takeoff hadn’t happened. Today, obviously, when you sit and look at anything, everyone is short—not just us, other companies—and everyone wishes you had two times what you had planned for. That comes with the territory. At any given moment in time, we are planning for what we would need two to three years out in the future. You’re going to find some decisions you make may look suboptimal two years out, depending on where the state of the art is. I don’t spend too much time thinking about it. The way I think about compute allocation is making sure Google DeepMind, both for research and frontier model development, is cutting edge in terms of compute access. After that, we plan for all our businesses. It’s great we can provide our compute to other people too, like we have done. It allows us to scale that up, get real tests for it in the widest application set possible, test it in the real world, and make sure we are at the cutting edge of technology at every layer of our AI stack as well. Ben Horowitz relayed on a podcast that Andy Jassy had said compute was sold out until 2028. Are you seeing the same thing? If today a customer is coming out and asking us for compute in ’27, that is incredibly difficult to do. Even last year we went out and leased some short-term compute to accommodate some customers and help them out. But yes, we are all dealing with similar timelines. Every major technology shift seems to involve overbuilding, from railroads to fiber. Do you think that’s happening here? It depends on the time frames you’re looking at. This level of build, if I take a long enough time frame, it makes complete sense to me. We are at early stages of the most consequential technology ever, and this is not like fiber. It’s not dark. We are using it. We are capacity constrained on a daily basis. The applications, the underlying technology is improving rapidly. But running a company, the way I work through the moment is you look at your demand signals. You look at your committed revenue opportunities that you’re getting in the form of contracts. You balance that with the underlying technical capability, or internally you balance how we are using it internally, the model trajectories. Based on all that, you take a disciplined approach—a confident, aggressive, but disciplined approach—to plan out compute. But when you talk about the broader economy as a whole, you’re having people operate with various levels of risk. I focus on what I can control as a company and plan through it. If your question is, can there be an overbuild? Yes, because you can have some constrained components. Remember, what matters is a set of everything you need to build out that compute. Memory, electricity, electricians…. Land. Like 2,000 components or more. You could get constrained at some point. There could be things which cause bottlenecks, and then you could have overbuilds. There could be external shocks to the economy. There are macro risks. All that is possible at any given time. But am I confident that the compute we are planning for, we will have uses for it given enough time? Absolutely, yes. I was in the room when you said AI would be as profound as fire and electricity. If you believe that, shouldn’t you give researchers the biggest possible computer, even at the expense of today’s cloud profits? We’re all doing some form of that. Our cloud business is at any given moment in time forgoing short-term revenues because we are making compute trade-offs to support frontier AI development. What you’re seeing is true already. But you want to be thoughtful. Even our AI researchers have some constraints, which are also good. That’s what inspires creativity. That’s what helps you come up with a more efficient algorithmic breakthrough, maybe to use less memory. What we are committed to is to invest what’s needed to stay at the frontier. OpenAI President Greg Brockman told me a few months ago that the ideal AI product might have no interface at all—just as natural as conversation. What do you think the interface looks like in the age of AI? Computing historically has been humans adapting to computing. With AI, it’ll be the other way around. The technology will adapt seamlessly to how humans live and go about their day-to-day life. You want to be able to speak to that AI when you want to. It has context. It can be persistently running somewhere, give you continuity. You’re not dealing with a lot of complexity. It’s natural. All that makes sense to me. That doesn’t mean it won’t have any interface, however. Nowadays, even on my phone, Gemini voice models are so good. I can just press the microphone button. I can just ramble. That’s why we call it Rambler. I can ramble. It intelligently corrects with my personal context. Even my friends’ names, weird names, it gets it right, even if it first guesses it wrong. It’s amazing. I’m not going in, backspacing, editing once I finish saying it. It’s remarkable how good it’s gotten. But there are going to be moments you will need an interface. You may want to entertain yourself. You may want to watch a video. You may ask your AI to create something, and you want to watch it, consume it. The way I think about it is, you want it to be as seamless and as natural as possible, and that you are not doing the hard work adapting to whatever the interface is. The technology is adapting to how you’re working at any given moment in time. When I asked Sam Altman about competition from Google, he argued that OpenAI was building AI-native products and implied Google was bolting AI onto existing ones. Do you accept that framing, and can a “bolt-on” compete with an AI-native product? First of all, it’s a very dynamic moment. We are all pushing each other. OpenAI has pushed us as a company too. This is not just we are doing something to them. Far from it. Yes, Google went into its own version of a code red too. In the AI moment, all of us have to respond with varying levels of urgency at any given moment in time. We are constantly building new products as well. Gemini was built from the ground up as a product—the Gemini app I’m talking about. Or tomorrow, as all of us are adapting to agents, are you bolting agents onto ChatGPT, or are they building it natively? How would you think about that? You can always put these questions back. I don’t think of it that way. I think of it as you want to build world-class product experiences that are AI-native and they are winning. Some of it is adapting products, some of it is rethinking new experiences. They will all be part of how you approach this moment. How do you expect to make money from these AI interfaces? If an agent recommends a product and I buy it, should it take a cut of the sale, even if that’s disclosed? I’m going to put enterprise aside. Consumers are going to increasingly value this technology. Take software developers today. Developers are willing to pay for these coding models because it really helps make them more productive. Nobody would want to code the way they were coding three years ago, or even the same time last year. When you’re delivering value, there’s value to be had. I’ve never seen examples where consumer products really scale to billions of users, where people are using it intensely, and haven’t had monetization to go along with it. If you’re providing value to people, there is inherent value to be had. The nature of it may change. You’re asking a scenario in which agents are doing stuff for you. At the end of the day, you will have commercial needs. The agents need to fulfill those commercial needs. The providers on the other side are going to see value in that. There’s going to be some mechanism by which it gets fleshed out. That’s what an efficient system does. But what matters is that you’re building those world-class consumer experiences. I promised myself one product feature request: Can you make Gemini-powered search in Gmail as good as searching Gmail through ChatGPT? What’s going on here? One of the exciting things we announced recently is the unified Gemini agent for enterprise, and we’re bringing that to consumers. These are persistent agents which run 24/7 in the cloud. We’re spinning up a micro VM effectively for every query, and from the runtime, the harness, the model—it’s all a headless service. It’ll work everywhere, and it has your context with you. You can address this agent whether you’re in Workspace, in Search, in Gemini. Agents are going to drive this unification from a customer experience, which people are looking for. When you have a broad product portfolio and you’re moving forward fast, there are always areas where you’re moving forward faster than some other areas. That’s valid feedback. But we are putting a lot of time and effort into making sure, as we build out our agentic experience, that unification and that capability works well across all these services. People have asked where Google’s equivalent of Muse or Dots is. Do you anticipate creating a new product to compete with them? Our goal with Gemini is to be a personal, proactive, and powerful assistant. That’s what we are working toward. You saw us describe the early versions of it at Google I/O this year with Spark. Effectively, already, if you open the Gemini app as a Pro or an Ultra user, you see Chat and Task, and they start giving you that agentic experience. With Argon now, that capability is dramatically accelerated. What we announced recently in our enterprise event, we are bringing that to consumers as well. Soon in Gemini, you will be able to ask something, and it’s a continuum. You don’t need to think about whether you’re asking a chat or an agentic task. It’ll just automatically do the right thing, and it can work persistently in the background securely and get things done for you. Already, empirically, when I look at what’s coming into Gemini in our app, last year you would have tagged them and most of them would have been chats. But a steadily growing percentage is already agentic tasks in Gemini. Yes, we are going to bring personal agents to our consumers. It’ll work in the Gemini app. It’ll work in Google Search. It’ll work in Gmail. You can address it, call it, etc. We want to make sure we’re getting it right. It’ll be powered by Argon, and we are very excited to bring it to our users. Google has invested and committed tens of billions of dollars to Anthropic. What do you see in Dario Amodei that makes you want such a deep investment and partnership? Very early on, when we looked at the founding team of Anthropic, it was very clear to us this was a world-class team which was involved in some of the earliest GPT models. We were quickly able to assess that they would be at the frontier. We’ve always tried to identify and partner with companies which would be at the cutting edge of technology. We’ve done that with SpaceX. We’ve done that with Anthropic. That’s what we saw, and we had a chance to partner. Is your partnership with Apple to license Gemini for Siri expanding, contracting, or standing still? For both us and Apple, that partnership was about translating the capabilities of AI into better experiences for users. I thought Apple has done a phenomenal job of incorporating—they customize these models and build it into Siri—and it’s been great to see the reception. We are committed to doing more. You’re going to do more with them? There’s nothing specific to comment, but it’s a partnership. It’s working well. What have you learned so far about the feasibility of data centers in space? It’s a very exciting project. Projects like this remind me—I still recall that moment in the desert for the DARPA Grand Challenge, watching the Stanley car compete in it, which ended up being the basis for Waymo. With all these technologies, you’re at a moment in time where it looks a bit like sci-fi, but 10 to 20 years down the line, it’s actually working in a meaningful way. I feel the same in space. We’ve always believed in betting big on these technologies. Quantum has been a great example of it. We’re probably 10 years into the journey. Waymo, we are almost 20 years into the journey. Space, we are two to three years into the journey. It’s clear to me that it’s an approach which will make a lot of sense in the future. Being in sub-synchronous orbits with 24/7 access to the most abundant form of energy we have access to will make a lot of sense for this exponential increase in compute that we are going to need. Having said that, this is a challenging project. The team has disciplined milestones. It was a super exciting milestone to send the TPUs up to space. Sometime, as we are speaking, we are expecting a “hello world” moment from them. I look forward to seeing that happen, and we’ll continue investing here too. You previously said 25% of the code written within Google was written by AI. What’s the number today? That number in our world today is meaningless in the sense that every part of what we now touch is influenced by AI deeply. What we are tracking with Argon, for example, it’s been a point of inflection. People are using Argon to really go tackle complex projects, including projects which affect millions of lines of code. In the four weeks since we have launched Argon, we have seen a 30% increase in CLs, and more importantly, almost a similar increase—a one-third decrease in rollbacks. People are writing code more productively and better code with it. We are tracking it with newer metrics now. How are you dealing with opposition to data centers? If you can’t build in the U.S. the way you want to, where else do you go? We’re very committed to building our data centers very responsibly. When I look at our largest data centers in some of the communities where we have been the longest, I visit them, I talk to people. There are people who come and tell us their kids have gone to college because of our investments in these communities, and we’ve grown in those communities. To me, this is about doing it right. Engaging with the communities early, doing it transparently. We are committed to making sure we are bringing incremental power, and we cover 100% of the cost of our power needs for these projects. It’s understanding the impact on neighborhoods and making sure you’re working thoroughly to address them. Done rightly, you can continue making progress. But we are constantly taking feedback into account. I do worry not everyone operates the same way. People have been surprised by data centers showing up in their backyard. Those are all important. As an industry, we should continue to do better. But part of the reason, in a 20-year time frame, we are thinking about things like data centers in space is making sure we are able to put these data centers where maybe the trade-offs will be different. What unproven area of AI is Google working hardest to crack? Is it continual learning—getting models to keep updating after release—or something else? There are multiple parallel paths. You saw with Argon we have a million output tokens. With our Gemini models early on, we had a one-million context window on the input side. These are all examples of breakthroughs we are constantly working on. How do you think about synthetic data? How do you think about continual learning? How do you think about more efficient architectures? We do dedicate a meaningful percentage of our compute to these research bets too. It always goes hand in hand, including our world models. Those are all bets we are placing. Sometimes, as part of these bets, there are ideas that emerge which just make their way into the mainline models. Maybe we don’t fully talk about it, but we have multiple steps in these areas. Working in technology requires optimism that building something will improve the world, but those bets can leave real consequences when they fail. I recently returned to a town in El Salvador where enthusiasm for Bitcoin had given way to unfinished construction and something resembling a ghost town. How do you maintain the optimism you spoke about in your Stanford commencement address while accounting for those risks? I genuinely have a deep conviction that improving technology and improving access to technology makes people’s lives better. It’s been my personal experience in my life, out of which comes that deep conviction, optimism. But with that, I’ve always felt humanity’s journey is always about working hard to harness that technology to make it work well for society. The optimism is not an optimism that you just build whatever you want, whenever. You work hard to make sure you’re building technology in the service of humanity, to make the human condition better. That’s got to be the defining goal as we are approaching it. With that framework, I’m very, very optimistic. We are in very early stages of the kind of progress that we are going to see on many areas. We’re all talking about areas like healthcare. A lot of the progress is ahead. The ability to make things in a fundamentally cheaper way on many things where things have been getting expensive for a long, long time, discovering new materials, etc., which really bend the curve—it’s tough to step today and understand the impact of all that, but they’re going to be very profound. I’m very optimistic, but we have to be rightfully concerned about all the ways this technology can go wrong. Sundar, I know you don’t do many of these. Thank you. Thanks, Alex. Appreciate it.
You Should Probably Check Your Google Home Speaker’s Data Usage
Google Home Speakers have been absolutely ripping through data—mine included.
The problem(s) with the White House’s new women’s health initiative
Under the circumstances, it’s probably best to keep expectations low as the White House’s efforts on this issue get underway.
The problem(s) with the White House’s new women’s health initiative
Under the circumstances, it’s probably best to keep expectations low as the White House’s efforts on this issue get underway.
Finding Hope and Peace Amid Political Division
By Dr. Michelle Connor HarrisExecutive DirectorSt. Raphael CounselingLast night I was talking with my 23-year-old son about this article on “hope and peace amid political burnout.” His response was, “If you want to talk about hope and peace, look at Zohran Mamdani.” I sighed internally and tried, probably unsuccessfully, to control my tendency to roll my eyes at the mention of the mayor of New York. Not because of the mayor or his policies, but more because of the way these discussions go with m
DIY VR: How to build your own headset, and why you probably won't want to
A primer on the joys and pains of building your own head-mounted display.
Streaming’s Biggest Show Returns…and a Buzzy Genre Struggles
(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.) Obviously, the big news of the week (if not month) is Netflix letting go of executive Bela Bajaria, their chief content officer. I’m going to cover this in my next “Most Important Story of the Week”, but I also have a data angle that I might publish before then. (Too much news this month, am I right?) But first, I have a bonus Streaming Ratings Report issue for you. Today’s article is a bit of a grab bag of topics I’ve wanted to write about, but couldn’t squeeze into the (already very long) Streaming Ratings Report issues. The NFL drives huge viewership numbers, so I’ve got a look at that. A whole bunch of TV shows returned to the traditional broadcast channels, and I have thoughts. And I have a quick look at adult animated shows, since a couple flopped earlier this month. Plus, the Emmys aired earlier this month, and we got some fun data bout how popular those nominated shows are and why I’m not optimistic about the show’s future. That’s a lot, so let’s dive right in. Subscribe Sports - Football Remains the King of Streaming Over the last two Streaming Ratings Reports, I sorta ignored the biggest “show” each week. (I was tempted to say “piece of content” but I know that word bugs folks.) In my database, I call these “specials”, and they sure are special. I speak of the king of American TV: football!!! Streaming football is back and, unlike some other sports, it routinely dominates all viewership. Probably the best way to show this is to update one of my favorite graphics, the “40 Million Hour Club”1 since football games have joined that club each week they’ve premiered: (Yep, that’s the data through 28-Sep, the first four weeks of the season. As a reminder, I take the average minute audience provided by Nielsen, factor out a percentage of linear TV viewers in home markets, and multiply the run time by the three-hour runtime.) Again, the numbers are huge. Let’s start with Netflix. They grabbed the rights to the bonus opening week NFL Kickoff game (which was on YouTube last year) and it put up 18.5 million viewers on average. That nets out to 47.4 million hours of estimated streaming hours. That’s good! Though, notably, it’s well below Christmas Day games from previous years. Compared to other streamers/broadcasters, that’s a bit of a mixed result. On one hand, Netflix’s 18.5 million average is about what YouTube claimed last year, though Nielsen used a bespoke methodology at that time, so I trust this viewership figure more. So that’s good. (The game also shifted from a Friday to a Thursday and that could have helped the viewership as well.) And Netflix continues to best Prime Video in total viewership—as you’ll see next—though Netflix has had much higher-profile (opening week and Christmas Day) games. NBC/Peacock’s opening game the night before averaged 25.1 million average viewers, which is just much bigger than Netflix (or Prime Video). That’s the big caveat to all streaming viewership records: even in success, they can’t compete with traditional linear TV. Previously, I called this my “hierarchy of viewership”, and the data keeps supporting that thesis. The downside for NBC is that this game’s viewership was down compared to previous years, though it may be a counting issue. Here’s a great chart from Sports Media Watch: Indeed, looking at all the opening week games across all windows, Netflix still lags the other primetime windows, but does well compared to the afternoon games: I saw a few folks make the case that streamers still lag traditional broadcasters in reach, and I’d add they really lag compared to “broadcast plus streaming” options like NBC/Peacock, ESPN/Disney+ and CBS/Paramount+. The best data I saw for this came from Samba TV, who charted reach through the 2025 season, and, wow. (Samba TV’s numbers are historically lower than Nielsen’s, so don’t compare their household figures to Nielsen’s hours, but use them as a proxy for the relative reach of the streamers.) The good news is Prime Video is NOT having a down year. Their opening Thursday Night Football game reached 18.6 million viewers (about what Netflix got), but that’s a high for Prime Video on Thursdays and the biggest Thursday night game since 2015. The TNF games the weeks of 21-Sep and 28-Sep continued this streak, getting 43.1 (16.8 million average viewers) and 42.5 total hours (16.6 million average viewers), which were both up from last year. Still, that continues the (typical) season slide: (For those new-to-streaming-football-numbers folks, the viewership declines for Thursday Night Football as the year goes along.) Overall, it appears as if Prime Video is now part of the “football habit”, be it for customers at home or out at places like bars and restaurants. And its viewership is slowly catching up to broadcast. One last chart shows this. Last season, Nielsen started adding out-of-home viewership to the charts, so I try not to do season-to-season comparisons as I did for the first few years. And while Nielsen added Big Data viewing this year, I’m going to compare the last two seasons. Here’s that chart, which shows the season-over-season gains: When it comes to streaming football, we have to keep a few seemingly contradictory thoughts in our head… First, streaming doesn’t come close to matching broadcast’s reach and, thus, viewership. Second, even with that gap, football is still the biggest “thing” on streaming. It’s very, very popular. Third, while some methodology changes have likely helped Prime Video’s numbers, their viewership does appear to be growing. Lastly, yeah, the NFL started the season off poorly, with week one dragging down the numbers in year-over-year comparisons. However—and again, methodology changes may have helped this—the viewership grew compared to previous seasons over the next couple of weeks. So football is still king. On streaming and off. Television - Adult Animation Continues to NOT Make the Streaming Charts In the last two reports, two adult-animated shows whiffed: Netflix’s animated comedy, Dang! Paramount+’s Sega-video-game-inspired fantasy/comedy, Golden Axe. Neither made the charts, but that’s usually the case for animated shows. I mean, here’s literally every animated show that’s made the Nielsen Original charts since the start of 2025: And one of those shows is G_abby’s Dollhouse_! A kids show! The problem with charts like this is that they don’t give you a sense of how many shows miss the charts. Netflix had at least eleven animated flops, including comedies like Big Mouth (a show everyone assumed was popular in the pre-Streaming Ratings Era), Long Story Short, Haunted Hotel, Mating Season, Strip Law, and Alley Cats, and action shows like Blood of Zeus, Castlevania: Nocturne, Devil May Cry, Splinter Cell: Deathwatch, and Tomb Raider: The Legend of Lara Croft. Prime Video had at least six animated misses, two in the same universe (Hazbin Hotel, Helluva Boss), three more comedies (#1 Happy Family USA, The Second Best Hospital in the Galaxy and Kevin) and an action show (The Mighty Nein). Disney+ had MCU and Star Wars animated misses (Eyes of Wakanda, Marvel Zombies, Star Wars: Visions, Star Wars: Maul – Shadow Lord, and Star Wars: Tales of the Underworld) but I can’t tell how many of those shows were geared towards adults. HBO Max had Harley Quinn and Hulu had Solar Opposites. None of these shows made the charts! That’s a lot of misses! If I remade the chart with all those misses, here’s how it would look: Listen, I know the counter arguments. First, it’s cheaper to produce animated shows than live action. Fair enough, but with viewership this low, even that cheaper price point starts to not matter. Second, just look at the acquired charts. Hit animated comedies can generate viewership for years! Shows like The Simpsons, South Park, Family Guy, and Bob’s Burgers do really, really well. Fair enough, but streaming has failed to recreate the dynamic that Fox has mastered so well. That’s a problem for streaming still. Television - Emmys! The annual Emmys broadcast was a few weeks ago, and I’ve got data on how the nominees performed on streaming, plus hot takes on this year’s viewership (and the big news about the broadcast’s, er, streamcast’s future). We’re just getting started with this issue, but the rest is for paid subscribers of the Entertainment Strategy Guy, so if you’d like to find out… The top Emmy-nominated shows… ...why I’m worried about the future of the Emmys telecast... ...the pros of broadcast television ...and the cons... ...please subscribe! We can only keep doing this great work with your support. Coming Soon! Next week, we’ve got a double issue (since the weeks of 21-Sep and 28-Sep were so light), but then I’ll be all caught up after a deluge of streaming ratings data from Nielsen in September. In the meantime, I’m going to try to take a look at Netflix’s stats to explain why Bela Bajaria is out. But even light weeks give me plenty to talk about. The Great British Baking Show returns to Netflix and Apple TV has a buzzy new star-studded comedy. And Netflix has a controversial-but-appears-to-be-popular new game show. Plus big films like Toy Story 5, Backrooms and The Breadwinner head to streaming. And is East of Eden a hit? After that, The Kardashians return to Hulu, Prime Video has a reboot of Carrie, and Netflix has a horror show, Below. Disclosure Day heads to Peacock, The Housemaid heads to HBO Max_,_ a new Ben Affleck film, Animals, lands on Netflix, and Apple TV has a new John Cena action film based on, checks notes, Hasbro’s Matchbox toys. Okay. Longterm, some interesting TV production news. HBO Max ordered How to Survive Without Me, starring Kaley Cuoco, Joshua Jackson, Ray Romano and Rita Wilson, for fifteen episodes! I love that some streamers (or, at least, HBO Max) are finally ordering TV shows with more than eight episodes. In less wise production news, Landman does not appear to be coming back this year, since it just started production. Frankly, I don’t love this (get your shows out on time) but Landman is so popular, I doubt it matters.
Wash your hands. There's probably poop on them.
They may look clean, but not from a microbial perspective.
Can AI solve our mental health access problem?
Last week I asked you what worries you most about AI in health. It was close, but your top answer was “AI giving bad health advice.” Last week’s poll results: You’re in good company. This concern was top of mind at a conference I joined at Stanford last week, where researchers, clinicians, and people who build AI systems spent a day debating trust and safety in health AI. Stepping back, I’m also hearing your emerging concerns about AI’s impact on our well-being generally. I see this as a matter of public health, and we’ll take it in pieces as we learn together. Today we’ll focus on AI chatbots used for therapy for mental health. Early this month, Governor Newsom vetoed Senate Bill 903, California’s most ambitious attempt to regulate AI use for mental health. It’s at the center of active debate, and raises the questions patients, family members, citizens, and voters will face as AI moves deeper into health care. Let’s work through it. What is “AI-based therapy”? It’s really two things: purpose-built mental health apps designed to deliver structured support, and general chatbots like ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini that people increasingly use for emotional support—even if they weren’t built for it. Spoiler alert: I don’t know whether the shift toward AI therapy is good or bad. The evidence isn’t there yet. But I do know it’s already happening, and I have some ideas about how we can roll it out with safety in mind. The therapy dilemma, in a nutshell Mental health challenges are common, and strain health and well-being across populations. Therapy (interactive dialogue with a trained, empathetic practitioner) helps many people heal. The demand for licensed therapists far exceeds the supply in California, and AI-based therapy can narrow that gap. AI-based therapy remains novel, unproven, and not well tested. Right off the bat, we can see we’re dealing with trade-offs here. Since the main driver of demand for therapy from a robot is lack of access to therapy from a human, we’ll start there. It’s too hard to find and afford a human therapist California is short roughly 55,000 licensed, non-prescribing therapists and counselors, about 40% of what we need. Psychiatrists, who rely on talk therapy as a complement to prescribed medications, are even more scarce. Eight counties have none, and density ranges from 1.7 per 100,000 residents in San Benito County, to 68.1 in Marin County. My wife is a psychiatrist in Marin, and even here access is tight. If it’s hard in the best-supplied county, imagine rural Sierra County, or the San Joaquin Valley. In 2024, more than half of Californians who tried to make a mental health appointment struggled to find a provider who took their insurance, compared with 14% for physical health care. When Senate staff posed as “secret shopper” patients and called 120 mental health providers in Medicare Advantage networks, they landed an appointment less than once for every five tries. Insurers pay behavioral health clinicians about 22% less than medical and surgical clinicians for comparable office visits. On top of that, billing denials and prior authorizations hit hardest at the solo and small practices common in mental health. Psychiatrists opt out of Medicare at the highest rate of any specialty. In many places, a cash practice for therapy fills quickly with patients paying $250 or more an hour, with no insurance paperwork at all. Families who can pay cash find providers more easily. Those who rely on insurance, including Medi-Cal enrollees, older adults, rural residents, and non-English speakers, compete for what’s left. So we can’t pretend the human system works, and we can’t blame people for turning to AI for support when they’re in distress. AI is filling the gap It’s estimated that roughly a quarter of AI users use it for mental health support. If you have internet, it’s available 24/7, it’s cheap, and it speaks your language. Uninsured adults are about twice as likely as insured adults to do it (30% vs. 14%). It feels anonymous in ways that may enable people to ask things they’re unsure or embarrassed about. The largely hidden, personal use makes it hard to study whether it’s actually helping people with their mental health issues, but researchers are trying. Does AI therapy work? A 2026 analysis of nearly 40 randomized trials found chatbots showed a real but small reduction in depression symptoms. But most of these trials were compared to an alternative of no therapy, not a human therapist. So the benefit of AI therapy is probably real, but modest, and mostly untested against the alternative of human contact. We need more studies. Serious concerns OpenAI’s own estimate is that more than a million ChatGPT users each week show signs of suicidal planning or intent. These are high stakes encounters, and AI doesn’t always get it right. That’s partly because a chatbot can sound like a therapist, but it has no license, no duty of care, and it’s not clear who to hold accountable when it gets things wrong. AI is also designed to help users in whatever task they’re seeking to accomplish. People may feel like they’re getting therapy, but they’re mainly getting a convincing conversation. It’s easy for an AI companion to wander into gray areas, like playing along with “creative writing” that may be about the user’s own suicidal intent. Courts are driving safety conversations A wave of lawsuits have been filed on behalf of families claiming that chatbots pushed people they loved toward self-harm, including teens who died by suicide. The first settlements came this year. OpenAI is headquartered in San Francisco, and dozens of cases alleging that ChatGPT drove users to suicide or self-harm are now before a San Francisco judge. Character.ai has filed for bankruptcy after several states brought lawsuits accusing the chatbot of pushing dangerous content to kids. But the technology seems to be improving. Last month, an independent evaluation found that newer AI models “almost never endorse suicide.” That’s progress, but our societal appetite for even one preventable death is very low. So how do we move forward? Finding a middle ground Earlier this month the governor vetoed Senate Bill 903, a bill designed to place guardrails on the use of AI for therapy. The bill would have prohibited any AI-based platform from being advertised as psychotherapy, and would have required a licensed professional to review and approve each encounter where AI was used to support therapeutic decisions. Newsom called it overly broad, since even routine screening questions would have needed clinician sign-off. Knowing we’re already short on mental health providers, requiring human review of AI encounters may not relieve our access problems. Still, the answer isn’t no oversight. Here’s one feasible short term solution. Rather than reviewing each encounter, a licensed clinician can design the guardrails: what counts as a crisis, what triggers an immediate handoff to a human, and what gets sampled for audit each month. The AI runs inside that structure. Conversations get checked, failures get reported, and a real clinician owns the framework. Medicine already has models to learn from. The FDA process for rolling out newly approved medications is an example. After a product reaches patients, we keep watching for adverse events. Patient-facing AI needs the same “digital pharmacovigilance”: systematic tracking of harms, near misses, and the types of groups that get hurt and why. It’s also critical that users know that they can reach a human if they’re in crisis. Most chatbots now include messages like these: Bottom line The rush to use unproven AI tools for mental health support is mostly a workaround, a sign of a health system people can’t get into. We need better access to proven care from licensed clinicians. That takes reimbursement that makes accepting insurance viable, and a bigger workforce. But, built and tested well, AI could be part of the answer. It could be the 2 a.m. check-in when no one else is awake, or a way for patients to practice skills their therapist taught them. It could be the first step to get someone the right level of care, and take paperwork off clinicians’ plates so they spend more time with patients. None of this is simple. The SB 903 veto doesn’t end the debate, and the legislature will be back. In the meantime, those of us using these tools need to stay informed, ask hard questions, and hold the companies building them accountable. I’ll try to do my part, and we’ll keep learning together. Love,Matt P.S. If you or someone you know is struggling with mental health challenges, emotional distress, substance use problems, or just needs to talk, call or text 988- you’ll reach a real person— or chat at 988lifeline.org 24/7. Dr. Matt Willis is the author of Your Local Epidemiologist in California. A California native, he’s served as a primary care physician, CDC epidemiologist, and public health officer for Marin County, where he guided the pandemic response. He lives in Marin with his family and their dogs, Teddy and Ramona. Thank you Cynthia He, MD, PhD, and Parnika Saxena, MD, for their guidance in preparing this article. Cynthia works in an outpatient mental health clinic, treating patients who have Medi-Cal or, sometimes, no insurance. Parnika works in an inpatient psychiatric unit, treating patients with public or private insurance or self-pay ability. All opinions are their own and do not represent their employers.
A Massive Decompilation Community Is Shutting Down, Thanks to the Deluge of AI Decomps and Ports
If you've been on gaming Twitter at all over the last month, you're probably aware of a massive wave of people using AI to rapidly decompile, port and remix games. Well, that wave of AI decomps has forced a massive decompilation community to sunset.
Commentary: Missouri’s education board was designed to resist politics. Transparency is essential
Most Missourians probably could not name a member of the State Board of Education. Most could not explain why board members serve eight-year terms or why Missouri’s Constitution limits the number of members from the same political party. That is understandable. The State Board was never intended to be a political institution that attracted significant […]
L.A.’s dynasty is (probably) done, plus the NFL’s uncomfortable moment
The Pulse Newsletter 📣 | This is The Athletic’s daily sports newsletter. Sign up here to receive The Pulse directly in your inbox. Good morning! Work an 11-pitch at-bat today. Coming up: 🍻 Milwaukee roars, again 🖊️ Will anyone sign Hill? 🤒 Warriors star clarifies health Yesterday, we discussed how the Dodgers’ possible demise would impact the sport’s future on a decidedly macro level. Today, after their 6-2 loss in Game 3 of the NLCS last night to the Brewers, I want to get granular: We should start with the winners, who deserve plenty of shine. Milwaukee is...
Sabres’ Russian Prospect Prokhor Poltapov Dominating KHL
The Buffalo Sabres might have a future contributor currently plying his craft in the Kontinental Hockey League in Russia. His name is Prokhor Poltapov. Poltapov probably isn’t a known name to casual Sabres fans, but the diehards will know about him. He’s not yet in North America, but the hope is that he’ll show up […] The post Sabres’ Russian Prospect Prokhor Poltapov Dominating KHL appeared first on HEAVY.
Your Business Probably Has More Data Than Insight by Nathan Tayloe
Most businesses know more about themselves than they ever have. Leaders have access to financial reports, sales pipelines, customer data, employee metrics, website analytics, and dashboards for almost every part of the organization. CRMs track every stage of the sales process. Marketing platforms report results in real time. AI can analyze and summarize enormous amounts of information in seconds. Yet I've sat in plenty of meetings where all of that information is available, and some of the most important questions are still surprisingly difficult to answer. What's actually working? Why are customers choosing us? Where are we losing opportunities? What should we do differently? Having the data and understanding what it means are two very different things. More Information Doesn't Always Create More Clarity Over the past decade, businesses have invested heavily in visibility, and that's a good thing. We can understand performance with a level of detail that would have been unimaginable not long ago. But there's an unintended consequence. The easier something becomes to measure, the easier it is to assume it must be important. Website traffic goes up, so that looks positive. Leads increase, so marketing appears to be working. Sales activity climbs, so the pipeline looks healthy. Maybe. The numbers tell us what happened. Understanding why it happened, whether it matters, and what we should do next still requires judgment. Not Everything That Matters Fits on a Dashboard Consider a customer who ultimately contacts your company through Google. The data may attribute that lead to search. What it may not show is that the customer heard about you from a colleague six months earlier, saw your company mentioned in an industry publication, followed one of your employees on LinkedIn, and read several reviews before finally searching for your company. Google may have produced the click. It didn't necessarily create the decision. This happens throughout a business. Some of the things that matter most are difficult to reduce to a single metric: Why your best customers stay Why talented employees choose your company Why a prospect trusts one provider over another Why one service is gaining momentum while another isn't Why the market perceives your business the way it does Data can help answer those questions, but it needs context. Better Decisions Start With Better Questions One of the easiest traps for leaders is starting with the information in front of them rather than the decision they're trying to make. Instead of opening a dashboard and asking, "What does the data show?" it can be more useful to start with a different set of questions: What are we trying to understand? What decision are we trying to make? What would we need to know to make that decision confidently? That changes the role of data. Instead of looking at every number available and searching for meaning, you're using information to understand something specific about the business. Information Still Requires Judgment More sophisticated analytics and AI will continue to give leaders access to better information, faster. That's valuable, but I don't think it reduces the importance of experience and judgment. If anything, it increases it. Someone still has to decide which numbers deserve attention, which patterns matter, what context might be missing, and when the data isn't telling the whole story. The goal isn't to know more about your business simply because you can. It's to understand your business well enough to make better decisions. Good data can tell you what happened. Good leadership has to decide what it means. — Learn more about how we help organizations turn business, customer, and marketing insights into smarter strategies at tayloegray.com, or reach out directly at nathan@tayloegray.com.
Young voter turnout could be pivotal in this year's midterms
There are signs Gen Z is motivated to show up to the polls in historically high numbers this year. A recent poll found over 80% of people age 18-29 said they ‘probably’ or ‘definitely’ plan to vote.
Analysis | Why Democrats will probably win back the House
And what could go wrong for them.
Beau Bridges shares promising “Matlock” season 3 update (exclusive)
“I think I’m getting out, and I think there’s probably gonna be a court case,” Bridges teased of his character’s fate.
SPECIAL REPORT: Tough Business
A string of vacant restaurant buildings shows that many restaurants in the region are struggling — and several are closing By Stefan Yablonski [caption id=attachment_11132 align=alignright width=401] Smokey Bones Bar & Fire Grill on Route 31 in Clay closed its doors in April. It had been in operation since at least 2008.[/caption] By their nature, most restaurants have a limited life. An astonishing 60% go out of business within three years of opening, largely due to fundamental flaws in the planning of the operation. But even restaurants that experience years of success almost always face eventual closure. The restaurant business is very hard and because of both personal factors and external factors beyond anyone’s control, restaurants don’t last forever. For many restaurants, age is a big factor, according to Kenneth Walsleben, professor of practice, entrepreneurship and emerging enterprises at Syracuse University. “The owners have been at it for 20 or 25 years, if not longer, they want some time to themselves,” he said. Such was the case for Jocko’s Famous Ritz Diner in Oswego. Jocko Reitz bought the building in the late 1970s from Robert Shapiro. However, when he stepped away from the business, it eventually closed. [caption id=attachment_11142 align=alignright width=402] For nearly 80 years, Vona’s Restaurant passed through three generations of family in Oswego. It closed its doors on Dec. 31, 2025.[/caption] For nearly 80 years, Vona’s passed through three generations of family in Oswego. Vona’s Restaurant officially closed its doors on Dec. 31, 2025, when no family member wanted to take over. It is on the market. The Ruby Tuesday in Oswego operated for about two decades before permanently closing in April 2026. The restaurant faced multiple temporary health department closures in 2024 and 2025 due to persistent fruit fly and foundation pest issues. Management posted a final closure notice on the doors in mid-April 2026 and the building was put up for sale. The same pattern has been happening in Onondaga County. The big building once used by Smokey Bones Bar & Fire Grill on Route 31 in Clay remains empty, more than six months after the restaurant closed its doors in April. It had been in operation since at least 2008. [caption id=attachment_11130 align=alignright width=401] Ruby Tuesday in Oswego operated for about two decades before permanently closing in April 2026.[/caption] Just down the road from Smokey Bones, the popular Outback Steakhouse closed in August 2024. Another restaurant took its place, La Cocina Mexican Restaurant, but it closed shortly after. The building sits empty. Other very popular restaurants in the northern suburbs of Syracuse have recently closed. Among them, Fireside by the River in Baldwinsville and Primo Nestico’s Bistro Bar in North Syracuse. “I haven’t really paid attention to the Syracuse area. There has always been some turnover, but there probably has never been a tougher time to be a restauranter than now. It’s just brutal,” Walsleben said. In the first year, roughly 20% to 25% of restaurants close or change hands, according to the National Restaurant Association. [caption id=attachment_11122 align=alignright width=401] Outback Steakhouse closed in August 2024. Another restaurant took its place, La Cocina Mexican Restaurant, but it closed shortly after. The building sits empty.[/caption] “Depending on what statistics you look at, you’ll find that any business has a high mortality rate in the first year. That is just the nature of entrepreneurship,” Walsleben said. “There are certain ones that are getting hit hard while others are more fruitful. “And when you look at the restaurant industry you have to factor in labor which is a large part — typically a third of your expenses — and those costs are going up. And there is always turnover which means investing money to train people. Then you’ve got food costs, which is also a third of the typical restaurant budget. Since the pandemic labor has gone up 41%, food costs have gone up 35%. That’s a big tight squeeze righty there. That’s two-thirds of your budget that has gone up 35% to 40% in the last few years. And then the only way you can make that work is to raise the prices.” The National Restaurant Association reports menu prices are up 36% since February of 2020. In a survey released by the association, more than eight in 10 restaurant owners reported that their food, beverage and labor costs are now higher than before the pandemic. You have to deal with the reality of are the customers willing to pay for that? Walsleben added. Restaurants historically have very thin margins; their profit margin is about 5%. “You have a third that goes into food, a third that goes into labor and about 28%, 29% that goes into everything else — overhead, insurance etc. So that brings you down to your 5% leftover,” he said. “Everything is going up. Customer expectations are going up and people aren’t going to spend that much more. So, you have a tight squeeze here,” Walsleben continued. “Restaurants who use delivery apps, they pay a fee to those guys. Those guys don’t work for free. So, you can kind of see where the squeeze comes from.” Stuck in the middle There are pockets of opportunity; the two extremes of the market can make a profit. But the middle gets squeezed out. “If you are a low-end fast-food kind of place, there is room for that. People have changed their budgets. They are still going out, but they are not spending more,” according to Walsleben. “The high end remains positive. If you have a restaurant that brings a specific experience … a great food product or you are catering to high end customers who aren’t so budget conscious, those patrons are going to expect a high-end experience. They expect excellent food every time. They are expecting excellent service. If you can meet those expectations there is room for you at the top. It’s just the guys in the middle are getting the squeeze from both ends. Tough competition, customer expectations, costs are up. Menu items, you can’t raise the prices as much as you need to. That is why you are seeing a lot of restaurants baling out.” The ones that can adapt quickly are the ones who are doing OK. “Success is heavily dependent on the strength of a restaurant’s concept development and the planning of its execution. Eventually things aren’t always new. Things change. So, if you are in the restaurant business you have got to change your menu — keep things new, fresh and update your meals. It is very fickle industry. One year carbs are out, the next year berries are out. Everybody’s diet changes — constantly chasing the latest phase. You have got to adjust your menu and move with those modifications. If you have a static menu that you have used the last couple years that hasn’t changed except for the pricing, you’ve got a problem,” he said. A lot of times these buildings are singular purpose, he added. “You have a commercially viable kitchen and you got a seating area. There is not a lot of other businesses that cater to that type of a layout. So, it’s pretty common to see another restaurant slide in,” he said. One of the things a banker learns early on is you don’t lend money to restaurants … because they fail so quickly. It is very hard to predict who the winners will be. So, if you are a restaurant in addition to all the other challenges, it is very difficult to get loans, according to Walsleben. “You might work really well in the kitchen. But that doesn’t mean you are a great businessperson,” he said. “Restaurants can fail because the owner didn’t know how to manage things properly. There are a lot of challenges. “There is opportunity at the high end and the low end. But in the middle, that’s the death valley. There are just so many things working against you. You really need to have something that will pull people in and continue to pull people in because you to constantly have to change. Think about a theme and a product that is unique to the area people don’t travel that far these days you have to be able to deliver it in an innovative fashion and keep updating to keep people coming in the door.” Out of Business? How Fast? Do nine out of 10 restaurants fail in their first year, as commonly claimed? No. Survival analysis of 1.9 million longitudinal microdata for 81,000 full-service restaurants in a 20-year U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics non public census of business establishments in the western US shows that only 17% of independently owned full-service restaurant startups failed in their first year, compared with 19% for all other service-providing startups, according to ResearchGate. The median lifespan of restaurants is about 4.5 years, slightly longer than that of other service businesses (4.25 years). However, the median lifespan of a restaurant startup with 5 or fewer employees is 3.75 years, slightly shorter than that of other service businesses of the same startup size (4.0 years). What Makes a Restaurant Successful? Opening and maintaining a successful restaurant is not as easy as creating a great menu and serving excellent food. It takes more than that, according to local restaurant owners who have been in business for decades in the region. They all agree that there are some guidelines to running a successful restaurant. • Quality food: Successful restaurants know exactly what they serve and who they serve it to. Delivering the same great taste every single time builds loyal customers. • Smooth operations: Friendly greetings and attentive staff make guests feel welcome from the moment they walk in. Hiring staff for personality and training for skill ensures reliable, caring service. • Smart marketing: Exceptional food and experiences naturally get people talking and sharing online. Word of mouth can help entice customers. Consistent social media and targeted advertising brings in new and repeat guests also. The menu is what keeps patrons coming back to Mimi’s Diner in Fulton, located at 201 N. Second St. “We locally source our produce and our meats. Our chicken and biscuits is a popular, popular special,” said Richard Tagliareni, the third-generation owner and general manager. “It’s all homemade. We have consistently served quality food.” His grandfather started the business more than 55 years ago. Mimi’s is engrained in the community. They cater to the community and are very involved in everything from the schools to local events. The first Mimi’s Drive-In opened in Mexico. Then a second in Oswego and then Fulton. Fulton’s Mimi’s is the only one left. “The last couple of weeks have been kind of slower than normal. October is usually a busier month for us People will start coming back around again. Also, the price of gas is affecting some things,” Tagliareni added. “We try to keep our prices in line. You go out to eat, you’re going to spend about a hundred bucks or so for two people for dinner. You come here to Mimi’s you are probably for two people for dinner it’s between $50 and $60. We are trying to keep our prices in line. We did have to increase our prices a little bit but things are looking OK.” For the Press Box, 29 E. First St., Oswego, it’s also about great food and a family atmosphere. “Our sports bar and restaurant was established in 1984,” said Alison Canale Scanlon, manager. “I think putting the time into everything makes a big difference and treating people like family when they walk into your restaurant. That’s how we have always operated since 1984.” “It’s the family oriented aspect,” she added. “Consistency, quality and presentation of our food — that’s the secret to a successful restaurant. We try to be very consistent with it. We treat people like family when they come in; because we know how we want to be treated when we go to a restaurant. We treat people the same or better.”
Are Bank Lobbies Still Relevant?
Local banking leaders say technology is changing the way customers use their banks — and their lobbies By Deborah Jeanne Post [caption id=attachment_11109 align=alignright width=300] Steve Gorczynski is M&T Bank Central New York regional president.[/caption] When was the last time you entered the lobby of your bank? If it’s been a while, you’re part of a trend of eschewing the lobby in favor of ATMs, drive-thrus, online banking and remote deposit. A 2025 study performed by the American Bankers Association revealed that only 9% of consumers use bank branches as their preferred way to do banking and 76% prefer mobile banking. The trend away from the lobby reflects consumer behavior in other areas of doing business, including online shopping instead of perusing the mall, ordering fast food at a kiosk, not at the counter and selecting curbside pick-up rather than walking into the restaurant. Consumers want convenience and going in the lobby adds another layer to the task. It also places consumers face to face with one or more representatives of the business, something less favorable to people feeling burned out from interpersonal interactions. Nixing or at least minimizing the size of the lobby isn’t necessarily negative for banks. Fewer people passing through their doors reduces overhead for building maintenance, staffing and furnishing. Greater reliance on virtual banking can mean closing brick and mortar locations and hiring fewer staffers to cover roles like teller and lending officer. “Our focus is on meeting customers where they are and giving them flexibility in how they bank,” said Steve Gorczynski, M&T Bank Central New York regional president. “While many everyday transactions can be supported digitally and through ATMs, branches remain important for more complex financial needs, offering face-to-face guidance and a more personal banking experience.” Talking with a commercial lender or working on a home mortgage are two examples where meeting face-to-face is more desirable for many people. They can receive immediate feedback to questions and can possibly reach their goals more quickly. But there’s little need to have a large seating area, long counters and numerous tellers for routine banking that’s quicker to handle virtually. Online banking can also help people on the go more readily complete banking tasks such as depositing checks, transferring funds among accounts and checking balances. [caption id=attachment_11135 align=alignright width=300] Tina M. Stephens is the vice president branch administration for Fulton Savings Bank.[/caption] “The traditional bank lobby is certainly being evaluated by most institutions today, as the typical large, open and cavernous spaces do not necessarily meet the needs of today’s customers,” said Tina M. Stephens, vice president branch administration for Fulton Savings Bank. “Traditional lobbies often bisect traditional teller stations and customer service areas, which adds confusion, especially for the demographic who routinely use online banking and only access the lobby for customer service needs.” Despite the rollback in physical locations across the industry, Fulton Savings Bank began modernizing its six branch offices in Oswego and Onondaga counties about three years ago and have finished four offices so far in Baldwinsville, Fulton, Constantia, and Phoenix. “We made the decision to build a new branch across the street from our current office in Brewerton which will be completed by the end of 2026, and we will begin the retrofit of our Central Square office in early 2027,” Stephens said. “Our efforts specifically address where we think customers will be in the next three to five years and have greater flexibility to make changes out into the future.” The bank may be onto something, as numerous reports state that screen-weary Gen Z young adults crave more in-person interactions than virtual ones. If the pendulum continues to swing in that direction, it’s hard to see all physical bank areas disappear, even if they change somewhat. Fulton Savings Bank has also consolidated its teller and customer service representative areas to larger “universal banker” areas, where the bank representative can address all customer retail needs. A one-stop-shop experience appeals to busy banking customers who want to perform a few different banking tasks in one visit. Stephens also said that Fulton Savings Bank made additional technology and security enhancements and created flex spaces to accommodate bank meetings throughout the two-county branch footprint. At Solvay Bank, Elizabeth Lavier, vice president marketing and communications manager, lauded digital and online services as convenient and flexible for managing finances; however, “technology is not meant to replace what matters most: the relationships behind every account that have always been at the heart of community banking,” she said. “Even in today’s digital-first world, people of all ages still value the opportunity to sit down with a trusted banker for personalized guidance. We understand that some of life’s biggest moments call for more than a screen.” Lavier views digital banking as another way for the organization to serve customers rather than a replacement for branches, tellers and lenders, which tend to serve customers better for transactions like buying a first car, purchasing a home, saving for a child’s education, or planning for retirement. “Those conversations, built on understanding, experience and personal guidance, are what community banking is all about,” Lavier said. “At the end of the day, banking is about more than transactions. It’s about helping our customers achieve their goals and being there for them every step of the way. By combining the convenience of digital banking with the care, commitment, and personal service of a local community bank, Solvay Bank offers customers the best of both worlds.” Are Paper Checks Destined to Disappear? With the ubiquity of debit cards, online payments, virtual checks and peer-to-peer payment platforms like Venmo, Zelle and PayPal, will paper checks become passe? “In my view, paper checks are unlikely to disappear in the near future,” said Tina M. Stephens, vice president branch administration for Fulton Savings Bank. “They continue to serve a practical purpose by providing a clear paper trail and tangible proof of payment.” According to the American Banker, a leading trade publication that covers the banking and financial industry, in 2024, checks accounted for 65% of all payment fraud losses. Paper checks should be phased out, according to the publication. “The phrase, ‘The check’s in the mail’ probably sounds strange to younger people because the era of paper checks is rapidly drawing to a close. Put bluntly, checks are an expensive, insecure legacy that is a drag on the U.S. economy. Rather than wait for them to vanish slowly, the pragmatic choice is to strategically accelerate the transition to paperless payments.”
N. Syracuse Manufacturer Marks Milestone, Plans for the Future
Air Innovations has grown from a small local manufacturer into a global business, selling its products in 74 countries organizations. Some of its clients include NASA, Blue Origin and SpaceX. By Stefan Yablonski [caption id=attachment_11117 align=alignright width=450] Michael Wetzel, president and CEO, and his father, Larry, who currently is an adviser to the board of directors. Larry served as the chairman of the board until 2024, when the company was acquired by Altus Capital Partners, a private equity firm.[/caption] Air Innovations in North Syracuse hopes to add more employees and possibly even expand its facility in the near future. The company is a global leader in designing and building environmental process control systems for applications that can’t be addressed with standard HVAC equipment, according to Michael Wetzel, president and CEO. “We customize solutions for temperature, humidity, filtration and pressurization, with additional capabilities in direct-expansion, chilled-water and thermoelectric technologies. Our business now is entirely focused on specialty or niche markets.” Air Innovations celebrated its 40th anniversary on Sept. 18, marking four decades of doing business, manufacturing products and growing in Central New York. In the beginning [caption id=attachment_11138 align=alignright width=451] A worker, Ezzy Salehi, tests a Wine Guardian condenser unit at Air Innovations.[/caption] “A guy by the name of Jim Kelley started the business [known as Floratech] in 1986. It was focused on refrigerated display cases for supermarket fresh flowers,” Wetzel said. “My father [Larry] started Clean Room Technology in the early 1980s, then sold that to a French company called Clestra Cleanroom. “My father and I bought Floratech in 1996 — 30 years ago, 10 years after it was started. Then in 1999, Floratech bought a portion of Clestra and their building. At that point everything was still called Floratech. But, as that was not reflective of the diversity of the business, we rebranded as Air Innovations in 2001.” The company rebranded to pursue a strategy of diversification in specialty HVAC systems. Wetzel explained that since then, it has become a trusted global partner, earning the President’s “E” Award for Exports and securing contracts in the most demanding fields, including aerospace, defense and semiconductor manufacturing. Air Innovations has grown from a small local manufacturer into a global business, selling nearly 70,000 units in 74 countries and territories and developing custom environmental control systems for companies and organizations including NASA, Blue Origin and SpaceX. “We work with all the big names you ever heard of and some you never heard of,” Wetzel added. The Wetzels sold the business two years ago to Altus Capital Partners, a private equity firm focused on control investments in lower middle-market, niche manufacturing companies in North America. Founded in 2003, Altus Capital Partners’ headquarters is in Wilton, Connecticut, with an additional office in Lincolnshire, Illinois. “They are an equity firm. Both my father and I both maintain a small minority share. I am going to continue to be involved. I call myself a part-time CEO. I will continue that role for the foreseeable future; I don’t see any change there.” Building to the future “We are at 58 employees right now, which is a little bit down. We had a high of 70. That moves along with the activity we have,” Wetzel said. “We’ll start ramping up here in the fourth quarter into next year. More than 20% of our employees have been with the company for more than a decade. “I am fairly certain that sometime in the next several years we are going to have to enlarge the footprint of our facility and for sure we are going to have to add employees. We already are. We are probably going to have to add five or six people next year. We are always in the market for HVAC technicians; we always need those.” Air Innovations will remain in Central New York, with its current workforce staying in place, he added. “I believe the primary driver of our success over time is the diversity of our business which is a direct result of our willingness to tackle new challenges,” Wetzel said.
This civil war on the British right is a charade – its politics are more united than ever
Don’t be fooled by its bickering leaders. Their calibrated fake fighting will probably end in coalition, says Guardian columnist Jonathan Liew
When 1 + 1 = 1: The Miserable Math Behind Many Media Mergers
(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.) The last few issues of this newsletter have circled two topics: September’s streaming viewership and all the Paramount/Skydance/Warner Bros./Discovery merger news. I’m happy to say on the Streaming Ratings Report front, we’ll be all caught up by early next week, then the SRR will come out on a tight weekly schedule. Then, after today, I’ll have slayed my PSWbD dragon. It’s such a big story, it demanded multiple issues. With the announcement of a name (just Skydance) and executive team, though, I think we can almost close the book on this story. In terms of topics, it becomes just another studio to cover. So today, I have one last set of takes on that merger. As I’ve sat with it, reading about who was staying and who was going, a big worry crystallized in my brain, and I gotta get that take out. Plus, I still owe you a host of “ugliness” that didn’t fit in my previous “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly” takes. Let’s dive in! Subscribe Most Important Story of the Week - As Paramount Shuffles Deck Chairs, Will They Build or Consolidate? On social media—I try to avoid most social media platforms, but sometimes I end up checking in—the best joke I saw about the announcement of the new name of Skydance was from fellow reporter Claire Atkinson who pointed out… Yeah, I laughed out loud at that one. Later, though, I saw another Twitter response (that later got deleted, so I can’t shout the person out) that did give me pause. The person noted that the Titanic film made the better analogy: a super expensive project everyone in the town doubted that went on to conquer the globe. So yeah: on one hand, the image of the Titanic recalls the actual ship and its infamous end, but that clip is from a movie which proved the doubters wrong. So for all the skepticism of the latest massive media merger, one could wonder which way this one goes. Does it crash like the Titanic or rise to glory like Titanic, the movie? Either way, this deal is “Titanic”, looking at the massive debt required to close the deal, which is not going well when it comes to borrowing costs for Paramount… …or borrowing costs for Oracle. But I’ve started to get worried about another outcome: the sum of this merger will be smaller and weaker and less profitable than its former parts. In other words, one plus one won’t equal three or two, but an even smaller number. Skydance paid to take a traditional studio off the board, but they won’t really capture the upside. Let me explain what I mean, but first, let’s look at the series of news that inspired this thought. Skydance Sets Its Leadership Team As soon as the Paramount-Skydance-Warner Bros.-Discovery merger closed, the new leadership team announced a new name—Skydance, which I’ll use going forward—and a new executive leadership team. You’ve probably read through all the executive shuffling, but if you haven’t, here’s a quick, incomplete summary, in rough order of importance: Mattel’s CEO Ynon Kreiz—who previously ran Maker Studios—joined as co-CEO with David Ellison. HBO/HBO Max’s Casey Bloys will stay and run streaming. Former head of streaming for Paramount-Skydance Cindy Holland—who was also at Netflix—will depart. The former heads of Warner Bros.—Pam Abdy and Mike De Luca—are out. The film studios will be run by Dana Goldstein and Josh Greenstein. George Cheeks of Paramount will run Skydance TV, controlling all the TV production units. In comic book news, the DC films will still be run by Peter Gunn and Peter Safran. Lastly, the head of CNN, Mark Thompson, will stay in place. Let’s quickly opine on the particulars before diving into the broad ramifications. We’re just getting started with this issue, but the rest is for paid subscribers of the Entertainment Strategy Guy, so if you’d like to find out… Who I like and dislike in their next gigs… Why I think this consolidation will likely leave Skydance worse off… The math behind which mergers succeed and which don’t… A lot more ugliness in this merger… And a whole lot more... ...please subscribe! We can only keep doing this great work with your support.
Islanders Gameday News: Should win but probably won’t
The Islanders continue their mediocrity-destined season with a visit from the sadsack Canucks, who just lost to a “gritty, resilient” Rangers team, so you know we’re screwed. The Canucks are 2-5 and have lost four in a row, so they are due an uplifting win on Long Island. First Islanders Goal picks go here. Islanders […]
‘Play On!’ hits all the right notes
The English Renaissance meets the Harlem Renaissance in “Play On!,” a sparkling show that marries a loose adaptation of Shakespeare's “Twelfth Night” with the music of Duke Ellington. Conceived by Sheldon Epps, who also directed the original 1996-97 production (first in San Diego, then on Broadway), the show is getting a marvelous revival under his direction to open Chicago Shakespeare Theater's 40th anniversary season.While the title “Play On!” refers to the famous quote about music being the food of love and thus to the dozens of Ellington songs—among them “It Don’t Mean a Thing,” “Don’t Get Around Much Anymore,” “I Got It Bad (And That Ain't Good),” “Solitude” and “I’m Beginning to See the Light”—incorporated into the plot, one of the highlights for me is the clever way Cheryl L. West's book reworks the story. Apparently, it's also been updated for this outing, among other things to give the women more agency. In the big opening number (there's a six-piece, horn-heavy onstage band), aspiring songwriter Vy (Hailee Kaleem Wright) is the one to “Take the 'A' Train” to “Drop Me Off in Harlem.” She wants to meet the famous Duke (Edred Utomi) — Ellington, not Orsino, that is — and she seeks the help of Jester (an engaging James Harkness) to find out how. When Jester tells her in no uncertain terms that the music industry is a man's world, she disguises herself as Vy-Man and persuades the Duke to listen to one of her songs. He's suffering from a creative block because he's pining for Lady Liv (Krystal Joy Brown), queen of the Cotton Club, and convinces Vy-Man to bring the Lady the song as if the Duke had written it, promising to reward her with employment. Vy reluctantly complies, and the predictable complications ensue. Lady Liv is attracted to Vy-Man, while Vy is attracted to the Duke and he to Vy, though it disturbs him because he thinks she's a man. The fallout when the deception comes to light bodes ill—at least for a while.Here's where West's book cannily diverges from Shakespeare. Vy's twin brother Sebastian really is dead, so West devises another love interest for Lady Liv basically by rehabilitating the Malvolio character, here named Rev (Alan H. Green), the Lady's uptight, self-important manager. His unrequited love for her is magically transformed after he gets his comeuppance (minus the torture) from Miss Mary (Alanna Lovely), her honey Sweets (James Earl Jones II) and Jester, the stand-in for Sir Toby, who has romantic problems of his own with a woman named CC (Kaylah Janssen). In other words, Rev gets the girl — and also a show-stopping yellow zoot suit from costume designer An-Lin Dauber. All the costumes are dandy, though those for the men have more pizzazz than the women's day dresses. The bilevel, slanted scenic design by Beowulf Boritt brings 1930s Harlem to life in a slightly expressionistic way with the help of Adam Honoré's lighting and Ray Nardelli's sound design. Edgar Godineaux's choreography adds to the period feel, though there could be even more of it.Most of all, the leads have splendid voices, and the performances are terrific. Green's Rev and Harkness's Jester get my vote for comedy chops, and Brown's Lady Liv probably will stay with me the longest for her complexity and big blues number, “I Ain't Got Nothin' But the Blues.”
Did an Affordable Audiophile Brand Just Revive the Classic iPod?
Best of all, it's substantially more affordable than you'd probably guess.
Google Health and Fitbit Air are Getting So Many Huge Upgrades
In addition to the big news that is the Google Fitbit Edge this morning, Google also announced several major upgrades that are coming to Google Health, the Fitbit Air, and the Pixel Watch 3, 4, and 5. There’s actually more to dive into than you are probably expecting, so let’s just get straight to it....
John Cusack says Lloyd Dobler would probably be labeled a stalker if “Say Anything” was made today
The 1989 movie, which costarred Ione Skye, featured him making a romantic gesture to his ex-girlfriend.
Why we love to dress for the job we don’t have
Today, most of us probably work from behind a desk. Yet our obsession with clothes from a different kind of working life just won’t quit.
The science, instinct and hard work behind Roosters’ success
Enter your email address to get each Tribune edition sent to your inbox Subscribe There’s a fair bit of unseen work that goes into winning an NRL premiership, dating back many months - just ask Simon Jones. The Sydney Roosters Head of Performance, who hails from Southland, has been in the thick of it. He played a lead role in guiding the 2026 champions through a marathon campaign that ended with a grand final win over the Newcastle Knights. The Roosters had to navigate the lengthy round-robin competition, including the pre-season, before playing through all four weeks of the finals series. It was a demanding stretch that tested the players and the staff responsible for keeping them on the field. “It is a hell of a beast, mate, to be honest,” Jones told The Roar Podcast. “There’s such a great group of staff there that know what they’re doing, and the boys are pretty professional.” Jones believed the Roosters managed the physical demands well, pointing to the health of the squad throughout the campaign and the decision to rest a significant portion of the playing group in the final round of the regular season. That call, made by head coach Trent Robinson and his coaching staff, proved valuable as the Roosters entered the finals with some energy in reserve. “We did finish the season physically where we needed to be, and we’d sort of had a pretty healthy squad all year,” Jones said. “To the team that do that, mate, mission accomplished, really.” It is the sort of work that often goes unnoticed when the spotlight falls on the players scoring tries and making match-winning plays, but Jones knows the cumulative effect of those decisions can be significant over a long season. After a win over Penrith had helped establish them as premiership favourites, losses to the Wests Tigers and Dolphins were followed by a defeat to the Panthers in the opening week of the finals. Rather than panic, the club refocused to position itself to challenge for the title. “The Tigers’ performance was probably the only one where you’re really quite disappointed because it’s hard to get to the top of the competition,” Jones told The Roar Podcast. “We had proof that we could; we knew what we needed to do. We just had to get back to that.” For Jones, the answer was not necessarily a radical change to the programme. It was about executing the basics consistently, both on the field and in preparation. “We just do the basics better than anybody else,” he said. “Whether that is actually the way you play the game or how you’re preparing, it’s just be really consistent, do the basics really, really well.” Like many professional sports teams, the Roosters are entrenched in sports science and performance data. The club has access to a range of information, including players’ sleep, GPS metrics and neuromuscular scores, helping staff assess how individuals are coping with training and competition. “We are very science-backed, and some people would say data-driven, but it’s people first,” he said. “The reason you collect all this data is to try and be the best for that person.” Jones said the club was also prepared to reconsider testing methods if they were not generating useful discussions or helping staff make better decisions. In an environment where technology is continually evolving, he believes experience and gut instinct remain important. “The data is no good unless you have conversations,” he said. “When you strip it right back, mate, trust the gut still and obviously, you know, just doing the basics really, really well.” The return of halfback Sam Walker provided a further example of the importance of individual determination and the work of the club’s medical team. Walker underwent ankle surgery late in the regular season, with his premiership campaign appearing in doubt. However, he was determined to return for the preliminary final. Jones said Walker was back at the training ground three days after surgery, walking freely enough to surprise those around him. While the surgeon’s work was crucial, Jones credited the halfback’s mindset as a major factor in the remarkable turnaround. “He was quite clear with Robbo after he got the surgery that he was going to make it back for the prelim finals,” Jones said. The Roosters’ performance programme also sits within a wider club culture that Jones believes is central to their success. Each season, players develop their own team mantra through a lengthy process facilitated by Robinson. It provides principles that the squad can connect to its actions on the field. Rather than simply carrying over the previous year’s wording after a successful campaign, the club repeats the process because the players’ ownership of it is what gives it meaning. “When it’s led, player-owned and player-led, mate, it’s really powerful,” Jones said. Get more from Logan Savory in the Substack app Available for iOS and Android Get the app Jones joined the Roosters in 2024 and said the environment had evolved as experienced players departed and younger members of the squad took on greater responsibility. Maintaining continuity in the club’s culture and preparation had helped the group navigate those changes. The premiership was a significant achievement for Jones, who acknowledged how difficult it was to win the NRL’s ultimate prize. However, he is already looking at how the performance programme can improve. “There’s still things within my role and things that I’d like to help improve at the club,” he said. For Jones and his team, the challenge now is to review the season, refine their systems and prepare for another campaign. The celebrations may have followed a memorable title win, but the work behind the scenes never really stops. The Southland Tribune is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe
Who gets to be a genius? Matilda effect and the women missing from science
Albert Einstein is probably the most quoted scientist in the world, and among the lines most popularly credited to him is one he almost certainly never said.
Envy on the ballot
GAWD, I hate the rich. The top hats. The monocles. The dinner jackets. The way they twirl their mustaches while evicting orphans. Before we drag them into the public square, though, we should probably define “rich.” Amendment 87, the temporary “graduated” income tax, defines rich as earning $500,000 a year. And yes, it is temporary. […]
According to Science, People Who Use Emojis in Texts Have Higher Emotional Intelligence
You probably do it without thinking. A thumbs-up after confirming dinner plans, a laughing face to soften a sarcastic remark, a heart slipped into a goodnight message. Emojis have become so woven into the way we text that most of us never stop to wonder what those tiny icons actually say about us. But researchers...
Who Won August and September: Original Films or Franchises?
(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.) I just heard someone say that if you’re reading a pundit or data analyst, and they don’t tell you that they got anything wrong, they’re not a pundit but an “influencer”. I agree with that. You have to tell your audience when you get things wrong, or they won’t (or shouldn’t) trust you as much. Today, we’ve got another edition of “What I Got Right, What I Got Wrong”. In general, I’m patting myself on the back (and patting very hard) about a few things like IP at the box office, LIV golf, horror films, crowdfunding movies, superheroes, and old people going to the theaters. That said, I also made a couple of data mistakes on the streaming bubble popping and HBO’s datecdotes, so I’m not perfect. But first, I need your feedback... Subscribe Follow-Ups: What Should We Call Mid-Budget Movies Which Aren’t Cinematic Enough for Theaters But Are Too Expensive to Make Money on Streaming? After I asked for feedback on what we should call straight-to-streaming films that are too big to pencil out on streaming but not really big enough to resonate in theaters, I got some great suggestions from you all, including... “Moldilocks” from John Aboud “Little Big Indie” from Travis Frick1 “Midflicks” from Jonathan Funke. “Extra-Medium” from Jona Nwuke. (Read the explanation in the footnote.) Between these and Brandon Katz—who suggested “Bermuda Budget Triangle”, “The Platform Gap” and “The Distribution Deadzone”—we’ve got some excellent suggestions. And they’re better than my suggestion, the “Streaming Budget Dead Zone”, so let’s take a poll! The winning entry becomes the new term. Loading... RIGHT: LIV Golf is Fully Bankrupt…Is Anyone Else Next? A few years ago, I was always a bit perplexed at all the articles I’d read praising LIV Golf and their strategy to disrupt the PGA. LIV Golf, a brand new professional golf league, offered PGA stars ten times what they made on the PGA Tour to join their new league. And folks praised this strategy for its initial “success” in that a lot of big names did indeed leave the PGA. Yeah, of course the players came over. LIV Golf paid them so, so, so much more! But LIV Golf hadn’t discovered a way to increase potential revenue. So think about this in basic business terms… They paid much more in costs… …but had no real way to increase revenue. That’s not a strategy! That’s deficit financing. It won’t work unless you bankrupt the competition (and then turn around and pay those same golfers much, much less). It’s not a sustainable strategy and only lasts as long as the company/person/nation backing it decides they’re cool with losing money. For LIV Golf, that meant Middle East oil wealth, in particular Saudi Arabian money. Clearly, the current Iran War has hurt Middle East finances, so they need to trim their more exorbitant spending. And LIV Golf was part of that trimming. This should be a major warning for others. TGL’s parent company, TMRW Sports, just got a $1 billion valuation, despite TGL’s (the indoor golf league) horrible TV viewership of less than half a million viewers per match. Unrivaled, the women’s basketball league, just secured a $650 valuation, despite its horrible TV viewership and a new rival (Project B) entering the scene next year. To relate this to streaming, Hollywood should ask which streamers may have wealthy patrons funding their losses. (Let’s be clear: Google, Amazon and Apple.) Could those patrons lose their appetite? For Amazon, probably not. But Apple has a new boss, so maybe! WRONG: My Analysis of the Streaming Bubble Was Missing a Week I’m going to be congratulating myself a lot today, but I make mistakes too, like this data goof. When I last compiled the data on the decline in TV shows, I was missing one week at the end of June. If you look at the first image, you can see that one week was mislabelled as “July”. Mainly, this image got updated to show a 27% decline, not 29%: This change doesn’t really impact the overall analysis, but it is two percent better. By the way, through the third quarter, the decline increased and it’s now a 30% decrease since 2022. (I’ll write/visualize this in an upcoming article.) But I want you to trust me and my data. Especially these days, when many people are using LLMs that I know are inserting faulty data into their charts, I want to keep earning my audience’s faith. So that’s the accurate data. RIGHT: IP Remains Very, Very Popular In July, I wrote a giant (and I mean giant) article on Backrooms, Obsession, and the box office, going over what we know, what we don’t know about what works in theaters, looking at YouTubers, IP, the horror genre, comic book movies, and a whole lot more. The month of August really tested a lot of my theses and, being honest, mostly supported my arguments. Let’s start with IP. Looking at 8-Aug (the weekend after Spider-Man: Brand New Day came out) to 18-Sep (the weekend that Resident Evil came out, which I think provides a nice bookend to this time period), there were seven films based on pre-existing IP: Resident Evil (2026) ($126 million) Practical Magic 2 ($65 million) _Insidious: Out of the Furthe_r ($65 million) Coyote Vs. Acme ($59 million) Paw Patrol: The Dino Movie ($53 million) Tony ($15 million) Super Troopers 3 ($7 million) Compare those to the notable original films from the past month—I actually could have included more movies, but here are just thirteen, bringing us to an even twenty films—including.... The End of Oak Street ($54 million) Buddy ($26 million) Mutiny ($15 million) By Any Means ($15 million) The Dog Stars ($14 million) Runner ($14 million) One Night Only ($11 million) Hope ($8 million) Spa Weekend ($7 million) The Uprising ($6 million) Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma ($6 million) Onslaught ($3 million) Eli Roth’s Ice Cream Man ($2.8 million) Here’s that in chart form: Five of the top six films in this time period were all based on IP. I made a big chart of films that grossed over $200 million at the box office before Spider-Man: Brand New Day and The Odyssey hit theaters. Let’s update that chart! By the way, if you want to see how I categorized each film—so another bar chart—here it is: I know that many of my fellow critics/pundits/analysts dislike films based on IP and how Hollywood is making so many of them. And I’m sympathetic to this point of view. As I’ve written many, many times before, you need a balance between existing franchises, new IP, and original films. And Hollywood clearly needs to make more films like Resident Evil (a well-made film from a visionary director) and fewer Practical Magic 2’s (which didn’t get critical or customer buzz). But at some point, critics and pundits need to contend with what audiences are telling them: Movie-goers aren’t showing up to original films. Audiences are speaking with their dollars, telling you they want more IP and franchises. You can try to convince studio heads to make fewer IP-based films and franchises, but the data and numbers aren’t there. Instead, critics need to work harder to convince audiences to show up for original films. Aim your ire/concern at the average person, not studio heads.2 Because they’re just making the films that audiences are telling them to make. WRONG: Original Horror Films Didn’t Break Out I’ll be honest, even though I wrote an article casting some skepticism on the horror genre in July, if you asked me to make a prediction, I would have predicted that, in August, a new, original horror film would have blown up. No, seriously, I just assumed that Obsession and Backrooms presaged a change in audience behavior. But none of the buzzy new original horror films from August—Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma, Onslaught (not an action film in spite of the ads), The End of Oak Street, Eli Roth’s Ice Cream Man, or _Buddy—_broke out. To be clear, exactly one of those films (Buddy) had good “ROI”, but again—I try to be specific in my language—none were “popular” in any broad sense of the word. None of them will be “saving” movies theaters like Backrooms or _Obsession_helped save the summer. The new Insidious film and Resident Evil, both based on IP, were far and away the biggest horror films since July. (We’ll see if this changes in October/Halloween season.) RIGHT: Stay Skeptical about Crowdfunding... I’ve long been skeptical about crowd-investing platforms as one of Hollywood’s saviors, mainly because there’s so much hype/buzz. People need to stay more skeptical about more things, explaining both the potential upside but also the downsides. In particular, the media often hypes crowdfunding at the start and never checks in on the actual results after they’ve come in later. And August gave us our first update! _Ice Cream Man—_directed by Eli Roth—grossed $6 million off of a $5.5 million budget. This is a production of The Horror Section, which was one of the first “crowd investing” studios with 2,400 investors, which means that 2,400 investors probably lost money. They certainly aren’t getting as great of returns as if they had just invested their dollars in the stock market. Hopefully Stiletto (Tagline: “Someone’s Going to Make it Rain Blood!”) does better next month. WRONG: Another Data Goof Here’s another data error. When the first episode of House of the Dragon came out, HBO put out that it had 21.5 million viewers in the first three days, and I read that to mean in the US…but no, it was global. So my US-only datecdotes charts shouldn’t have included it. We never got US-only numbers for the first episode, but for the final episode, HBO put out that it had 11 million US viewers. (And that global dropped to 21 million viewers.) Here’s the updated chart (which I’ve since used in the Streaming Ratings Report): Still, this show is absolutely huge. RIGHT: Superhero Films Remain Very, Very Popular After Supergirl flopped, I read a few takes that “comic book movies are going the way of the Western”. Post-Spider-Man: Brand New Day, that take didn’t age well. To be fair, I have a very nuanced take on the superhero genre right now; it’s down right now, for a lot of reasons. But it’s not “dead”. Maybe _Spider-_Man is just a really popular character? I saw that take, and it’s a fair counter-argument. (But pundits arguing that superhero movies were dead should have mentioned this $1.5 billion counter-argument…) But is it just Spider-Man? The next Avengers film already has $50 million in pre-sales (and I was skeptical that that film would do well) and the Avengers: End Game re-release topped the box office two weekends ago (over three original films). And I wouldn’t bet against Batman or Superman. So maybe it’s just Spider-Man, Batman, Superman and the Avengers. Oh, and Deadpool, of course. And Black Panther. And Wolverine. And probably the X-Men. Plus a well-made Wonder Woman or the Hulk film could break out. But that’s it! It’s just those ten characters/teams. Oh, what’s that? Lanterns is also doing well on HBO? (See previous section…) To be fair, I’m actually pretty sympathetic to the argument that more popular characters—like Spider-Man and Batman—anchor more popular films. In fact, I made that exact argument three years ago when I first wrote about the “Marvel-cession”. In many ways, you can blame The Guardians of the Galaxy for fooling Marvel Studios (and the rest of us) into believing that any character could pop. It turns out, the list of iconic characters is probably smaller than most people think. But it’s probably too early to say that superhero films and comic book movies are dead unless “death” means a slight decline over a longtime. RIGHT: Who Killed Theaters? Old People I get frustrated whenever I see headlines or analysis about how young people are “returning” to theaters. As I’ve detailed(for years), young people have always powered the US box office, despite narratives about “kids these days” and their “phones”. Really, what’s changed post-2020/pandemic is that old people aren’t going to the movies nearly as much. This summer, I saw a movie (from an older director) in a theater near a retirement community, and multiple older people at the theater were talking about how this was their first time seeing a movie in years. I dislike personal anecdotes, so YouGov can fill in the data, best summarized by this headline: “Who killed movie theaters? Not the youths”. According to them, 64% of people aged 18-29 have seen a movie in the last year, but only 30% of 65-and-older. 20% of 18-29 have seen a movie in theaters in the last week and 42% in the last month. Here’s the polling data: Most concerning? Many Americans (17%) think theaters are a worse or much worse experience than watching films at home. Slight WRONG: Hadestown Opens Big A live theater capture of the Broadway musical, Hadestown, made $20 million at the US box office, which begs the question: was I wrong to be skeptical about musicals a few years ago? Yes and no. On the one hand, $20 million is a far cry from being “popular”, so yeah, the genre isn’t that popular overall and Hadestown is one of the more popular musicals from recent years (i.e. the “Taylor Swift Data Fallacy” in action). On the other, I doubt filming this cost all that much, and I don’t think that they spent much on marketing, so this is a good source of ancillary revenue. Smaller Updates WRONG: As I mentioned in a Streaming Ratings Report, I underestimated the budget for Enola Holmes 3. It probably cost more like $50 million, if not more. But... I’m not sure that it really matters? At sub-10 million hours, prices have to come down to make this work. WRONG: Netflix is giving Ink a 27-day in theaters! To quote the kids/YouTubers these days, let’s go! Now I might actually have a chance to see Danny Boyle’s latest in theaters. I’d complained about this in a “Coming Soon” section, but I was heartened to read that Netflix is giving multiple films longer theatrical windows this year. RIGHT: Netflix is sending 4-5 films per year to theaters. Netflix is slowly but surely sending more and more films to theaters, as I cautiously predicted earlier this year. For now, it’s just three big films and a number of awards contenders, but still, this is great news. And they’ll be releasing box office grosses! Just this week, Ted Sarandos confirmed that KPop Demon Hunters 2 will come to theaters (and my guess is it performs in the box office top ten at a minimum). WRONG: Angel has 3 million subscribers! How do I know this? Well, they told Deadline, who reported it. I marked this as “wrong”, since they’ve doubled their subscribers in one year but, you know, they don’t really have a hit film to speak of and they’re still losing money. WRONG: Furious was only renewed for one more season. I accidentally wrote “two more seasons” in my latest “Renewals, Cancellations, Un-Orders and Removals Update”. RIGHT: House of David is ending with its third season. In July, Prime Video renewed House of David for a third season, as I just wrote in my latest “Renewals and Cancellations” report. Well, now it’s ending after that third season. Why? As I’ve been writing, its viewership wasn’t great. I got feedback that this show didn’t cost very much, but it cost enough that its limited viewership didn’t save it. WRONG: Adults was a Hulu original! So I missed Adults when it first came out last year; I saw that it aired on FX and just assumed that it was a linear-first program. Turns out, it aired three episodes on FX, but binge-released the rest of its episodes the next day on Hulu. Huh. So I should have covered it last year! But I just wrote about it. 1 “When I was a kid in the 90s, if you wore a t-shirt to school that wasn’t too big and also wasn’t too small, but somehow didn’t quite fit, we’d say you were wearing an “extra-medium” shirt.” 2 As always, a huge exception is Disney, which barely makes anything original anymore.
Resident Evil Requiem Writer Teases DLC Plans, Immediately Says He Probably Shouldn't Have
Screenwriter Haris Orkin has teased plans for Resident Evil Requiem’s DLC.
Razer's Wolverine V4 Controller Is Overkill For Most Gamers, And That's The Point
Unless you're an esports pro, Razer's new Wolverine V4 controller is probably more controller than you need.
What We Really Know About the Russian ‘Plague’ Case
Even though many questions remain unanswered, the death probably isn’t cause for panic.
Students Use Forensic Science Skills in Escape Room
Hundreds of students from across the region put their problem-solving skills to the test this week during the Regional Science Consortium’s annual Forensic Science Escape Room. Elementary school students had just a few hours to figure out how someone died as part of a forensic science escape room activity. The Regional Science Consortium partnered with Mercyhurst University for the 10th year of the event, which is taking place at the Tom Ridge Environmental Center. It began Monday and runs through Thursday.Throughout the week, more than 250 students are working to solve murder mysteries using real forensic science techniques. Students must analyze the evidence, piece together clues and solve the crime before time runs out.Organizers said the event gives students interested in pursuing forensic science in college a firsthand look at what a career in the field could entail.Sarah Skelton, Special Gifts Coordinator at Iroquois, said the activity provides students with an opportunity to develop skills that can sometimes be difficult to practice in a traditional classroom. "It really helps them to work in teams and on critical thinking skills. Which, not that they don't get these opportunities, but it's hard sometimes in the classroom to develop those higher-level thinking skills”, said Skelton.Students also get a chance to learn how forensic science is used in real-life investigations. As Skelton explained, "What are the real-life applications? What would you actually see in a crime scene? How would you handle these types of forensic investigations? So it's really cool our kids get to see what opportunities are out there and possibly a career field one day."The popular event has grown over the years, with some students returning year after year. Organizers said watching those students grow and develop their interests is one of the highlights of the program.Jeanette Schnars, the Executive Director of the Regional Science Consortium said it's rewarding to see how students' interests evolve as they get older. According to Schnars, "How they have grown and matured and where their interests are going and maybe they aren't going into forensics, but if they are going into sciences or different disciplines, so it's really fulfilling to see how they have matured."One student who continues to enjoy the event is sixth-grader Mia Harvey of Iroquois. Harvey hopes to pursue a career in medicine and says the forensic science activities are helping her explore her interests, "One day I want to become a neurologist, and learning about the bones is probably going to help me."Harvey said her favorite part of the event is the real-life application of what she's learning. "While you are trying to find the clues, they teach real stuff that you would need to know”, said Harvey.Event organizers said if students are learning while having fun, then the program is accomplishing its goal. "Not only are they learning the science, but they are having fun with it too”, said Schnars.Adults will also have a chance to take part in the experience this Saturday during an adult version of the escape room, which will feature food, drinks and entertainment. For more information, click here.The Forensic Science Escape Room has become one of the Regional Science Consortium’s most popular events, with teachers signing up their students as soon as registration opens in August.
Google ‘Fitbit Edge’ reportedly costs around $180 as specs & features leak
A new leak reveals that Google’s upcoming Fitbit Edge tracker will probably have a price somewhere around $180 and offer...
Science Just Revealed the Worst Way to Eat a Meal (And You Probably Do It Every Day)
Eating the exact same meal alone is less healthy than eating it with other people, new research warns.
SnakePit Post-season GDT, #6
Probably safe to say that both results in the National League Division Series went in the way most readers of the SnakePit wanted, with the Padres and Dodgers both losing. The NL gets a travel day today, as the series relocate to San Diego and Atlanta respectively, before resuming on Wednesday. So, today, it’s the […]
This is Apple Music’s new logo, probably
Apple Music seems to be rolling out a new logo, as spotted in several places including iOS 27 beta 3, Apple Music Hall branding, and more.
Dead star likely birthed a new planet, in astronomical first
A white dwarf probably created a rare ‘second-generation’ planet.
“I’m probably way more confident than my surgeon, the …
“I’m probably way more confident than my surgeon, the …
The Science Behind a Simple Headache Trick People Swear By
A viral trend promoting the placement of hair claw clips on eyebrows has captivated millions seeking fast headache relief without prescription drugs. If you have spent any time scrolling social media lately, you have probably spotted people clamping plastic claw clips directly onto their faces. It looks like an eccentric comedy sketch, but videos demonstrating this unusual trick have racked up more than 9 million views. Desperate headache sufferers are flooding comment sections, calling the clip
This Sneaky App Is Probably Sucking Up Your iPhone Storage. Here's How To Free Up Space.
This easy fix will give you more data on your device so you can go back to screenshotting every meme you see.
Some of NC’s weirdest and worst political ads probably aren’t on your TV
We’ve all seen the ads in North Carolina’s U.S. Senate race, but they aren’t the only memorable ads airing right now. | Opinion
USMNT youngsters pass Mexico test with flying colors
By Charles BoehmYou’ve probably heard of the ‘Dos a Cero’ mythology within the US men’s national team’s fierce rivalry with Mexico, a nod to the 2-0 scoreline by which they’ve defeated El ...
Austin Wells Mistake Costs Yankees ALDS Game 1
They teach you this in Little League. “Don’t make the third out at third base,” says a father coaching the team of kids young enough to not yet realize that their dreams of making it to the major leagues are probably far fetched. Occasionally, though, those players make it to Major League Baseball. And every […] The post Austin Wells Mistake Costs Yankees ALDS Game 1 appeared first on HEAVY.
Samsung Galaxy Tab S12 Ultra vs Apple iPad Pro: Here's how they stack up
Choosing between these two powerhouse tablets is probably simpler than you think.
Good science requires much more than evidence
Empiricists believe that scientific theories are true only if they make correct empirical predictions: if we can't verify these predictions, then there is no reason to expect that they tell us anything about reality. However, Professor of Philosophy at King's College David Kyle Johnson argues that this is mistaken. In response to Bas van Fraassen, who has written on this subject for the IAI, he argues that we have many reasons for believing a theory to be true, such as it being parsimonious and having large scope — qualities which have been used throughout the history of science as criteria for judging theories. In 2024, Princeton philosopher Bas van Fraassen wrote a short article for IAI News entitled “Science Does not Describe Reality: The Limits and Benefits of Explanation.” At the time, I was working on two projects (a science book and a Great Course) that, when completed, would (among other things) defend science’s ability to describe reality. I wanted to write a response to van Fraassen, but the projects demanded too much of my attention. But now that those projects are complete, I am in a position to explain the objections to van Fraassen’s thesis. Summarizing van Fraassen’s argumentIn a nutshell, his argument is this: What scientists do is make predictions based on theories and then invite others to test to see whether those predictions are borne out. “If theory T is right, result R should happen in experimental condition C.” Many think that running an experiment that shows that R happens in condition C is proof that theory T is true (and should be believed). But, van Fraassen argues, that R happened in condition C is only a reason to think that R happens in condition C. That’s the only observable, or empirical, result we can actually see, so that is all that we are really justified in believing. (The underlying theory that made that prediction still may or may not be true.) That is why he calls those who accept his position “empiricists.”Before I explain what is wrong with this position, let me explain what it gets right. What van Fraassen Gets RightFirst, a theory correctly predicting the results of an experiment is not, strictly speaking, “proof” that the theory is correct. The basic line of reasoning is this:If the theory T is true, result R should happen. Result R did happen. Thus, theory T is true.In other words:“If T then R. R. Thus, T.”This is a deductively invalid, fallacious mode of reasoning, called “affirming the consequent.” Those premises do not guarantee that the conclusion follows. “If I am in Pennsylvania, then I am in the USA. I am in the USA. Thus, I am in Pennsylvania.” Clearly that argument doesn’t guarantee its conclusion; neither does the above argument.However, science is not a deductive method of reasoning; it is an inductive one. And inductive arguments merely try to raise the probability of their conclusion, not “prove” them for certain. Thus, the fact that an experimental result doesn’t prove a theory is true is irrelevant; it’s not supposed to. That is not what scientific reasoning is about.___If the hypothesis that something exists clearly provides the best explanation for what we can observe, then the belief that it exists is what is rational.___Second, it’s also true that a single experimental result doesn’t provide enough justification to believe that a theory is true. Scientists do not come to a consensus about whether a theory is true by looking at a single experiment; they look at all the evidence to determine where the preponderance of evidence points. The mere fact that I am in the USA raises the probability that I am in Pennsylvania, but not nearly enough to conclude that I am in Pennsylvania. However, if I am also regularly encountering people wearing Eagles and Phillies hats and seeing advertisements for Founding Father tours, I probably am. In the same way, a theory successfully predicting the outcome of one experiment is not enough to conclude that it is true; but if a theory makes a wide variety of predictions that are all vindicated by multiple experiments, performed by many different groups and people, all actively trying to prove the theory false (which is what good scientific experiments are designed to do)—that is a good reason to conclude that the theory is true. In other words, if you repeatedly try to prove something false but can’t, that is a very good indication that it isn’t. The problem of underdeterminationIn reply, those whom van Fraassen calls “empiricists” often point to the “problem of underdetermination.” For any given theory that makes successful predictions about what happens in experimental conditions, there are countless other possible theories that make exactly the same predictions—and since they do, the experimental evidence in question is just as much reason to accept any of those theories as it is to accept our original one. Thus, the argument goes, we have no way of knowing whether our original theory is true, or one of the other “predictively equivalent” theories is true. SUGGESTED VIEWING How Occam's Razor changed the world With Johnjoe McFadden As an example of underdetermination, philosophers often offer this example. The evidence of fossils seems to provide reason to conclude that the universe is quite old; ancient fossils are what the “ancient universe” hypothesis predicts. But it’s also possible that God created an ancient-looking universe 200 years ago, complete with a “fake” fossil record for us to find, to make it look old. The existence of fossils is what that theory predicts too. So, the argument goes, the fossil record can’t be used as evidence that the universe is ancient; the fossil record supports the “200-year-old ancient-looking universe” theory just as much. The problem of underdetermination points out that, for any theory with supporting evidence, we could invent another completely different theory that predicts exactly the same evidence, and thus undermine that evidence’s ability to support the original theory.But this “argument from underdetermination” betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what scientific reasoning is and how it works. To explain, let me use another rather strange (but very real and commonly discussed) philosophical thought experiment called “The Grue Problem.” The “Grue” ProblemSuppose I want to know what color emeralds are, so I observe a few, see that they all appear green, and form the theory that “all emeralds are green.” I thus predict that the next 100 emeralds I find will also appear to be green. And let’s say that happens, and so I thus conclude that my theory that all emeralds are green is true. Now, one might rightly point out that I don’t know for sure that all emeralds are green—I have not seen them all. Maybe some I haven’t found yet are blue. Fair enough. After all, we used to think that all swans were white, until we found some black ones. But let’s say that I go on a quest and collect every emerald in the universe—and, for the sake of the argument, let’s say I can do this, and can even know that I have every one of them. So, I collect them all, look at them all, and verify that they all appear green. Can’t I now rightly conclude that all emeralds are green?Inspired by the problem of underdetermination, a friend might argue that I cannot.Sure, they all appear green now—but there could be another kind of color called “grue.” Something is grue if it is green up to a certain point in time, but then spontaneously turns blue. And there could be an infinite number of “shades” of grue. Something that is one shade of grue will turn blue at noon today, but something that is another shade of grue will turn blue at noon tomorrow, etc. So yes, the emeralds appear green now; and since they haven’t turned blue yet, they are not some “past” shade of grue. But they might be some “future” shade of grue (e.g., they may turn blue at noon tomorrow). And since all future shades of grue are consistent with “being green up to this point in time,” the evidence you have is completely consistent with the notion that all emeralds are some future shade of grue, rather than green. Indeed, that they would appear green until now is what the “some future shade of grue” hypothesis predicts. So, we have just as much reason to conclude that all emeralds are some shade of grue as we do to conclude that they are green.You’re probably thinking “It’s not equally possible that the emeralds are grue; they are obviously green.” You are right! But explaining why your instinctive reaction to my friend’s argument is correct will help inform why van Fraassen’s “empiricist” is wrong and science actually does describe reality.The main mistake my friend makes is in thinking that the “empirical evidence” (of all the emeralds appearing green) is (or even should be) all I am using to draw the conclusion that all emeralds are green. It is not. I am also considering known facts about how colors typically work; things don’t usually change color, and when they do, they don’t do so suddenly, without cause, and all at once. So, even though the simple evidence of the emeralds all appearing green up to this point is consistent with them being some future shade of grue—that is even what the grue hypothesis “predicts”—it is still exceedingly unlikely that they are. The hypothesis that they are green is much more likely. Understanding science refutes the problem of underdetermination The misunderstanding about science that the “empiricist” pointing to “the problem of underdetermination” makes is similar to the one that my friend made. Science is not just about considering experimental evidence; in fact, it’s not even just about considering empirical evidence. As Ernan McMullin and many other philosophers of science have pointed out, the inference that makes science is “inference to the best explanation” (sometimes called “abduction” or “retroduction” by McMullin). While, depending on the circumstances, scientists use many different kinds of reasoning, science as a whole is, simply put, the process of considering multiple competing explanations and comparing them to certain criteria—explanatory criteria (the kinds of things explanations must be and do, by definition, to be a good explanation)—to see which explanation is the best.And these criteria do not deal only with empirical results. Yes, successful predictions raise the probability of a hypothesis, but it’s also the case that the more new assumptions a theory makes, the less likely it is to be true; every new assumption presents an opportunity for the theory to be false. (The fewer assumptions a theory makes, the simpler or “more parsimonious” it is said to be.) Likewise, the more existing evidence a theory contradicts, the less likely it is, because in order for a theory to be true, every piece of evidence it contradicts has to be somehow faulty. (The fewer established theories a new theory contradicts, the more “conservative” it is said to be.) And, obviously, the more something explains, the better explanation it is. (This is called having “scope.”) If a theory raises unanswerable questions, it’s not expanding our understanding, and thus is not wide-scoping. Scientists consider all these things when deciding which theory to accept, because the theory that adheres best to these explanatory criteria is most likely to be true.___the mere fact that a theory’s predictive success is why it “sticks around” or “becomes accepted” in the scientific community is not a reason to be skeptical about its truth.___The reason the grue hypothesis is no good is because it invents an entirely new kind of color—not just a new shade, but an entirely different category of color (a different way colors work)—and thus is not parsimonious. It raises unanswerable questions about how and why emeralds would just spontaneously change from green to blue (and thus does not have wide scope). And it contradicts what is already well established about how color works (and thus is unconservative).The theories that the problem of underdetermination points to do the same thing. Yes, the theory that God created an “ancient-looking universe” (complete with an ancient-looking fossil record) two hundred years ago is also consistent with the empirical evidence (of a fossil record) that presently exists; but that theory is monumentally unparsimonious (it requires many extra assumptions about infinite entities) and not wide-scoping (it raises unanswerable questions about why God would do such a thing). So, I can rationally conclude that it is false.Indeed, the history of science includes many examples of theories that were rejected because they lacked parsimony and/or scope, even before their falsity (and the truth of their competing theory) was confirmed by observation. As I point out in my book, geocentrism was rejected by the scientific community because it lacked parsimony, almost 200 years before the observation of parallax confirmed that the Earth moves around the sun. And the continuum theory of matter was completely rejected by 1860, because it couldn’t explain chemical reactions or organize matter into a periodic table, even though the experiments that eventually confirmed atomic theory weren’t even proposed until the 1870s. Solving the best of a bad lot problemIn response, the “empiricists” are likely to object, this time pointing to the “best of a bad lot” problem. “We have no reason to conclude that an explanation that has been shown to be better than others is true because we have no guarantee that the true theory was among those that we were considering.” If you have a “lot” (a collection) of poor explanations, even the best one is not true.The responses to this problem, however, are numerous. Peter Lipton argues that the set of hypotheses that scientists consider are not just randomly selected and thus unlikely to contain a theory that is true; they use existing knowledge to home in on what is most likely to be true. A doctor trying to explain abdominal pain is not going to bother wondering whether demons are causing it; they are going to stick with things like appendicitis and kidney stones, because they are most likely. Further, despite its name, inference to the best explanation is not just the process of comparing hypotheses and accepting the best one; we also want one that is a good explanation in its own right. If it’s not, we are going to keep looking until we find an explanation that is. And while that process does not guarantee that we will come across the exact truth, it’s very likely that the theory that emerges as the best will be at least approximately true, and thus we will be justified in believing it. And lastly, as I point out in my book, although many theories not based in scientific evidence (like geocentrism and continuum theory) have been completely overturned, science almost always progresses by the refinement of scientifically established theories—not their replacement. (Although our sun is not the center of the universe, heliocentrism was our first step in understanding the Earth’s true place in the universe.) So even if a theory we accept today may not be completely right, accepting it is a step on the journey toward the complete truth. The example of atomic theoryNow, it’s worth pointing out that most empiricists are not skeptical of all scientific theories; they are only skeptical of the ones that hypothesize the existence of “unobservables.” It’s not like they think that round Earth, heliocentrism, and germ theory are just useful (but untrue) “instruments” for making predictions about how to most efficiently navigate the seas, predict planetary motion, and treat diseases. They admit that the Earth actually is round, that the planets revolve around the sun, and that germs exist and cause disease. These facts and entities can be observed; the theories that suggest they exist are true. It’s only when theories start hypothesizing the existence of unobservables—like electrons, or quantum fields—that can’t be observed directly, that we should start doubting the theories’ truth. And to be fair to van Fraassen, in this published work, he doesn’t really say that we should doubt the truth of such theories. Only that scientific reasoning does not rationally force us to accept them as true. Skepticism, or agnosticism, he argues, is warranted. SUGGESTED READING Science is based in metaphor By Andrew Reynolds But the history of atomic theory throws a monkey wrench into that argument. Atoms used to be unobservable; again, scientists first accepted the theory that they exist because it had such grandiose explanatory power. But then atoms were seen with electron microscopes. They thus moved into the category of the observable. But this didn’t substantially change anything about what scientists were justified in believing; it certainly didn’t change any “atomic skeptics’” minds. It just confirmed what everyone already knew! If the hypothesis that something exists clearly provides the best explanation for what we can observe, then the belief that it exists is what is rational. The fact that the thing itself is not technically observable does not make doubting its existence rational.What’s more, the atoms were seen with an electron microscope. But electrons are themselves unobservable. How can an electron microscope reveal an atom if electrons are not real? This leads us to what is famously known as Hilary Putnam’s “miracle argument.” It’s (not) a miraclePhilosopher Hilary Putnam’s miracle argument is somewhat famous. Basically, he argued that a scientific theory being able to repeatedly make successful predictions—even about unobservables—without being at least approximately true would require a “miracle.” In other words, it would be such an improbable occurrence that it could not rationally be believed—the better explanation for why scientific theories about unobservables make the right predictions is because the unobservable entities and structures they hypothesize exist.Van Fraassen has addressed this argument. Indeed, in his original article, where he references Alison Gopnik’s point about orgasms not being “necessary for procreation” even though the desire for orgasm “drives the creation of progeny,” he is pointing to his own argument about how organisms are not naturally selected by evolution to get true beliefs; to the extent that belief-forming processes are selected for, the ones that are selected are the ones that are useful for survival—not the ones that produce true beliefs. In the same way, van Fraassen argues, scientific theories are accepted, not because they are true, but because they aren’t falsified; they make successful predictions; that’s what makes them “stick around.” So, the fact that they make successful predictions (and thus became accepted) is not a reason to think they are true.This argument is similar to C. S. Lewis’s “argument from reason,” which he used to argue against evolution: “The truth of evolution undercuts our ability to know that it is true.” Lewis’ argument famously failed; Elizabeth Anscombe, by Lewis’s own admission, demolished Lewis in a debate on the topic, and I have explained elsewhere why modified versions of the argument fail as well. In short, it’s because it fails to recognize that a belief-forming process can make an organism more likely to survive because it reliably produces true beliefs. It is therefore not the case that beliefs generated by naturally selected belief-forming processes are automatically false or unjustified.In the same way, the reason a theory “sticks around” could be because it’s not falsified, because it “makes correct predictions.” But the reason it makes correct predictions is most likely because it is true. (In pointing this out, I am echoing the arguments of Musgrave, Lipton, Psillos, and Kitcher, who refuted van Fraassen’s argument and analogy long before his 2024 article.) It would be a huge coincidence that it could do so without being true. And that is the point of Putnam’s miracle argument. Thus, contrary to van Fraassen’s suggestion, the mere fact that a theory’s predictive success is why it “sticks around” or “becomes accepted” in the scientific community is not a reason to be skeptical about its truth. ConclusionLet me close by saying something about the fact that empiricists don’t doubt the truth of all scientific theories, just the ones that hypothesize unobservables. In today’s society, this theory is dangerous to espouse publicly. The nuance between being skeptical about all of science, and just the highly technical theories about unobservables, is guaranteed to be lost to the average reader. And there is so much unjustified skepticism and doubt about the findings of science and experts that a headline like “Science Does Not Describe Reality” could easily fuel the anti-science movement, worsen climate change denial and cause the next pandemic.This is why I believe it was important to still respond to van Fraassen’s article, a full two years after he wrote it. Not only, as I have argued, does it represent a philosophically inaccurate view of how scientific reasoning works and what scientific reasoning can do, but it is a dangerous view to boot. It should thus be rejected.
September Monthly Review: Health MCP Guy?
For all the time I spend talking about APIs and data exchange, this newsletter has had embarrassingly little interoperability of its own. It’s old-school SaaS, baby - UI or bust. Not all of that is my fault! Substack, for all its popularity, is (as mentioned before) really frustrating as my system of record. The primary user it optimizes towards is the reader, whose attention feeds the app, the Notes feed, and the recommendation network that Substack is actually selling. Health API Guy is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe They’re falling into the same trap that Medium once sprinted into, albeit at a much more glacial speed. Younger generations may not remember (or never knew) it, but Medium once lured publications like The Ringer and Signal v. Noise onto its platform, only to lose them as it rebuilt itself around a paywall and an algorithmic feed. Substack’s original pitch circa 2020 was the antidote (you own your list), but every new feed feature chips away at it. I get it: writers are generic supply in the eyes of the Substack product team. Generic supply follows demand, so the consistent pressure on the PMs is to generate demand, which leads to every product cycle going toward discovery (Notes, recommendations, the app, live video). The end result lackluster author tools (laggy and broken analytics are truly crippling) all despite the premium price point. The archive is where it crosses from authorial gripes to actual reader impact, though. Across Substack and LinkedIn, I’ve published 1,218 posts and nearly 900,000 words since 2018. Substack’s native search can see only the 464 posts that live on Substack, and even there it’s woefully inadequate at surfacing relevant content (even for the guy who wrote it)! Readers have the same problem, writ large. Ask the Archive Fixing search (for both my readers and my own use) turned out to be extremely non-trivial, unfortunately: There’s no public API for readers to access content RSS exists for new content notification, but it only carries the 20 most recent posts and cuts paid ones off at the preview The only Substack MCP is an admin tool for analytics The export exists for authors, but it’s painfully awkward and slow. So I built something to work around that: the Health API Guy MCP. It’s a private MCP server holding the full text of everything I’ve written across Substack and LinkedIn. Add it to Claude or ChatGPT as a connector and you can ask things like: It pairs keyword search (for acronyms and case names, of which we have many) with semantic search. Every post is also labeled by topic, form, and court case, so you can pull a lawsuit’s (or multiple cases’) entire docket across Substack and LinkedIn in one query: Hail, Healthapiguyhydra This is also a bit of me eating my own cooking. I’ve spent the year arguing that headless healthcare is arriving and that developers want primitives over abstractions. Last week in Hail, Benihydra, I watched Salesforce plug its platform into Claude and bet that the records underneath outlive whatever interface sits on top: Salesforce must believe that the Hydra’s immortal head is the records, permissions, and business logic (in that they will survive whatever happens to the interface). It felt a bit hypocritical to keep my own archive behind a Substack search bar. The archive is the body. Substack is one head, and now whatever tool you might use is another. Will the EHRs follow my lead? Probably not imminently, but one can hope! Why Founding Members Only The MCP is available to Founding Member subscribers. A few reasons: It costs money and time to run. Hosting, the database, Clerk usage and AI compute for search and labeling are significant operational costs (that increase with usage). Substack gives me no way to automate access. There’s no API to check whether someone is a paid subscriber, so every user is manual operations for now. It’s a beta. We’ll need to improve things and parts will break. I’d rather they break for a small group of dedicated readers who will tell me about it. The Founding tier deserved a real benefit. Until now it was mostly a generous tip. Now it comes with something. If you’re already a Founding Member, reply to this email with the address you’d like provisioned. If you’re not and want in, upgrade here. Larger teams (such as companies) can get access too: group subscriptions at the Founding tier come with the group discount. The admin for the subscription can reply with the list of addresses to provision. Get 20% off a group subscription Pricing Founding membership is now a flat $200 a year, replacing the old suggested $150 that readers could adjust. Existing Founding Members will have access grandfathered in at their previous rate. Month in Review Articles Published Make Networks Dumb Again (Sep 11): AI is making old analog networks cheaper to use and flooding them with machine traffic in the process. A plea for agent-native rails with the intelligence at the endpoints, and for Washington to drag them to ubiquity. Interoperability, Unbuttoned (Sep 29): Interoperability is a series of workflows in a trenchcoat, and this post finally takes the trenchcoat off. A color-coded map shows which provider workflows went digital, which are fragmented, and which still run on fax. Video Content Antitrust’s System of Record Problem (Sep 3): The FTC’s investigation into Epic prompted a ninety-minute webinar, now posted with chapters and a smoothed transcript. We get into why market definition, missing B2B share data, and the SSNIP test leave antitrust poorly suited to systems of record, plus why information blocking may be doing more than any pending lawsuit. The Information Exchange: Cerner Milking Edition (Sep 18): This was so fucking fun. Ryan Tucker, Ryan Brickner, Brad Thorson, and I try an Around the Horn format, complete with points, penalties, and a mute button. We debate whether Oracle Health is dead, who would actually buy Cerner (IBM enters the chat), p(Doom), and why the front desk still hands you a clipboard. Regulatory Ask Not What Your Network Can Do (Sep 23): CDC’s RFI on public health data intermediaries lists use cases already served, unevenly, by eCR, lab reporting, IZ Gateway, and syndromic surveillance. The real opportunity sits in one question about AI: a network that can handle the next emergency without another interface project. Court cases Particle v. Epic: The Naughty Schoolteacher (Sep 4): After a summer-long vigil, the answer on Epic’s early summary judgment bid is two paragraphs and a remedial assignment. Particle advances to the next grade, and market definition gets another year of discovery. The Epic Discovery Files (Sep 8): Texas’s motions to compel arrive with a 251-page appendix of requests, objections, and meet-and-confer letters with Cravath. Inside: Epic using generative AI for document review, denied interoperability requests in scope, and Noerr-Pennington raised against lobbying discovery. Epic v. Health Gorilla: “Working as Designed” (Sep 9): Epic wants nothing to do with the data breach MDL, and explaining why puts fresh discovery on the public docket. The spiciest allegation: Health Gorilla told GuardDog to scrub its law firm business from its website instead of cutting off access. Veeva v. Epic: Legal Bypass Surgery (Sep 15): Veeva asks the Wisconsin Supreme Court to skip the Court of Appeals, while law professors and three policy groups line up as amici. Meanwhile, Epic’s lawyers apologize for another round of citation errors, including a quote that never existed. Texas v. Epic: Behind the Black Bars (Sep 17): The court portal served up Epic’s unredacted filings, revealing a $5 million document review budget and the AI workflow behind it. Also inside: the 200-plus company names Texas wants searched, and one very expensive Zoom invitation. OpenEvidence v. Doximity: Consequences Will Follow (Sep 25): OpenEvidence tells the court it will not comply with a discovery order, and its own lawyers at Quinn Emanuel say they won’t defend the choice. Add years of Slack reported unrecoverable, and Rule 37 sanctions come into view. Health Tech Keeps Choosing Violence (Sep 28): Doximity moves to end OpenEvidence’s case, Epic asks Texas to show its work, and a sleepy Audacious Inquiry patent fight sprouts antitrust and information blocking counterclaims. The main event is a long-sealed Cognizant v. Infosys ruling that hints where system of record antitrust claims can survive. EHRs One Verb for Oracle Health (Sep 14): Oracle’s earnings call quantifies every data center to the decimal point, while Oracle Health gets a single verb: “accelerate.” Panning the few healthcare mentions turns up an agentic care management system, a research-to-care ledger play, and the question of whether healthcare gets Larry’s patience. Epic’s Forretress Under Siege (Sep 30): Judy Faulkner tells a panel Epic paused hundreds of projects to harden its software and calls it a “shame,” while a spokesperson insists the roadmap hasn’t changed. Project Glasswing, a Pokémon-branded QAN sprint, and a trove of Jodel grievances reconcile the two Epics and preview the Jevons paradox coming for all software. Industry Analysis Scanning for a Network (Sep 1): Scan.com raises $220M to build the imaging network labs never got, speedrunning Zocdoc’s consumer-to-B2B pivot. Its wedge to network density may be the most American one available: personal injury litigation. The Front Desk Wants the Damn Whole Building (Sep 16): Hello Patient buys Converse Health, pushing its AI front desk into referrals, chart work, and prior auth. The copilot categories keep blurring, and your distribution partner is still your final boss. Cross-industry Comparisons A Different Patchwork Quilt (Sep 10): Healthcare loves to envy open banking, but the US version has no mandate, a toll booth at Chase, and data quality problems of its own. The grass isn’t greener; it’s another American patchwork quilt, and perhaps a worse one. Hail, Benihydra (Sep 21): Salesforce brings its platform into Claude, Slack, and its own agent, inviting the interfaces that might replace it. Cut off one head and more grow back, so long as the records underneath stay put. Living on A Trade Secret Prayer (Sep 22): Six credit unions are suing Fiserv, the Epic of core banking, by claiming their own member records as trade secrets. Banking has no Cures Act, so its lawyers reach for legal alchemy that healthcare has already tried. Other News None this month External Media Nabla Accelerate NYC: I kicked off fall conference season at Nabla’s Accelerate event in New York, where Delphine Groll opened by asking the room to picture the company it wants to become and the one it doesn’t. I liked her framework of bureaucracy, fear, and ego as the blockers. I also love vendor conferences/events in general - different vibe than industry biggies. Healthcare 101 with Nikhil Krishnan: I briefly guest lectured Out-Of-Pocket’s Healthcare 101 class. Appreciated Nikhil’s takeaways cover whether AI doctors can query HIEs, why healthcare’s data-liberation rules beat most industries’, and the hi-res graphic is in the comments. HCN: Epic Probed by the FTC: I joined the HCN guys to talk through the FTC’s investigation into Epic. Cedric’s new hairdo was an unexpected plot twist. The episode also covers MFN drug pricing, healthcare M&A and Eli Lilly’s acquisition streak. Fall Conferences: At eHealth Exchange’s Annual Meeting in Austin on Oct 27, I’ll moderate a panel on the tensions between AI, HIEs, and timely patient access with Jean Ross (Primary Record), Therasa Bell (Kno2), Byron Crowe (Doctronic), and Michael Marchant (Freenome). Here’s the rest of my schedule if you want to meet up: CommonWell (Redwood Shores, CA): Oct 13-14 Will be participating in a fun Jeopardy event Open@Epic (Madison, WI): Oct 20-23 Will be enjoying Verona, Willy Street, and other local adventures eHealth Exchange and Sequoia Project (Austin, TX): Oct 27-29 Yeehaw HLTH (Vegas): Nov 15-18 Groundhog Day, Venetian Edition RSNA (Chicago): Nov 30-Dec 2 See me at “Governing AI in Breast Imaging: What Health Systems Are Actually Doing” Digital Health Counsel 2026 AI Summit (Seattle): December 2-3 Will likely be speaking to a bunch of lawyers about information blocking Posts I Liked ChatGPT’s Epic integration: game changer or nothing burger?: Joshua Liu, MD offers five thoughts on OpenAI’s Epic launch, starting from the point that it rides the same open APIs available to anyone. He argues read-only access leaves ordering to Art and the ambient startups, and asks why HCA is piloting it alongside Commure. He’s sorta a must-follow at this point - consistently excellent, thought-provoking takes. Epic, Lilly, and the Discovery pass: Seth Chaney reads Epic’s first major Discovery deal (with Eli Lilly), as well as its revised developer terms on commercial displays, as the pipe finally opening between EHRs and pharma. Life sciences and health continue to collide. Scott Rossignol on EHR payer platforms and ePA fees: Scott argues the top ambulatory EHR vendors are turning the prior auth mandate into a per-member-per-year toll on payers, for an API whose operating cost has nothing to do with covered lives. His fix is two lines of regulatory text: put the CRD/DTR/PAS certification criteria in the Base EHR definition, and bring payer-facing ePA connectivity under § 170.404’s cost-based fee rules. It’s a good solution. Health API Guy is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe
Barcola: “I’m Probably in Trouble”
Big “if I speak I’m in trouble” energy except he totally spoke.
Seedy K’s Peerless Pigskin Prognostications: Week V
Back in the day, when more pliable and adventurous, I probably would have ventured into the middle of that crush at B & B, if only to hear Red Clay Strays. But I have more awareness in my dotage of personal space and transmittable afflictions, music junkie that I remain. But, believe me, Brandon Coleman, […]
Swiss 'probably a league apart' from Scotland
Switzerland have "a ridiculously talented squad" who are "probably a league apart" from Scotland at present as the sides prepare to meet in the Nations League on Tuesday, according to football analyst John Walker. Following their 3-0 win in North Macedonia, Switzerland are the second test of Sebastien Pocognoli's reign as head coach after their 0-0 draw in Slovenia. "If Switzerland had faced the Scotland side in the first half, we wouldn't have had a second half we could have come back from," Walker said on the BBC's Scottish Football Podcast.
Primetime Review: That’s Entertainment?
If you decide to see Lance Oppenheim’s Primetime, it’s important to remember the title as you watch. Yes, this is a biopic of sorts about Chris Hansen and his work on To Catch a Predator, but it is more accurately about the quest for fame and using people’s trauma to attract ratings. True crime entertainment continues to have a prominent place in many people’s television habits, and this film asks us to examine what that means both for those whose stories have become our viewing pleasure and those of us watching. Primetime starts as Chris Hansen (Robert Pattinson) is told that his show, To Catch a Predator, is moving to a 9 PM spot opposite LOST. Chris and his producer, Andie (Merritt Wever), see this as an opportunity to make the program even more sensational, looking for bigger, more horrific predators. As part of their plan, they hire a young actor, Dan Plum (Skyler Gisondo), to play “Decoy Dan,” the person who greets the would-be predators who were catfished by Xavier Von Erck (Matthew Maher). Oppenheim, along with writers Ajon Singh and Luke Dittrich, is less concerned with an accurate retelling of the show as much as they are interested in interrogating the why of it all. That decision sometimes leaves Primetime feeling less like a biopic and more like a satirical look at the nature of programming like this. Visually, the movie is impressive. Oppenheim uses light and color effectively to cast Hansen as both villain and savior. Pattinson plays Hansen in an almost comical manner, as we see him wake his two young sons to watch a clip of the show, just to brag that he was moving into a prime spot on television. Even Andie struggles to accept a “nice” job when there is so much more fame to be found producing salacious true-crime content. Wever does an excellent job showing how the hunger for fame is not just in front of the camera, but in every aspect of the production. The heart of the movie, and the standout performance, belongs to Gisondo as Dan Plum. He is someone who just wants to get enough hours to be admitted into the Screen Actors Guild, and stumbles into this job without really knowing what it is. Throughout the film, we watch him suffer one trauma after another, ending with him witnessing the suicide of a District Attorney who is about to become the next unwitting star of Hansen’s show. If there is a sympathetic character in Primetime, it is Decoy Dan, and Gisondo plays him brilliantly. If you’re a fan of programming like To Catch a Predator, then Primetime will probably make you feel uncomfortable, and I think it’s worth sitting with that feeling and examining why we turn on shows that display the worst of humanity while we judge from our couches. Yes, it is correct to want to see people who would hurt children brought to justice, but perhaps it shouldn’t be something that we watch as entertainment. Rating: 3.5/5 This review originally appeared in The Dominion Post on September 25, 2026. MacGuffin or Meaning: Film & TV Reviews and Reflections is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe
Metal Gear Solid Moves From PlayStation To ESP32
If you haven’t heard of Metal Gear, you probably haven’t played video games these last few decades. The original Metal Gear dates back to 1987 and launched on the MSX, but the real rise…
WATCH: Trump says Perdue 'was probably talking about Taiwan' in saying Trump offered Xi arms sales
Scanning the waiver wire for intriguing options
The Penguins would probably figure to not use waivers to boost their lineup, given all the depth they already have. However with four players placed on IR yesterday plus the statuses of Bryan Rust (injured) and Andrei Kuzmenko (personal) still up in the air for the start of the season, the waiver wire could hold […]
NC State a 6.5-point underdog to Louisville
NC State dips back into conference play with the toughest opponent on its schedule this season, the Louisville Cardinals. It would have been a good idea to come into this one with a record better than 2-2, but Louisville is probably thinking the same thing. The Cardinals are coming off a surprising three-point home loss […]
Flock cameras are creepy. They might still be worth it.
We probably shouldn’t de-Flock the police.
Art that serves others: How a Harnett County muralist is making a lasting mark in her community
Van Goat Studios, which has been operating since 2019, has allowed Johnson to express herself and reflect the spirit of local communities through murals. Photo provided by Elyse Johnson.Elyse Johnson of Van Goat Studios in Dunn wants to spread her artistry and make a lasting mark in her community. Van Goat, which has been operating since 2019, has allowed Johnson to express herself through murals and decorating electrical boxes in the urban landscapes of North Carolina. On top of traditional mural painting, Johnson offers what she calls “portable murals,” an option tailor-made for structure owners who do not want to commit to a design for their wall.“A contractor builds a framed piece of wood, and then they can frame the ‘mural’ onto the wood, whether it’s into their building, whether it’s interior or exterior,” Johnson said. The beginnings of Johnson’s journey into establishing Van Goat Studios reflect the teachings she wants artists to take away today: everything is a learning opportunity. When she started Van Goat, she shared it was a joint venture with a business partner. “I mainly did that because I didn’t feel like I was ready to go and do this on my own,” Johnson said. Her business partner eventually dropped out of the project, deciding she wanted to pursue other forms of art. That is when Johnson was thrust into growing her business on her own during and in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. “I had built up my confidence enough to go out and reach new heights,” she said. “And I was probably one of the few that benefited from COVID.”The moment presented a silver lining for Johnson. One of her first projects was a Farmers Day mural for the town of Coats. “When COVID-19 hit, Coats was not able to hold their annual festival, so they had a little bit of savings. They decided they wanted to do something for their community without getting anyone sick,” Johnson said.From there, word of mouth spread. Now, Johnson has an organic way of approaching projects. “Like a lot of muralists, if I feel inspired by a building, I will just go up and talk to that building owner and tell them a mural is something they should consider,” Johnson said. But above all, Johnson says she wants art to be accessible to everyone. Johnson said she is trying to stick to projects that benefit “the little guys.” “I’m not trying to go for a project in downtown Raleigh to get the eight-foot-tall building,” Johnson said. “I’m not trying to go to those major cities and get those huge buildings for two reasons: one, I don’t want to go that high; two, my passion really lies with the small guys.” But due to financial constraints and the material reality of art commerce, that requires open communication, she added. “I don’t want to just snowball you with this huge price, and then you just shut me down because it wasn’t what you were thinking,” Johnson said. “At the same time, I am an advocate for the arts, so I’m not going to give you a $10,000 mural when you’re only going to pay $5,000.” There is a healthy balance in explaining the artistic process and working with clients and the surrounding community, Johnson said.“Your municipality invested this, and this is why they invested this, and this is how it’s going to help and improve your community,” she noted. “Same thing when I’m talking to a small business. You asked for me to come at you with this that is outside your budget. How do we make this still your same exact goal, but within your budget lines?” Johnson also provides lessons to aspiring artists. She does so with a mission: how do you master the balance between being a great artist and a competent business owner? “We still do art lessons, but I’m also going to give you business scenarios,” she noted.One of the scenarios she has come up with for her students is a T-shirt competition. “The kids have to think about ‘okay, I can’t just draw whatever I want on a T-shirt. I need to think about what colors Miss Elyse likes. What does Miss Elyse’s logo look like? What would Miss Elyse like?’” Johnson said. “So the design needs to be around that kind of concept.” As Johnson looks toward the future of Van Goat Studios, she is thinking of time, longevity and succession. Johnson is a new mom, which she said has shaped how she sees the future of the studio.“I still want my name and my business out there continuing, so that when my daughter is of age and she can be more independent, then I can be out there doing more and more,” Johnson said. “I would love to get a student to pass this on to, or an intern. I would love for this business to be passed on to the next generation and let them go.”
Giant, feathered dinosaur with massive claws and tons of teeth found in China
But don't worry, this Cretaceous behemoth probably ate plants.
Giant, feathered dinosaur with massive claws and tons of teeth found in China
But don't worry, this Cretaceous behemoth probably ate plants.
Nebraska vs Michigan State
Big Ten play! I am probably wearing a suit and tie by now. I wonder if I’ll get to watch the game in any way. I bought a Starlink mobile just to get internet at this place we’re going to. I hope it works. HOW TO WATCH Time: 4:00pm CST Location: Memorial Stadium, Lincoln, NE Surface: Hellas Turf […]
6 Supplements You Probably Don’t Need to Take
The supplements you should take depend on your health, diet and medications. Here’s why some popular picks may not be necessary.
New study finds the human brain may be 'two existing neural systems' packed into one skull
"Having the brain as one organ would probably be more efficient."
Ben Affleck says Jennifer Garner was ‘very wise’ to turn down playing his wife in new movie
The actor joked that the decision was “probably for the best,” adding, “That lesson’s been learned.”
🌍 Sixth team in seven years: national coach goes global
Many of you will probably remember the man in the white shirt with the top button undone who seems to be standing on the touchline for a different team at every World Cup.Well, your impression isn’t...
'I would encourage patience with Wirtz'
"Liverpool fans were naturally expecting the finished product to arrive and Florian Wirtz probably isn't that just yet," says Liverpool podcaster Josh Williams, who also admits the 23-year-old isn't living up to his £116m price tag. Wirtz has made 55 appearances for the Reds, scoring seven goals and contributing 11 assists, since penning a five-year deal to move to Anfield from Bayern Leverkusen in June 2025.
Donny Osmond keeps the music going with Vegas residency extension
Donny Osmond is staying in Las Vegas a little longer. The entertainer has extended his Harrah's residency through June of next year and says it's "probably my favorite show I've ever done."
Donny Osmond keeps the music going with Vegas residency extension
Donny Osmond is staying in Las Vegas a little longer. The entertainer has extended his Harrah's residency through June of next year and says it's "probably my favorite show I've ever done."
Is Matt LaFleur on the hot seat with the Packers?
Matt LaFleur remains one of the NFL's best coaches but he probably really needs a good season to stay on as Packers coach.
49ers Named Potential Trade Destination for Browns Veteran
The San Francisco 49ers went the veteran free agent route and signed Brandin Cooks to bolster their wideout depth. However, Cooks turns 33 on Sept. 25, and there’s a reason he was a free agent up until this point.Moreover, the question San Francisco is probably asking itself is: How much does Cooks have left in […] The post 49ers Named Potential Trade Destination for Browns Veteran appeared first on HEAVY.
Andoni Iraola's top target makes so much sense for Liverpool
Liverpool may have welcomed four new players through the Anfield doors over the summer but, there are still a couple of areas among their ranks that need upgrading. Their midfield is probably their wo...
“Kevin is probably maybe the greatest plug and play …
“Kevin is probably maybe the greatest plug and play …
Earth's closest alien life probably isn't very advanced, says new study
Potential plant life may be a key indicator for exoplanet evolutionary timelines.
Hairy feet, red eyes: Salish Sea reveals two sea spider species new to science
If you're swimming in the Salish Sea late at night and feel a skittering along your calves, tiny hairy feet tip-tapping their way higher and higher toward your face, don't worry—it's probably just the ...
Are your medical records updated? Probably so, thanks to Delaware Health Information Network
Truth be told, we all can be a little scatterbrained about our own healthcare. When a doctor asks about medications we once took or lab tests from long ago, we scratch our heads, make our best guesses, and wonder why someone doesn’t come up with a database that instantly keeps our health records up-to-date. As […]
Schalke 04’s Maximilian Wöber reflects on remarkable ÖFB comeback
Maximilian Wöber probably could not have scripted the moment much better. Schalke 04 were clinging to a 2-1 lead away at Union Berlin deep into stoppage time when the Austrian defender found himself ...
What Carlos Rodon gem does for Yankees’ postseason rotation
The Yankees probably will be playing the Red Sox in a best-of-three Wild Card Series when the postseason begins next week.
Trump says judge ‘probably will’ rule in media’s favor in lawsuit over White House access
So this is why Chris Hansen is upset about his portrayal in 'Primetime
Robert Pattinson is riveting as the host of 'To Catch a Predator' but viewers probably should take this version of events with many grains of salt.
One of 2026's Best-Rated PS5 Games Is Out Today, and You Probably Don't Even Know It
Well Dweller opens to 90+ critic reviews
Everything You Know About Political Violence Is Probably Wrong
Public disagreement about whether political violence is rising and who is responsible for it stems not from ideology alone but from competing definitions about what should be counted.
Is 50 the new 60?
Subscribe TL;DR: Younger generations are showing signs of worse health compared to earlier-born cohorts at the same age This backward “drift” is showing up both in mortality risk and chronic disease Worsening trends in obesity and diabetes are the most consistent signals Taking the long view, we’ve made astonishing gains in health and life expectancy in the last century. Global average life expectancy has more than doubled from 32 years in 1900 to 73 years in 2024. (But don’t forget, there were still old people when life expectancy was 32). As people lived longer, they also generally lived healthier along the way. It turns out that avoiding things that can kill you early, like malnutrition and lots of childhood infections, also keeps you healthier later in life. In a classic 2004 paper, Finch and Crimmins proposed that cohorts of children who benefited from fewer early life infections had less lifetime exposure to inflammation and cardiovascular disease later in life, accelerating mortality improvements at older ages. Poor nutrition in the womb has also been linked to a higher risk of later chronic disease. The upshot is that improvements in childhood health can pay dividends many decades later. The combination of better living conditions (nutrition, sanitation) and medical advances (antibiotics, vaccines, blood pressure meds, etc) meant that people’s healthy lifespan generally expanded, even as they lived longer. Aging researchers call this best-case scenario “compression of morbidity”—meaning we delay the onset of disease and disability even faster than the years of life we are adding. During my 20+ year research career, we could generally bank on the idea that younger generations would not only live longer but also keep getting healthier along the way. “60 is the new 50” as they say… Enter “Generational Health Drift” Sadly, this expectation of steady progress may be changing. You’ve probably heard that US life expectancy gains have slowed to a crawl in the past couple of decades. Mortality improvements are also slowing (though less dramatically) in many other high-income countries (you can read more about that in a review paper I wrote here). Mortality is a very blunt health measure, but it is often a good barometer for the broader population health trends happening underneath. And we are now seeing that younger generations may be in worse health at similar ages compared to earlier born cohorts. My collaborator Prof. George Ploubidis at University College London coined this worsening health in more recently born cohorts “generational health drift.” “Generational health drift” is bad news on multiple fronts. Most obviously, we don’t want our health progress to go backward. But the timing is also bad, since our populations are aging. In demographic terms, “population aging” means that the proportion of the population at older ages (i.e >65 years) is increasing. Fun demography fact: Current population aging is not due to the recent declines in the birth rates making the news, but declines in fertility decades ago, after the “baby boom.” As baby boomers reach older ages, the smaller cohorts behind them mean the percentage of older adults will increase. For example, the share of the population age 65 and older in the US increased from 12.4% in 2004 to 18.0% in 2024. This story of population aging was written long ago. Many worry that population aging will put pressure on health care and pension systems. But if people reach older ages in better health than in years past, those fiscal pressures would be less dire than projected. Healthy older people can also continue to contribute to society in many valuable ways, including paid work, caregiving, community service….even high political office 🤷. On the flip side, if younger generations reach retirement age in worse health and with more disabling conditions, this could magnify the societal challenge of population aging. Evidence for worsening generational health A recent paper that I LOVED in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Dr. Leah Abrams and colleagues examined which birth cohorts (aka generations) were behind worsening US mortality. Behold the Lexis diagram (cue swooning demographers). Calendar time is on the x-axis, age on the y-axis. Birth cohorts can be followed over time as they age on the diagonal lines moving up and to the right. This figure plots the year-on-year % change in all-cause mortality at a given age. Green shading indicates mortality improvements over time, white is stagnation, and gray shading indicates worsening mortality. Following the diagonal line for those born in 1950, you can see a noticeable shift from green to gray that follows this cohort for most of their lives. This gray shading shows generally worsening mortality for the 1950 to 1959 birth cohorts compared to their predecessors across all ages. Concerningly for my GenX and elder millennial peeps, there was also a deterioration in mortality for birth cohorts born in the 1970s and 1980s, visible as dark gray areas at ages 30 to 45 during the 2010s. While some of these mortality changes reflect specific shocks such as the opioid epidemic, most deaths still occur from major causes of death such as cardiovascular disease and cancer. For cancer, the gray in the top left corner of the figure below reflects the legacies of smoking for older cohorts, followed by a period of green with improvements in cancer mortality as smoking rates declined. But the white/gray shading in the bottom right corner highlights a stagnation and reversal of the cancer trends, with cohorts born around 1970 to 1985 experiencing worsening cancer mortality. This deterioration was most noticeable for colon cancer mortality, possibly linked to obesity or dietary factors. Not just dying more, but less healthy along the way. A recent paper by Dr. Laura Gimeno of University College London (of which I am a co-author), found evidence that more recently born cohorts in Great Britain have stagnating or worsening health. A stylized picture of what“generational health drift” might look like: The review paper found: Rates of childhood overweight and obesity were highest among Gen Z. Rates of diabetes in the 40s almost doubled from 3.1% among the Baby Boomers to 5.9% in Generation X. Gen Z reported higher rates of poor mental health in adolescence compared to earlier-born groups. These UK results are consistent with studies showing worsening health across generations in the US as well. A 2021 US study found that more recently born cohorts had worse biological markers (like blood pressure and blood sugar) than earlier generations at the same age. A separate 2022 study of Americans aged 50 and over found that more recently born generations had a higher number of chronic diseases, with younger age of disease onset. A 2024 Lancet paper found that in the US, women born in 1945 had 33% obesity prevalence at age 50, rising to 48.2% for women born in 1970 turning 50. So what’s going on, and can we turn it around? We don’t have a definitive answer for what’s causing the deteriorating health of younger cohorts, but circumstantial evidence points to worsening trends in obesity and diabetes in both the US and UK. Remember that cohort trends reflect lagged effects of early environments, and younger generations have faced both earlier onset and more severe obesity across their lifetimes. Despite these very concerning trends, the future is not set in stone. We’ve reversed poor generational health trends before: drops in smoking are a major reason cancer and heart disease deaths fell so dramatically in recent decades. GLP-1 drugs may finally turn the tide against rising rates of obesity and diabetes, though it is still early days. But things could also get worse…for example from a return to higher levels of childhood infectious diseases that can have a lasting impact on health. See for example: [ ](https://jenndowd.substack.com/p/dont-you-forget-about-measles-the) [ Don’t You Forget About Me(asles): The Virus That Erases Immune Memory ](https://jenndowd.substack.com/p/dont-you-forget-about-measles-the) Jenn Dowd, PhD · March 24, 2025 [ Read full story ](https://jenndowd.substack.com/p/dont-you-forget-about-measles-the) Even as an optimist, emerging data on the “generational health drift” has my full attention. For most of my research career, we took it for granted that each generation would be healthier than the last. But if present trends continue, **50 could be the new 60….**and Gen Z celebrities will soon look older than Paul Rudd :). Stay well, Jenn Share the Health! If you found this post useful, please share it with a friend. Share
How lip-syncing to AI let Forced Entertainment ‘play the game of theatre’
Today we have a fascinating piece by long-time Forced Entertainment fan Ben Kulvichit, speaking to Tim Etchells about their latest show Cold Sweat, how they are integrating lip-sync and AI voices into their work, the question of ‘authenticity’ on stage, and how lip-sync has even opened the door for them to make “something a little bit like drama”. This piece is a paid partnership with the Southbank Centre, where you can see Cold Sweat next month – we’re very grateful to the Southbank Centre for their ongoing support for Exeunt. Holly Williams ‘It was immediately interesting and uncanny’ **By Ben Kulvichit** “Is the microphone on?” So goes one of the opening lines of Signal to Noise, delivered by a human performer lip-syncing to an AI-generated voice. The voice is American, cheery but sluggish, slowed down into a gelatinous drawl. It repeats ad infinitum in a farce of stuckness; an answer never materialises. I find myself asking the same question as I hop on a Google Meet call with Tim Etchells, the artistic director of Forced Entertainment. We spend five or ten minutes frowning at each other, muting and unmuting, me gesticulating in semaphore into my webcam, checking if I am coming through now, restarting the laptop. To Etchells, I appear exaggeratedly mouthing words, my voice missing. In this gloopy purgatory of broken communication, life imitates art imitates life imitates art. We try a Zoom instead. Forced Entertainment, the pioneering British theatre company who have been at the avant-garde of performance since the 1980s, turned an interesting artistic corner with Signal to Noise, created on the occasion of their 40th anniversary. The whole performance employed this lip-sync technique to AI voices; on the face of it a left-field move from a company whose identity has long been grounded in the earthy, immediate presences of its performers and its unassuming, low-tech approach to theatricality. The technique, however, turned out to provide the company with a “rich new seam” of artistic enquiry, and has now spawned a trilogy of works. The second instalment, Cold Sweat, plays at Sheffield Theatres, Southbank Centre, and Lancaster Arts in October, while the third part, Everything Must Go, has been touring in Europe and is slated to come to the UK in 2027. As is often the case with Forced Entertainment shows, the main conceit for this work didn’t arrive until quite late. They were “four or five weeks into rehearsals for Signal to Noise,” Etchells recalls, and getting nowhere. Away from rehearsals, he had been playing around with feeding “weird texts” to AI voices to see how they would cope with them – “basically for my own amusement” – and was compelled by the uniformly “serviceable, benign, good-natured” tone they would read in, no matter how poetic, fractured or experimental the writing. On a hunch, he brought some examples into rehearsals and the performers gave lip-syncing a go. “It was immediately interesting and uncanny,” he recalls, with the performers having to deal in the moment with the problem of mapping themselves onto another artificial ‘performer,’ which itself was dealing with the problem of a very human text. “Almost all the writing for these projects would be useless to us unless it was done in this way,” says Etchells. “We wouldn’t know what to do with it. It’s too poetic. It’s too fictional. It’s too tangled.” But exploring lip-syncing along to the text has opened “an enormous reservoir of ways of thinking about writing and performing.” Subscribe to Exeunt, and get two in-depth pieces on theatre a week, direct to your inbox Subscribe Forced Entertainment have long been sifting through the detritus of popular culture, from daytime TV to end-of-the-pier vaudeville, magic acts and clown shows, to find frameworks for their own unusual entertainments. Lip-syncing, then, makes sense for them to experiment with. As a mode of performance, it’s wired into popular consciousness through pop stars trying to convince stadium audiences of their liveness, or those same voices as channeled through the made-up lips of contestants on RuPaul’s Drag Race, or movie dialogue spreading virally through the host bodies of TikTok users. For Etchells, lip-syncing is often about “approaching real voices and trying to take on their aura,” subsuming that original human presence into yours. “There’s a very basic, elemental sort of theatre magic to it, produced in this very easy way.” This broad approach resonates with instances of lip-syncing within contemporary performance, too. In works like Re-Member Me and Showmanism, performance artist Dickie Beau acts as a kind of spirit medium for archival recordings (this process of re-membering – as in, giving corporeal form to voices – relies on his masterfully precise actor’s technique), while Frankie Thompson is similarly possessed by a host of characters ranging from a nine-year-old Jacob Rees-Mogg to Cliff Richards, all of whom she finds compellingly nauseating, in the exorcism ritual that is her latest show, Horrible Things. What’s different about Forced Entertainment’s use of lip-syncing is that here, there is no original presence to be channeled. The performers are instead taking on what Etchells describes as “the voices of nobody,” or rather the “phantasmic, aggregated echoes” of the many many voices on whose data the AI has been trained, and which are now conjuring into existence words they never actually said. There is a sort of mournful, empty quality to these voices, having “washed up” far away from the people they originally belonged to, to find themselves in stranger’s mouths listing objects, wondering if anyone can hear them and glitching in interminable loops. There is a cold, sad anonymity to it all. Etchells remarks that occasionally the software company he used has notified him that particular people are withdrawing their voices from the platform, instructing him to cease use of those voices. Using these technologies in performance certainly brings up ethical questions around digital rights, consent, identity and ownership, although in the grand scheme of things, Etchells is fairly blasé about it: of all the purposes someone’s voice might be put to without their knowledge, “an avant-garde performance is probably the least of their worries.” [ ](https://exeuntmagazine.substack.com/p/frankie-thompson-horrible-things-essay-mental-health-compulsive-behaviours-pleasance-courtyard-soho-theatre) [ Frankie Thompson: How I manage my own ‘horrible things’ at the Edinburgh Fringe ](https://exeuntmagazine.substack.com/p/frankie-thompson-horrible-things-essay-mental-health-compulsive-behaviours-pleasance-courtyard-soho-theatre) Exeunt · Aug 25 [ Read full story ](https://exeuntmagazine.substack.com/p/frankie-thompson-horrible-things-essay-mental-health-compulsive-behaviours-pleasance-courtyard-soho-theatre) For the performers, though, lip-syncing to these strange, artificial voices is an odd task, requiring them to bend their live, human presence into the shapes produced by machines. Politically, it mirrors processes that are already at play in the continued computational automation of human life. Etchells brings up James Bridle’s writings on new technologies as a reference point: one example Bridle gives is of “chaotic storage”, a logistics technique employed by Amazon fulfilment centres whereby items are stored not according to traditional methods of categorisation or alphabetisation, but in a way that an algorithm determines to produce the most efficient routes for ‘picking’ based on customer purchase patterns. This appears completely random and incomprehensible to humans, with paddling pools sitting next to USB sticks sitting next to blowtorches, and so for the warehouse workers, the process of picking items becomes completely reliant on technology which tells them where to go. Our world is increasingly being designed not with humans in mind, but rather machines. As Etchells puts it, “technology malforms the space, and then you end up having to live in it.” Initially, Forced Entertainment tried their best to live in the world of machines: “I was in the it’s-got-to-be-perfect school of lip-sync,” says Etchells. But with their aesthetic being so tied to the failing act, the slipping mask, the shoddy costume, “it’s no surprise really that that didn’t last.” Instead, the performers got to enjoy being late for a line, or playing games with each other, “stealing” each other’s voices. Etchells compares it to the principles of ventriloquism, in which a free-floating voice unattached to a body is fundamentally discomforting and “sort of traumatic”. That discomfort is equally as alluring to Forced Entertainment as the satisfaction of precision, the pretence of authenticity only interesting if shown to be a pretence. Lip-sync has also opened up new avenues for the company. Having been allergic all their lives to Plays-with-a-capital-P, with Cold Sweat Forced Entertainment find themselves approaching something a little bit like drama. Rather than the presentational arena of Signal to Noise’s open white stage, Cold Sweat places us more decisively in a “fictional locale”: what appears to be “the aftermath of some disastrous party or backyard drinking binge” where three figures – family members, or neighbours, perhaps – are the last ones standing. “It’s all quite acrimonious and accusatory, everyone’s talking over each other.” For Etchells, this more fictional mode is “a door that we’ve never been able to open. We’ve just never really gone there.” Perhaps it is the technique of lip-syncing, an extra buffer of mediation, that allows them to venture away from the here-and-now without feeling that they have to commit to the “psychological claptrap” that comes along with acting; to be able to “play the game of theatre, without getting one’s hands too dirty.” As I wonder how else the impulses behind Forced Entertainment’s work have changed over time, it occurs to me that over the last ten years of new creations, with the exception of If All Else Fails, the company’s performers haven’t ever spoken on stage: there were two shows without any language at all, Out of Order and Under Bright Light, and then this trilogy of lip-sync works. Etchells agrees it’s a shift away from earlier productions, that were so often about “the actual voices of the performers and their actual presences. We had a lot of money, in some ways, on an authentic approach to what it might mean to speak on the stage.” But this sense of authentic presence itself had a fakeness to it; these days, Etchells can’t stand that mode of being onstage where performers “are here to be cheeky and witty versions of themselves. I don’t want to be charmed.” Pulling back into a more anonymous space has resulted in works that feel slightly sharper-edged, more brutal in a way. “All of these shows are post-Brexit, post-Trump, post-truth, post-everything,” Etchells notes. Speech, charisma, authenticity – these things feel politically loaded, and perhaps warmth and openness just don’t feel like the right tools to reflect the world we’re living in. “It feels like the space is closing down, and we’re trying to deal with the fact that the system, the structure that you’re in, is more oppressive and more powerful. It probably always was, but I think we’re just more tuned to it now.” Yet even without their voices, the performers’ distinctive presences – ones that many audiences have followed around for years, if not decades – still, inevitably, shine through as they physically navigate whatever unending task the system of the piece has set for them. They’re still trying to keep up with the onslaught of text, still running about, changing costumes, moving stuff around. The human is always stuck in the teeth of the machine, jamming the smooth, frictionless cheeriness of the not-real, gesticulating silently, trying desperately to communicate. Cold Sweat is at Sheffield Theatres, 2 to 3 October; Southbank Centre, London, 9 to 10 October; Lancaster Arts, 14 October [ ](https://exeuntmagazine.substack.com/p/exeunt-recommends-the-best-autumn-theatre-2026-lives-of-others-standard-of-living-our-friends-in-the-north-lanny-) [ Exeunt recommends... the best autumn theatre ](https://exeuntmagazine.substack.com/p/exeunt-recommends-the-best-autumn-theatre-2026-lives-of-others-standard-of-living-our-friends-in-the-north-lanny-) Exeunt · Sep 16 [ Read full story ](https://exeuntmagazine.substack.com/p/exeunt-recommends-the-best-autumn-theatre-2026-lives-of-others-standard-of-living-our-friends-in-the-north-lanny-) This piece was paid for by the Southbank Centre. Such support helps Exeunt to keep publishing the most interesting writing, about the most exciting theatre. Interested in partnering with Exeunt? Visit our Advertise with Exeunt page, where you can get more information, download an advertising pack, and find our contact details.
Got an Android Phone? Google Thinks You’ll Probably Want a Googlebook Laptop
Apple lovers have long enjoyed seamless connectivity between their iPhones and Macs. Now, Google’s bringing that experience to Android.
Corn Nation Overreaction: Huskers Start 3-0, MSU Next
Jon Johnston put out a video this morning wondering if this is Nebraska’s best team ever. At least, that’s the headline. It’s much more captivating than “Huskers Start 3-0, MSU Next.” As of this writing, I haven’t watched the video yet. This is probably the best team in the Matt Rhule era. And the team […]
4 Forgotten Netflix Shows That Deserve Another Chance
If you can't remember a show that Netflix debuted earlier this year, it's probably because the streamer is constantly dropping new series.
John Oliver Takes Swipe at David Ellison and His ‘Business Daddy’ Larry Ellison on ‘Last Week Tonight’
The HBO host cracked jokes at the expense of his probably future bosses on the Sept. 20 episode of “Last Week Tonight.”
Rockies Know That 100 Losses Are Probably Happening
Sunday's one-run loss to the Seattle Mariners only pushed the Colorado Rockies further down the road to that century defeat level.
Man says Pontiac mental healthcare facility saved his life: 'I probably wouldn't be here'
A Pontiac man says a walk-in mental health facility helped pull him back — and he wants others to know they don't have to face their struggles alone.
The Best Competitive Cards from Pokémon TCG: 30th Celebration -...
Pokémon has officially reached its 30th anniversary, and with that comes another special anniversary set in 30th Celebration. As you would probably