SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " Answer " 2,195 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
3 Key Takeaways from Hornets Big Win Over Cavaliers
The Charlotte Hornets snapped a six-game losing skid with an emphatic 124-112 victory over the Cleveland Cavaliers at Spectrum Center on Monday night. Operating without key rotational pillars Brandon Miller, Kon Knueppel, Dennis Schröder, Moussa Diabaté, and Grant Williams, head coach Charles Lee’s starting group generated unexpected answers against a formidable Eastern Conference opponent. Rather …
Democrats demand answers on Trump’s AI policy amid spy plot
Congressional leaders raise concerns in a letter as Nvidia investigates its chief executive’s affair with a suspected Chinese spy.
Data centers become a political flashpoint after midterms, putting AI industry on notice
The message from voters was hard for the data center industry to ignore: communities want a say in what gets built in their backyards — and they're increasingly demanding answers before those projects move forward.
Dianna Russini finally answers the question football fans are asking
Dianna Russini has long been plotting on her return to airwaves after the Mike Vrabel scandal. On Monday, she provided fans with a long-awaited career update.
Three Clues That Suggest Callum Turner Could Already Be the Next James Bond
The final screen tests are seemingly finished, but we may already have our answer.
“Think About Resigning”: Jets Fans Frustrated as Aaron Glenn Gives Vague Answer After Another Humiliating Loss
The New York Jets delivered another disappointing performance, extending their losing streak to four games. On Sunday, the team fell 35-12 to the Kansas City Chiefs, dropping to 2-7.
Scientists May Have Discovered a Massive Starless Galaxy
The promising candidate contains roughly 2 billion times the sun’s mass in hydrogen, yet appears to have no stars. Studying it could help answer questions that have vexed astronomers for years.
The Real Story of the Polar Bear in a UVM Science Hall Starts With Two Montpelier Agents Undercover in the Arctic
A polar bear has been hanging out in a UVM science hall for decades. Subscribe He’s a full-grown male, standing behind glass on an artificial iceberg in the lobby of the University of Vermont’s Marsh Life Science Building in Burlington. Most Vermonters have no idea he’s there. Students who asked about him heard he came from Canada. A poacher killed him, the story went, federal officers seized the hide at the Vermont border, and the government gave him to UVM on “indefinite loan.” A UVM biology professor told it that way in 2012. The university’s own news office repeated it in 2021. That story was wrong. The bear was evidence. In 1972, two federal wildlife officers from Montpelier posed as trophy hunters, bought their way into an illegal hunt run by a poaching ring, and followed it all the way to the frozen Arctic Ocean north of Alaska. One of them shot this bear. Sonia DeYoung, who works with UVM’s natural history collections, pieced the real story together from a half-remembered campus rumor, a case file buried in Anchorage and one stripped claw. She told it Nov. 6 in UVM Magazine. The Undercover Buy Early in 1972, Paul Bagalio and Bruce Parker walked into a Seattle taxidermy shop. Both lived in Montpelier. The case file lists Parker as a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agent and Bagalio as a deputy game warden for the service. On paper, Bagalio was an unlikely undercover man. Born in Northfield and raised in Montpelier, he served in the Marines after high school, graduated from Norwich University in 1957, taught at Vermont Technical College and worked as an engineer at Rock of Ages, according to his obituary in the Times Argus. He founded Ramchem, a company that made epoxies for the Barre granite industry. He was also a hunter. His obituary passes along his advice: “Don’t ever miss an opportunity to hunt.” And it says he worked undercover for the U.S. Department of the Interior, helping expose what his family calls one of the largest poaching rings in U.S. history. In the Seattle shop, Bagalio and Parker posed as unscrupulous trophy hunters who wanted a polar bear and didn’t care how they got one. They came away with a scribbled note: a phone number and a hefty price. The Seattle Times later reported the number. In a May 1972 story, later reprinted in the Congressional Record, the paper said the two-man hunt cost $6,500, more than $50,000 in today’s money. The Times cited a federal search-warrant affidavit alleging that the ring paid two men who held valid Alaska permits so the hides and skulls could be shipped and processed under their names. Bagalio and Parker traveled to Barrow, on Alaska’s Arctic coast, with guides working with the taxidermist. These were not men to cross. The case file describes a man taking a 12-gauge automatic shotgun from his plane and telling Parker it was “the persuader.” One photo in the file shows a mustached accomplice peering out from beneath a heavy fur hood. On March 8, 1972, on the pack ice about 100 miles north of Point Barrow, the northernmost point in the United States, Bagalio shot a male polar bear. Parker shot a second. Bagalio had no legal permit to kill it, and that was the point. The bears were hard evidence of what the ring was selling. Back in Fairbanks, a Fish and Wildlife agent marked Bagalio’s bear so it could be identified later. He smeared fluorescent dye around its nose and ripped the dark outer sheath off one of its front claws. Bagalio and Parker went on to run several more undercover hunts against poachers in the West. The danger was real. Bagalio later told the Bennington Banner, according to DeYoung’s account, “My guide made it perfectly clear that he would leave me dead in the mountains if he thought I was an investigator.” Subscribe The Faded Rumor The bear came to UVM in 1975. How the government handed him over is still unknown. A rumor came with him. A student named in the UVM Magazine article simply as Carol helped catalog the university’s specimens in those years, and she heard it: an undercover federal agent had killed the bear in Alaska because he feared his cover would be blown and his life was in danger. Over the years the rumor faded. In the 1980s, the bear was put away in storage long enough for mice to chew the fur off his ankles, and several of his front claws went missing. He was later brought back out and set up on his iceberg in the Marsh Life Science lobby, where he has stood for decades since. Somewhere along the way, the Canada story took over. The Case File Decades later, DeYoung met Carol at an open house for UVM’s zoological collections. Carol told DeYoung’s research partner, Dave Moroney, what she remembered. They were delighted, and skeptical. At DeYoung’s request, David Rippeto, a UVM graduate who is now a Fish and Wildlife special agent in Anchorage, went through a mountain of old case files stashed in cardboard boxes and found the right one. It ran more than 80 pages: photographs, letters, permit records and a typewritten account of the case. Carol’s rumor had the core of it right. A federal officer had shot the bear in Alaska while undercover. But the file showed it wasn’t a desperate move to save his own skin. The shooting was part of the plan. The Stripped Claw One question remained. Was the bear in Burlington really Bagalio’s? DeYoung and Moroney shone a black light on the bear’s snout, looking for the dye. Nothing glowed. They already had the answer. The year before, a conservator repairing the mouse damage had found that one of the bear’s supposedly missing front claws was still there, minus its dark outer sheath, just as the agent in Fairbanks had left it in 1972. “Fifty years later, the marker originally meant for law enforcement told us we had our bear,” DeYoung wrote. Paul Bagalio didn’t live to see it. He spent the rest of his life in Vermont, most of it at Horn of the Moon in East Montpelier, and died Dec. 11, 2022, at 90, a few months before DeYoung first opened the case file. His family remembered the bear differently. The obituary says he took a record-class polar bear in Siberia, across the international date line. The federal case file puts the bear in this story about 100 miles north of Point Barrow. The obituary doesn’t say whether it’s the same animal. His bear is still on the iceberg. Go see him: The polar bear stands in the entrance to Benedict Auditorium, between the Marsh Life Science and Hills buildings on UVM’s Burlington campus. Compass Vermont is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe
Are cucumbers fruits or vegetables? The answer may surprise you
Here’s how cucumbers are actually classified, where they fit in a healthy diet and what to know about eating them regularly.
ChatGPT is about to show brands their mention count
OpenAI is testing a dashboard that counts how often a business appears in ChatGPT’s answers and the clicks those appearances send to its site.
Connections: Sports Edition today: Hints and answers for Nov. 9, 2026, puzzle No. 777
Welcome to Connections: Sports Edition Coach — a spot to gather clues and discuss (and share) scores.
NYT Strands hints, answers for November 9, 2026
Every hint, nudge and outright answer you need to complete today's NYT Strands puzzle.
Nick Weston: Conservatives must answer America’s Midterm message
Conservatives can rebuild trust by putting families before political feuds.
Defensive effort fuels strong second half in win over Kentucky
Tennessee Vols score 24 unanswered points to throttle Wildcats.
"Pop" Talks - Population Health Program Data Conversations
Beginning in 2027, DDPHE’s population health program will be hosting quarterly webinars where we share recent data findings, walk through available data sets, highlight success stories, and answer any questions you may have.
Top Dem says panel will probe Trump’s family
Incoming House Oversight Committee Chair Rep. Robert Garcia tells CNN’s Dana Bash the Trump family “should be expected to answer questions” when Democrats take control of the powerful panel.
They Want to Gene-Edit the World’s Deadliest Animal and Release It Into the Wild. What Happens Next Could Save Millions of Lives.
More pests might actually be the answer, researchers believe.
House Republicans demand answers from Nvidia CEO over reported Chinese spy ties
House Republicans invited Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang to a joint briefing over his reported relationship with an alleged Chinese intelligence asset.
Texas HC Steve Sarkisian claims ‘nobody’ believed in Longhorns before Missouri game
Steve Sarkisian opened his postgame news conference in Columbia, Missouri, on Saturday by going back to the days before kickoff. The Texas Longhorns had just beaten the Missouri Tigers 34-20 on the strength of 21 unanswered points, and the Texas coach aimed his opening statement at the talk that came before the game. “Our guys, […] The post Texas HC Steve Sarkisian claims ‘nobody’ believed in Longhorns before Missouri game appeared first on Gridiron Heroics.
A 55-Year-Old Math Problem Was Solved—This Time by Humans
A group of young mathematicians found the solution to the long unanswered conjecture, first inspired by juggling, through randomness and friendship.
Misery Index: Matt Rhule is running out of answers as another Nebraska season spirals out of control
Florida HC Jon Sumrall 'Frustrated' After Loss to Oklahoma
Playoff dreams evaporated in Gainesville as a stagnant offense and costly turnovers derailed the Gators, leaving a disappointed locker room to search for answers before facing Kentucky.
Connections: Sports Edition today: Hints and answers for Nov. 8, 2026, puzzle No. 776
Welcome to Connections: Sports Edition Coach — a spot to gather clues and discuss (and share) scores.
Michigan Staff Clueless In Loss To Michigan State
Michigan entered Saturday night as a 13.5-point favorite against one of the worst teams in the Big Ten. Instead, the Wolverines have been embarrassed in their own stadium, exposing an offense without answers and a coaching staff that looks completely unqualified to fix it.
Arch Manning gives Texas the comeback it needed
Texas was in danger of letting another close game define its season. Arch Manning and the Longhorns answered with three straight second-half touchdowns and a road win that keeps the playoff conversation alive.
Connections: Sports Edition today: Hints and answers for Nov. 7, 2026, puzzle No. 775
Welcome to Connections: Sports Edition Coach — a spot to gather clues and discuss (and share) scores.
The Modern Data Company Adds Conversational AI to DataOS with Dex
Built for DataOS, Dex answers questions about enterprise data using governed data products, with the business context, definitions and sources behind every answer. SAN JOSE, Calif., Nov. 6, 2026 — The Modern Data Company has introduced Dex, a conversational AI experience built for DataOS, the company’s enterprise data platform that works across existing infrastructure. Dex lets […]
Caltech, Dr. Lucy Jones launching disaster resilience center to bring science and policy together
The center’s central goal will be to bridge the gap between scientists, whose findings hold answers to how to best respond to and mitigate disasters, and local decision-makers and community members.
Caltech, Dr. Lucy Jones launching disaster resilience center to bring science and policy together
The center’s central goal will be to bridge the gap between scientists, whose findings hold answers to how to best respond to and mitigate disasters, and local decision-makers and community members.
Connections: Sports Edition today: Hints and answers for Nov. 6, 2026, puzzle No. 774
Welcome to Connections: Sports Edition Coach — a spot to gather clues and discuss (and share) scores.
The Monkees at 60: An underrated band
I loved The Monkees when I was a kid. When my friends were listening to George Michael or Guns N’ Roses I was digging television’s answer to The Beatles. I still do.
Apple Surveys iPhone Duo Buyers About Crease and Camera
Apple is sending email surveys to some iPhone Duo buyers to get feedback on display size, crease, under-display camera, and other features. The first question asks why the buyer chose the iPhone Duo now, with answers like "I wanted to try Apple's first foldable," "It was an impulse purchase," and "I expect smartphone prices to increase".
Worried about uncertainty? Science has the answers
John Maddox, the longtime editor of Nature, was once asked how much of what the international scientific journal published turned out to be wrong. His reply:
Disney staffers join team meeting, press managers for layoff details
Disney staffers pushed management for answers about reports of layoffs in a tech town hall. Employees say morale is suffering.
Why is morning light crucial to health? Your time change questions, answered.
Answering readers’ questions about why sleep experts oppose permanent daylight saving time.
Ask Your Business a Question, Get a Real Answer: VirtuMCP Brings Secure AI to Miami Beach Companies
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready... VirtuWorks, a Coral Gables-based provider of managed IT services and cybersecurity, is bringing VirtuMCP to Miami Beach businesses. The secure gateway connects AI assistants such as Claude and Microsoft Copilot to the systems companies already run on, so owners can get answers from their own data without giving up […]
How, and why, to stress test your business case
An important element of every investment proposal is knowing the answer to this question: What happens if the assumptions fail?
Anthropic engineer warns of 'cognitive surrender'
"When you can't explain the answer to a question, even by way of your agent, you've ceded ownership," Claude Code engineer Addy Osmani wrote.
When papers become currency: a Chinese debate about trust in science
Last Saturday, 31 October, I went to the University of Hong Kong’s Beijing Centre for its Talent Forum. It was the fourth stop in the series this year, following events in Shanghai’s Zhangjiang, Shenzhen’s Qianhai, and on HKU’s main campus. The programme covered a remarkable distance in one afternoon. HKU’s Xiao-Jing Wang discussed computational neuroscience, intelligence, and the prefrontal cortex—before even delivering his inaugural public lecture to students back in Hong Kong. His colleague Bing Zhang took us from the Big Bang to artificial intelligence. Tsinghua’s Xue Lan asked how AI might reshape the institutional infrastructure underpinning higher education. There were lively panels featuring industry leaders from JD.com, Xiaomi, Haier—and Kaiser Y Kuo on the closing panel discussing innovation and international connections. I cannot pretend to have followed every detail of the brain models or the astrophysics. The talk that stayed with me was closer to something we have covered before: Zhou Zhonghe 周忠和 on papers, evaluation, and scientific trust. Zhou is a palaeontologist, an Academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and an international member of the US National Academy of Sciences. He is also editor-in-chief of The Intellectual (知识分子), China’s leading science commentary platform. His subject was uncomfortable enough for a room full of successful academics: what happens when the system for recognising good science starts rewarding something else? Part of my interest came from our sister newsletter, The East is Read, which covered the controversy around “Geng Tongxue” in May. A PhD dropout from Beihang University, Geng has publicly challenged papers by prominent researchers through detailed online allegations of manipulated images and fabricated data. At Tongji University, an investigation into a challenged Nature paper found academic misconduct, and the dean of its life sciences school was removed. The affair brought doubts about academic integrity well beyond laboratories and university committees. How could someone outside the established hierarchy spot problems in papers that had passed through prestigious journals and institutions? And what, exactly, had all that prestige guaranteed? Zhou approached these questions through two essays published in July by The Intellectual: one by Wang Xiaodong, director of the National Institute of Biological Sciences, Beijing, and a response by Wang Liming, of Shanghai’s Shangsi Institute of Natural Sciences. Both began with the controversy over Geng. Their arguments deserve a wider audience, so I want to put parts of them alongside what Zhou said on Saturday. Wang Xiaodong’s starting point is evolution. A research system selects for the behaviour it rewards. Grants, jobs, journals, talent programmes, and prizes collectively determine which scientists prosper and which practices get passed down from advisors to students. “Whatever the system rewards is what it will evolve to produce,” he writes, citing the ancient Chinese saying: The King of Chu loved slender waists, and many in the palace starved to death. That is a more demanding diagnosis than saying there are dishonest people in science. Punishing a fraudster does not change the selective environment that made a particular kind of research profitable. His account also gives scientific success an awkward role in the story. As Zhou put it on Saturday, science became a victim of its own success. Once research became central to industry, national power, and economic growth, universities and laboratories expanded, and public money followed. That created an administrative need for rapid decisions: who should get the next grant, the next laboratory, the next appointment? The difficulty is that the true value of a discovery may take years or decades of testing and building to become clear. Resource allocation cannot wait that long. Publication counts, journal prestige, impact factors, and citations therefore become convenient ways to make an instant judgement. “The real problem is not that these indicators have no value,” Wang Xiaodong writes, “but that they are trying to answer a question that only time can answer.” Telling administrators simply to stop counting papers will never be enough. They still have budgets to distribute and appointments to make. Something has to replace the shortcut. Zhou described the consequences inside publishing. Papers acquire ever more requirements: a complete story, polished presentation, extensive datasets, and accessibility to readers beyond the immediate field. Individually, those demands sound reasonable. Together, he warned, they produce formulaic “eight-legged” papers 八股文 and rigid reviewing, while genuinely original or non-consensus work struggles to get past journal editors—some of whom wield immense gatekeeping power despite having limited laboratory experience themselves. Meanwhile, the demands for sprawling, “complete” narratives have fuelled a wider replication crisis. Wang Xiaodong uses a mahjong metaphor to describe the result: put the complex papers published by the exact same lab over several years side by side, and they often look like “Thirteen Orphans” (十三不靠)—every tile completely unrelated to the next, and none of them reproducible by outsiders. Zhou also spoke frankly as an editor who has trouble finding reviewers. Everyone wants someone else to review their work; qualified senior researchers have little time to return the favour. The labour is anonymous, unpaid, and brings almost no institutional recognition, so it increasingly gets passed down to postdocs and graduate students. And while anonymity protects reviewers from rank and personal favours, hyper-specialisation means an author’s most qualified reviewer is often a direct competitor, shielded from accountability. The protection and the problem coexist. Wang Liming takes the argument a step further. The decisive change, in his essay, is the instant conversion of academic honour into material resources. Once a paper can be cashed in for funding, a job, students, commercial investment, or even a company valuation, scientists are alienated from their work: they must keep minting this “research currency” to keep their teams alive. He is careful not to romanticise the past. The old world of gentleman scientists—financially independent figures like Boyle and Darwin who needed nothing from external funders—was also a closed club that excluded people without inherited wealth, women, and much of humanity outside the West. Professional science allowed ordinary people, himself included, to become researchers. Nobody should want to undo that. The problem, in his account, is an exchange system that becomes too uniform and too difficult to correct. His most pointed Chinese example is the “hat” (帽子): the prestigious talent designation that brings continuing access to money, laboratory space, students, and institutional influence. “If papers are the circulating currency of the research system, then a ‘hat’ is a bond that pays interest over the long term,” he writes. A paper at least requires another round of peer review. A title in the Chinese context can lock in a judgement made years ago and turn it into permanent status rent, regardless of whether its holder is still doing good science. Here, official institutions hire, organise, and evaluate scientists. Unlike honours awarded by autonomous academic communities in the West, a Chinese “hat” blends non-scientist administrative power with state authority. Once granted, it turns a past judgement into permanent status rent that is nearly impossible to revoke—because taking a hat off would imply that official authority erred in putting it on. Both Wangs see China as experiencing, at compressed speed, pressures present across global science. Research expansion, rising investment, publication growth, and elaborate evaluation metrics arrived in China within two or three decades rather than two or three centuries. Zhou agreed with that international framing—noting that recent US White House science policy documents and the new president of the US National Academy of Sciences, a fellow palaeontologist who recently visited Zhou’s institute in Beijing, have raised strikingly similar warnings about consensus-bound peer review, short-term project grants, and the replication crisis. Still, Zhou emphasised that China’s traditional hierarchy, personal networks (guanxi), and the ethos that “a good scholar becomes an official” (学而优则仕) amplify those pressures at home. So what would change things? Here Zhou’s tone differed from the call for a revolution in scientific trust in Wang Xiaodong’s essay. As an evolutionary biologist, Zhou favoured patchwork repair (修修补补). Living systems survive through accumulated adjustments; dramatic mutations are usually fatal. Science cannot return to a small, slow-moving pastoral era, especially after the successive accelerations of professionalisation after the Second World War, the internet, and now artificial intelligence. But it can alter the local environment in which researchers work. He pointed to domestic experiments designed to support unconventional research and diversify funding, including Tencent’s New Cornerstone Investigator Program, the Xplorer Prize, and the Future Science Prize. He also mentioned participating in reviews for “major non-consensus projects” under the National Natural Science Foundation of China. One guiding principle he recalled was wonderfully direct: “Failure is allowed; corruption is not” (允许失败，不允许腐败). That distinction would mean quite a lot if taken seriously. An honest attempt that fails should not have to disguise itself as a success to survive an assessment. Wang Liming’s essay adds a sharp caveat to the optimism about new domestic funders. Multiple organisations do not automatically produce multiple ways of judging science. If the same pool of senior domestic scientists makes the decisions through the same two-round review procedures, it is still “fake diversity.” He argues for three distinct kinds of money: broad baseline funding governed by fair procedures; patient funding for questions that take ten years; and non-consensus funding based on individual taste, deliberately empowering a few genuine experts to make biased, contrarian bets on eccentric ideas that would inevitably be averaged out by a committee. Replacing one monopoly with another achieves little; a healthy ecosystem needs variance. Zhou’s proposals for publishing were similarly concrete: strip papers of their resource-allocation burden and return them to recording discoveries and establishing priority; separate dissemination from evaluation, as eLife and Peer Community In do; adopt more modular “micro-publications” and real-name endorsements; recognize the labour of editors and reviewers; and give replication work proper credit rather than treating it as an unpublishable dead end. AI makes every part of this debate more urgent—and Zhou wove it throughout his talk. In his own preparation, he used AI to survey the declining influence of academic monographs, noting how tools are already changing how scholars gather information. More fundamentally, he placed AI as the latest great acceleration in scientific history: just as the internet sped up the pace of research and tightened external resource pressures, AI is compressing the cycle again. In the essays Zhou cited, AI cuts both ways. Wang Xiaodong expects large language models to erase much of the English-writing disadvantage long faced by Chinese scientists, further swelling the flood of papers coming out of Chinese labs. Wang Liming sees AI accelerating both ends of the trust crisis: it lowers the cost of paper mills and fabricated images just as quickly as it lowers the cost of automated image forensics, data auditing, and code reproduction. “Whoever builds the verification layer wins,” Wang Liming writes. His proposed alternative to the static, packaged “story paper” is a continuously versioned “unit of discovery” containing a falsifiable claim, raw data, analysis code, experimental parameters, and an ongoing log of independent checks—where negative results and failed replications are recorded rather than buried. Zhou ended his keynote by bringing AI back to the question of scientific honour and credit. Citing a recent Intellectual discussion on “What AI Means for Mathematics” featuring Fields Medalist Deng Yu 邓煜—at a moment when AI is already batch-solving mathematical conjectures, as HKU Vice-President Lin Chen noted in his opening remarks—Zhou agreed that human researchers must remain the principal agents: AI is a tool that frees scientists from tedious calculation to think about deeper, messier real-world problems. Yet that partnership creates a thorny new evaluation problem. When a breakthrough is made with AI, what is the human contribution and what is the machine’s? And since AI models distil centuries of accumulated human scholarship, is it right that the credit and value flow so heavily to the private AI companies building the tools? The old struggle over how to assign scientific honour is acquiring a whole new layer. What I took away was a serious discussion of how science can remain trustworthy as its scale, incentives, and tools change. These were scientists with real standing inside China’s system questioning how that standing is produced, and proposing changes that would affect their own institutions and peers. That made the afternoon at HKU’s Beijing Centre worthwhile. At the close, Wang Feng, Director of Communications and Public Affairs at HKU, said the value of the forum series—which heads to Hangzhou in December and cities like Chengdu early next year—would lie in the real cooperation it helped bring about. The university has plenty to celebrate: this week it topped the QS Asia rankings for a second consecutive year, alongside its 11th-place position in the QS World University Rankings 2027. For me, bringing this debate to an audience beyond the people who review papers and allocate grants was a useful contribution. Share [ The East is Read PhD dropout’s exposé forces an academic fraud reckoning in China A former doctoral student turned blogger has shaken China’s academic establishment by publicly accusing prominent university scholars of fabricating data and manipulating papers, triggering investigations at several leading institutions and drawing rare attention from state media… Read more 5 months ago · 43 likes · 8 comments · Yuxuan JIA ](https://www.eastisread.com/p/phd-dropouts-expose-forces-an-academic?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web&embedding_publication_id=47580)
Iranian Leaders Cheer Trump’s ‘Political Defeat’ as Republicans Blame War for Midterm Losses
Iranian leaders have hailed what they say is Americans’ rejection of the war, while Republicans look for answers and Democrats decide what’s next.
Connections: Sports Edition today: Hints and answers for Nov. 5, 2026, puzzle No. 773
Welcome to Connections: Sports Edition Coach — a spot to gather clues and discuss (and share) scores.
'The De Los Podcast': Let's talk about Latino mental health
Why are Latinos less likely to seek mental health than other ethnic groups? What might be behind the worsening mental health in our youth? And where do you even start to get therapy? L.A. therapist Guadalupe Cesar-Nuñez answered these questions and more on the latest episode of the De Los Podcast.
'The De Los Podcast': Let's talk about Latino mental health
Why are Latinos less likely to seek mental health than other ethnic groups? What might be behind the worsening mental health in our youth? And where do you even start to get therapy? L.A. therapist Guadalupe Cesar-Nuñez answered these questions and more on the latest episode of the De Los Podcast.
TikToker Turns to DNA Testing for Answers About Her Health and Discovers a Secret Her Family Had Kept for Decades
A TikToker who goes by BlondeSanity, and posts under the handle @kozmoqueen, says she had a heart attack at just 24 years old. Given the complexity of her medical issues, she turned to her parents for...
Pike County Clerk demands answers, transparency after employee health insurance dropped
Pike County Clerk Natalie Roseberry is demanding a transparent review from the county board as officials scramble to lock down alternative health coverage.
Asked & Answered with Texas Business Court Judge Marialyn Barnard: Switching Careers and What’s Next for the Court
In this edition of Asked & Answered, Texas Business Court Judge Marialyn Barnard, recently appointed to her second term on the bench, says serving on the court is the highlight of her career. She also talks about passing the bar at age 39, teaching high school English and why she wants lawmakers to expand the Business Court’s jurisdiction across the state.
Monarch butterflies get tiny trackers to help scientists follow their mysterious migration
Solar-powered radio tags attached to nearly 1,750 monarchs this year are helping provide answers to monarchs' migration routes.
'VisionQuest': Who is the Client?
The MCU's newest villain reveal leaves us with more questions than answers.
TPA WellNet Healthcare Selects EHVAhealth Voice AI to Automate Health Plan Provider Calls
EHVAhealth, the health payer platform of EHVA.ai, today announced that WellNet Healthcare, a third-party administrator (TPA), has selected EHVAhealth's conversational voice AI to automate its inbound provider calls. EHVAhealth is purpose-built for health plans, TPAs, payers, and benefit administrators that need to answer high volumes of provider calls without adding headcount.
NYT Spelling Bee Answers for November 4, 2026
Feeling stuck on today’s puzzle? We can help.
Titans’ biggest problem to fix during 2026 bye week
The Tennessee Titans are approaching their 2026 bye week with more questions than answers. Sure, Cam Ward’s development remains central to the franchise’s long-term ambitions. However, Tennessee’s struggles extend well beyond the quarterback position. The offense has shown occasional flashes of explosiveness. The defense, though, has repeatedly […] The post Titans’ biggest problem to fix during 2026 bye week appeared first on ClutchPoints.
Connections: Sports Edition today: Hints and answers for Nov. 4, 2026, puzzle No. 772
Welcome to Connections: Sports Edition Coach — a spot to gather clues and discuss (and share) scores.
AFGHS co-signatory countries ask health care users to help fill the financing gap
Hundreds of thousands of Ugandans living with HIV on antiretrovirals could be targeted for user fees or community health insurance schemes requiring modest premium payments, according to the April 2026 version of the country’s America First Global Health Strategy implementation narrative.1 As part of the “sustainable financing for the private not for profit sector” strategy, 491 facilities will be targeted for a phased introduction of user fees and scale up of community health insurance programs.2 In the Ugandan context, PNFP facilities include faith-based hospitals and other health facilities, US missionary organizations and centers of excellence—services that are often co-located at government facilities but run with additional financial and technical resources. 402,000 people—or about 28 percent of the total Ugandan adult PLHIV population on treatment—get ART from the private not for profit sector. The selected facilities provide the majority of ART and prevention of mother to child transmission (PMTCT) services. The plan doesn’t give the total number of clients served by the 491 facilities, so it is not possible to give a precise number. But the majority of 402,000 is a figure in the hundreds of thousands—hence the estimate I’m using.3 The April draft of the Ugandan implementation plan narrative is the only one I’ve been able to review. But the government of Uganda is not alone in turning to health care users to help fill the financing gaps caused by the abrupt withdrawal of US funds. In July 2025, the Government of Liberia introduced user fees for previously free services including “registration, accommodation, patient feeding, hospitalization, and a wide range of surgical and diagnostic procedures.”4 Earlier that year, Liberia rolled out a revolving drug fund designed to stabilize drug supplies by “allowing patients to pay a small fee for standardized, quality medications,” according to a Ministry of Health press release.5 (Both of these approaches had been proposed in the National Health Policy 2022-2031; media coverage explicitly connects the launch with the US foreign aid cuts.) The health financing strategies proposed by Uganda and established in Liberia are qualitatively different from user fees officially adopted by specific health facilities to cover funding shortfalls caused by the new US approach.6 The latter is a stopgap, adhoc change. The former is a national governmental adoption of policies that pass costs on to health care users, despite evidence that such approaches can exacerbate inequities and leave deficits unfilled. Two countries does not make a pattern, but they do point to urgent questions: Have other countries, including Liberia, included user fees or community health insurance schemes in their implementation plans? If so, do any of these narratives have what Uganda’s lacks: a fall-back plan in place in case these strategies for sustainable health systems fail to deliver—as they have before? I wonder if you think about it Subscribe Predictable pitfalls Both community-based health insurance and user fees are as old as the hills. And after decades of people climbing up these hills, duking it out, climbing back down—neither strategy has shown the results the Ugandan implementation plan is counting on. This is, in fact, a hill some folks are willing to die on. (You knew I’d get there, right?) In November 2025, an African-led team of health system experts published a paper directed at low- and middle income country governments trying to figure out how to create self-sustaining health systems. The money wasn’t coming back. It had been more than nine months since the season of freezing, waivering and wood-chippering; two months since AFGHS tumbled into the world touting co-financing requirements and reductions in future US government health aid. Governments were looking for strategies for sustainable, self-financed health systems, the authors wrote. For countries considering user fees and community health insurance to fill the financing gaps, they had a simple message: Don’t. On user fees, the paper states: “Reliance on user fees is ultimately a regressive and inequitable approach. It places a disproportionate burden on the poor and undermines health system goals of equity and financial protection. […] There is overwhelming evidence that user fees mobilise very limited resources for the public health sector, making it an inefficient mechanism for revenue mobilisation.” On community health insurance: “Attempting to shift the burden of funding previously donor-funded services, such as HIV care and management, and TB treatment, onto contributory schemes would exacerbate their fragility and fail to protect the population.”7 The WHO says that community-based health insurance “cannot be expected to provide a major source of funding or coverage,” and noted that most schemes offer only moderate benefit to individuals paying into them, and exclude the poorest segment of the population.8 And yet, the US-Ugandan implementation plan says that community health insurance is “the central pillar of this [PNFP] sustainability strategy” and that this approach that will generate “pre-paid pooled funding at facility and community level [that] improves financial risk protection for households, reduces catastrophic out-of-pocket expenditure, and generates structured, transparent revenue streams that can progressively absorb recurrent costs including health worker salaries.” Unfortunately, Uganda’s own history suggests the pillar might not be able to bear this weight. Ugandans Have Been to this Rodeo Before—and Some Want Their Money Back Uganda introduced its first community health insurance scheme in 1996 with support from international donors.9 Thirty years later, somewhere between 0.2 and 0.3 percent of the population is covered by CHI; just over 1 percent has any kind of health insurance.10 User fees were universally introduced in 1993 as a condition of a World Bank loan.11 They were abandoned in 2001, and in 2004—the year I moved to Uganda to watch the free HIV program get underway—a definitive study found that the fees did not improve health systems and outcomes.12 In 2004, most clinics and hospitals had ‘free’ and ‘fee for service’ options for getting care.13 The fee for service, or “cash and carry” programs had often been established in the years prior to PEPFAR and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. People who could afford to paid for the drugs, often at facilities in the private-not-for-profit (PNFP) sector. When free drugs arrived, some people who’d been paying kept on doing so, perhaps because of shorter wait times, greater confidentiality, convenience or other factors. But in the year that I spent visiting the same clinics around the country week after week—including a “center of excellence” that maintained separate days for cash and carry clients and those accessing free ARVs—lots of people who had been paying tried to switch to the free option. They’d paid because they had no other choice. They’d sold pieces of family land, begged family members for loans, bought pills by the week, and sometimes by the day. Or they were just cash-strapped, like most of us, and wanted the funds for other things. 14 Twenty-two years later, this hasn’t changed. Ugandans pay out of pocket for 30-40 percent of their health care costs, leading one paper to declare that “falling ill is more than a health crisis. It is a financial emergency.”15 One recent study found that up to 48.5 percent of households dealing with tuberculosis sold something, took out a loan or dug into savings to defray the costs of TB care—which is supposed to be universally free.16 The Ugandan implementation plan does anticipate challenges. It proposes a phased approach, with 187 facilities introducing user contribution systems in Year 1, 152 in Year 2, and 153 in Year 3. Willingness to pay and feasibility studies will precede roll out; fees will be tiered by region, and a waiver system is proposed to ensure that no one has to pay who is unable to. Moreover, the plan provides for quarterly reviews of epidemiological data to “ensure that user contributions do not compromise epidemic control gains, ART continuity for the client cohort, TB case management, or PMTCT services.” Alt text: A screenshot of a table included in the implementation plan narrative that is the subject of this stack. It’s got a fetching pink bar at the top. It uses the abbreviation “CHI” which is Community Health Insurance, and FBO which is Faith Based Organizations, and it details the number of facilities that will implement user fees with waivers and community health insurance schemes over the five years of the agreement. As I said in the footnote, this is a super interesting document with a lot of other rich material. Tell me what you see—and what you would have focused on. And if you’ve seen something like this, or anything else that strikes you, in another implementation plan, tell me that too. You can use the Substack message platform or try me on Signal at @endaplague_again.25 (because @mercoonfan was, weirdly, taken). But the plan doesn’t fully explain what will happen if this approach doesn’t work out. Yes, progress will be monitored, and corrective action triggered. However, there is no specified funding replacement if premium and fee revenue prove inadequate. Instead, the authors write, “Currently, COEs serve a total client cohort of over 180,000 across 28 facilities. In the initial years, the U.S. Government (USG) will provide financial support for clients; over time, user fees generated by COEs will become the primary source of funding for sustaining their services.” Failure does not really seem to be an option. Health insurance schemes are more acceptable to the Ugandan population than user fees. Members of Parliament and civil society traveled to Ethiopia to see how that country’s scheme worked. In a follow up report, a veteran civil society group recommended allowing the “health insurance ecosystem to grow organically and [to] keep reviewing the law and regulations as this growth takes root.”17 One study found that more than three-quarters of Ugandans were willing to join a health insurance program.18 However, coverage of community-based health insurance is minimal, as is coverage of any kind of insurance—including private plans.19 A national health insurance scheme bill has been stalled for several years and presently sits with President Yoweri Museveni.20 Community-based health insurance scheme that do exist are expanding in number, but losing enrollees. Between 2022 and 2026, the number of community-based health financing schemes across the country increased by 42 percent, while the number of people enrolled decreased by nearly 11 percent.21 None of this means that community-based health insurance should not happen in Uganda—or that people do not want insurance. It doesn’t even mean that user fees and waivers won’t ever work. But there is highly relevant evidence from Uganda and the surrounding region that it is quite optimistic to describe community health insurance and user fees as central supports for sustainable financing in any sector of the health system. And now for the best-case scenario In the best-case scenario22, the Ugandan approach does exactly what it sets out to do, and so does the Liberian fee structure and revolving pharmacy fund—though I’ve not confirmed that these are in the MoU. In one best-case scenario, Uganda is an outlier, and user fees and community health insurance are not recurrent pillars of self-sustaining financing in other countries’ implementation plans. In another best-case scenario, all countries that include these strategies enjoy success beyond anyone’s evidence-informed wildest dreams: reliable funding generated by health care users fees, great health care outcomes for everyone, no exacerbation of inequities, no crippling household debt. No sold land, repurposed school tuition or high-interest loans. In the best-case scenario, not one of the hundreds of thousands of Ugandans living with HIV receiving antiretrovirals from 491 PNFP facilities misses a refill or leaves care because of user fees or community health insurance premiums. This is the best-case scenario for these people for their own health, and for their families. It is also the best-case scenario if Uganda wants to stay on the path to eliminating HIV as a public health threat. According to the country’s most recent data, 96.5 percent of people living with HIV on antiretrovirals are virologically suppressed. Epidemic control depends ensuring that 95% of people living with HIV know their status, 95 percent of those individuals are on ART, and 95% of those individuals are virologically suppressed. Uganda is still struggling with the first “95"—a frankly abysmal 85.3 percent. If HIV epidemic control and the attendant prevention of new infections, avoidable suffering and premature death matter, the country cannot afford to lose any clients who are currently in care.23 As I write this a couple hours before the polls close for the US elections in the city I live in, I say with soul-deep sincerity: I am rooting for the best-case scenario. I think it’s safe to say that we all are.24 I think it’s also safe to say that if the US and co-signatory governments have inked plans that lead to successful expansion of community health insurance and strategic use of user fees, we all would like to know, now, so that we don’t miss the opportunity to celebrate when success happens. The implementation plan narratives have to enter the public domain. They are the fullest expression of a strategy co-created by two governments. There are assumptions and details that people living in the US and co-signatory countries need to understand that are not available in the MoUs or, to date, in the Congressional Notifications. Some of these details can help other countries that are, as I write this, still working on implementation plans. Others, like a solid count of how many other countries have plans for expanding user fees or health insurance, are important for regional and global health architecture reform initiatives. No matter how this election night turns out, there will be a slew of new Congressional member orientations, briefings and talking points papers in the next few months. Release of implementation narratives should be a bullet point in every context that AFGHS is discussed. These documents can be redacted so that procurement sensitive information isn’t disclosed. There is much more historical precedent for sharing such documents than there is for relying on user fees to fill health financing gaps. Let’s look at the information together so we can hope for the best and prepare for, you know, the other thing. Alt text: A substack first: a bicep selfie! It’s my arm - peachy-white skin, black shirt (flannel, notch neck, too hot for this appallingly balmy November weather, if you’re wondering) and a sticker that says I VOTED 2026. Beige letters on red for I voted. Beige on blue for 2026. You bet I did.25 In your wildest dreams. Subscribe 1 This is a really, really rich 95 page document. There are fascinating ideas and detailed plans in it. It is all worth reading AND I have, in this post, highlighted an instance of content that could pose challenges and certainly posits success of strategies that haven’t worked before. I would love to hear what readers’ see that’s interesting and should be lifted up as something to check for in other implementation plans. I will also shortly be adding a static page to the substack site where implementation plan documents will live. I will put the url into this footnote and it will also be there on emilybass.substack.com by the end of the week. Uganda Implementation Narrative Section 4 April 22 2026 Draft 1.51MB ∙ PDF file Download Download 2 User fees are costs charged for visits, labs, medicines or other health services, usually at the time they are provided. Community health insurance, or community-based health insurance, is what the World Health Organization calls “micro insurance,” which is health insurance targeted at low-income people. 3 As usual (by which I mean always), please prove me wrong. 4 https://smartnewsliberia.com/liberias-ministry-of-health-announces-2025-hospital-service-fees-for-public-facilities/?utm 5 https://moh.gov.lr/news/2025/grand-cape-mount-leaders-residents-embrace-new-community-pharmacy-program/?utm 6 https://www.christianitytoday.com/2026/09/hiv-usaid-pepfar-africa-foreign-aid-cuts-mission-hospitals/?utm 7 https://gh.bmj.com/content/10/11/e021270 8 https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/community-based-health-insurance-CBHI 9 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2827475/ 10 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10861328/#b3-jpmph-23-110 11 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC527704/ 12 Same citation as the footnote 2 - the article is called “Learning from failed health care reform in Uganda.” To which I say: If only. If. Only. 13 There is a whole taxonomy of user fees to be aware of, if not commit to memory. Out of pocket costs are everything that someone pays for themselves. In this Stack, user fees are planned and policy-supported out of pocket costs. There are also out of pocket costs that people pay to buy drugs or receive tests or health care assessments that would be free if the drugs were on the shelves, or the machines or kits were available, or the staff were on site. A user fee is usually designed to be modest, pegged to willingness to pay, and may be waiveable at the point of care for anyone who is unable to do so. The costs for things that would otherwise be free are whatever the market will bear and people either have to pay them or go without. Out of pocket costs for services and stuff that aren’t available in public facilities are different again from bribes or unofficial fees that some health workers may impose, even though most are indefatigable, tireless and tired, and devoted to their clients. 14 For the record—which really is these footnotes—I would give a whole stack of fridge magnets for a systematic analysis of the economic and social impact of the Mass Unemployment Event in AFGHS countries among the very people who used to be able to afford and cover user fees, both for themselves and vast family networks. Locally employed USAID technical staff, house cleaners, caregivers, drivers and technicians were financial anchors for cousins, friends, friends’ children, friends’ childrens’ cousins, teachers, pastors, neighbors and so many other kinds of kin. Aid recipients lost direct funding; many other people who had not been aid recipients, but parts of the elaborate care webs that function as safety nets for so many people, lost crucial support too. And that’s even before we get to the people who worked at the hotels and restaurants and bars where people employed by the US and its implementing partners used to spend disposable income. Those businesses have lost revenue; those folks have lost jobs. It will be some time coming—and someone will have to fund this work—but I do hope it happens. And I hope, as usual, to be proven wrong. 15 https://eprcug.org/blog/how-out-of-pocket-healthcare-costs-keep-driving-ugandans-into-poverty/ 16 Another straight-to-the-point journal article title. Households experiencing catastrophic costs due to tuberculosis in Uganda: magnitude and cost drivers. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32938411 17 https://www.cehurd.org/download/technical-policy-brief-on-community-health-insurance-scheme/?wpdmdl=13661&refresh=6ae9122f5d4ed1793659439 18 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10125197/ 19 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10861328/#b3-jpmph-23-110 20 https://ugandapost.news/uganda-to-make-health-insurance-mandatory-by-2026/ 21 https://shu.org.ug/download/235 22 With a nod, tip of the stack hat, and wag of the Mercoon tail to a deeply valued reader who told me that I have a tendency to speculate about the worst-case scenarios a little too much of the time. 23 https://news.mak.ac.ug/2026/10/uphia-2025-shows-ugandas-hiv-status-awareness-gap-despite-strong-treatment-outcomes/ As you’ll see in the next footnote, I’ve already written a subSubstack on another topic, so I will be brief with regard to the study referenced in this article. The Uganda Population-Based HIV Impact Assessment, or UPHIA, will never happen in this way again. For more than a decade, PHIAs have been supported by the US government as a way to generate accurate estimates of country progress on key HIV indicators. They are a holdover from the PEPFAR program that was laser focused on ensuring US taxpayer dollars subsidized progress in pandemic control. There may be other population-level surveys and the data may even be publicly released, as the entire set of FY2026 MER data have not. But PHIAs will never happen again. If you’re wondering whether the estimates of HIV progress at country level might get less reliable….you’re not alone. 24 Ooh baby, I hate “we” in almost all forms. But sometimes I go there, when I am looking for company, which I am. Because this Stack moves into the somewhat-uncharted territory of assessing what the implementation plan narratives may suggest about co-signatory countries’ roles and responsibilities to the people living within their borders. The MoUs, specimen and data sharing agreements were templates. Countries’ answers fit into pre-specified questions that did not include, “how are you going to fill financing gaps and stabilize your health system as this plan unfolds?” In contrast, the implementation narratives are open form—the product of co-creation between the two governments. Co-creation can mean lots of things, but nothing leads me to believe that implementation plans are ghost-written by the US government, or that contents were imposed by the US counterparts. Instead, I think the parts of the plans that read like country government initiatives are endorsed, if not initiated by, those governments. For instance, the Ugandan implementation plan narrative describes plans for revenue-generation through fees charged for equipment calibration, repair and maintenance provided through Uganda’s National Equipment Calibration Laboratory, and laboratory accreditation through the Uganda National Accreditation Service (UGANAS), targeting private sector, PNFP, research and academic clients. That’s super specific and also quite ambitious. It doesn’t read like an American idea. There’s also a provision for solar panels, and other stuff that feels country owned and driven. This is where it gets interesting. If co-creation is the case, then both the US and co-signatory governments are accountable for the contents and the outcomes. Most discourse about AFGHS to date has focused on the decisions that America has made, or demanded that other countries make. The AFGHS architects have monopolized the hot seat. As they should, in so many ways. America absolutely created the conditions under which countries needed to come up with health financing strategies to fill unanticipated, catastrophic funding gaps. And with not-too-long a lens, we can look back and see that America is also on the hook for its role in the Bretton Woods institutions that made user fees and health system fiscal austerity conditions of loans during the era of structural adjustment. But in the here and now, it is not at all clear to me that the US is requiring Uganda or any other country to implement specific approaches to sustainable financing. Instead, it is as the authors of that paper up in footnote 6 suggest: African governments have agency. As implementation plans roll out—whether or not the narratives are shared—it will be important to understand what this agency looks like and what it means for people, including the poorest of the poor. And it will be important to figure out how to talk about it safely, respectfully and critically in places other than the literal and metaphorical footnotes. 25 This week’s song is “Once upon a time” by the Moody Blues. (I know, this is gonna be a weird, largely banger-free end of 2026 playlist. HMU with requests.) AND please do watch the video and appreciate the truly amazing opening sequence—a drum kit wasteland, a coupla plastic bags, a bit of sand. Sort of like the hill where fiscal austerity policies that put costs on health care users might go to perish. But then there’s a lady with amazing hair. It’s worth it.
NYT Strands hints, answers for November 4, 2026
Every hint, nudge and outright answer you need to complete today's NYT Strands puzzle.
Elizabeth Holmes’ partner denies ‘You Can See Everything’ director’s story about full-frontal nudity: ‘False narrative’
Elizabeth Holmes’ partner Billy Evans answered numerous questions about ‘You Can See Everything,’ including claims about how his full-frontal nudity scene came about.
He helped put a rover on Mars. Now he pranks porch pirates — and Gen Alpha can't get enough.
From farts on Mars to CrunchLab secrets, Mark Rober answers kids' questions and tells Yahoo why he sees Gen Alpha as curious, not screen-obsessed.
Christina Applegate details new medical testing after MS misdiagnosis
Christina Applegate is continuing to search for answers in her ongoing health battle.
OpenAI: ChatGPT Search Is About 20% of Google’s, 250 Million People Speak With ChatGPT, and Chat Is Merging With Work
OpenAI says ChatGPT growth is accelerating. The company added 200 million users over just the past two months, jumping from 1 billion to 1.2 billion weekly active users in 60 days. Its search volume, it says, is approximately 20% of Google’s. Its users create 1.5 billion images with it per week. And its voice mode, between dictation and speaking with ChatGPT, now has 250 million combined weekly active users. ChatGPT consumer product lead Adam Fry told me this during a brief fireside chat at an OpenAI-hosted dinner in New York City on Monday night. “The growth is just going big,” he said. During our conversation, Fry also revealed plans to merge ChatGPT’s Chat and Work modes (so that confusing toggle up top will soon go away), agreed with feedback that ChatGPT-created restaurant signage looks too uniform, and addressed the cost to serve its personal assistant Dots. Here’s a look at our full conversation, lightly edited for clarity and length. We also cover image generation, interactive interfaces, advertising, education, and public unease about AI: Alex Kantrowitz: OpenAI has analyzed ChatGPT’s search volume and compared it with Google’s. What did you find? Adam Fry: ChatGPT has been growing quite quickly. ChatGPT’s volume of search-like queries is now roughly one-fifth the volume of queries of Google. It’s a pretty amazing statistic when you think about it, mainly because we started just about a year and a half ago. It’s hard to remember this, but ChatGPT at a time didn’t have any up-to-date information. You’d ask a question, it would say something like, “It’s past my training date,” and nobody had any idea what that meant. You’re saying ChatGPT’s search volume is one-fifth of Google’s. Bing’s share of the search market is around 5%. Does that make you multiple times larger than Bing? To say that more directly, ChatGPT has gone from one billion to 1.2 in just the last two months. That’s roughly 100 million users in 30 days, and another 100 million in another 30 days. The growth is just going big, and we’re staying very focused on how fast ChatGPT is growing. What counts as a search? I might have 20 prompts back and forth in a ChatGPT conversation. Does each one count as a query? Story continues below… A MESSAGE FROM OUR SPONSOR Move upmarket without a rebuild Moving upmarket means saying yes to what enterprise buyers ask for first: SSO, directory sync, and audit logs. WorkOS gives you all three, so your team keeps building the product instead of the checklist. Get enterprise-ready. Continued from above…. Adam Fry: What people came to ChatGPT for to start, if you go back about two years, is really writing help and coding help. Those wouldn’t be things that you really search for. What we’ve seen over the last year is people have grown into all these other topics. Things like you’re looking up a person or people or a place or a thing, and it requires up-to-date information. That’s a key element. Another big part is finance questions or health questions, where you really want to make sure it’s up-to-date information that’s quite factual, and we’ll do a web search for those questions. It’s basically anything that a user would have traditionally gone to a traditional search engine for, but is now deciding to go to ChatGPT for. Does each conversation with a search embedded count as one search, or does every question that requires a web search count? Every time you ask a question and go search the web, that’s a search. You used to work at Google. How would you say the nature of search is changing? One of the things that people really love about ChatGPT is this personalization and this understanding of the broader journey. If you look in the past, people would go for a Q&A box, and you’d ask a one-off question, like how tall is the Eiffel Tower. But there’s so much context in our lives around, “Maybe I’m taking a trip to Paris.” It’s actually helpful for ChatGPT to respond, “Here’s how tall the Eiffel Tower is, but I know you’re going on a trip to Paris.” It’s that ability for people to actually maintain context over time that has led them to start using ChatGPT in this way. You’ve also announced 250 million weekly active users of voice input, including dictation and conversations with voice mode. We are at 250 million weekly active users. What’s amazing about this is, if you look at those 250 million, what we’re seeing is it’s actually also incremental to the product. It’s no longer just a novelty. People aren’t just trying out voice. We’re seeing them use voice input day to day in their daily life, and it’s grown so quickly. Those 250 million users are using voice input, and that could just be a quick question or a long conversation. We’re seeing both behaviors. We’re seeing people just not want to type. You just hold it and start talking to it, or it turns into a longer conversation where people just sit with it. The big reason for this is the frontier capabilities of our models that we’ve shipped. We shipped what we call GPT Live 1, and then we shipped GPT Live 1.1. The big change with this is that it’s much more natural to speak with. It’s something we call backchanneling and interruptibility. Mhhhm… What you just did there is what the model does, because it’s really good at having a bidirectional conversation. That push to the frontier—we were the first to really release this at scale—has made it so much more natural for people to chat. That’s still only about 20% of the user base. From the outside, that looks small. Why is it exciting from the inside? It’s very exciting for a few reasons. We see from the data that when people start using voice, they stay around using voice. One of the things, transparently, we can do a better job of is bringing more people into discovering it. We see that the number of people who discover it could be a lot higher. But once they do, it’s a really new way for people to interact with AI. We’ve made a lot of improvements to it too, where we’re just going to see the number go up. You have background mode, so now by default, if you close the app, it’ll show, “Hey, the conversation’s still going.” If you want to walk around the house or you’re putting away the groceries, you can still have a chat. That kind of continuity has also changed how much people use it. Dots launched on September 29 and is about a month old. How’s it doing? It’s doing great. We talk to people about their Dot, and the first thing that everyone says is, “I love my Dot.” One of the reasons we’re seeing this is the proactivity, its ability to reach out to you and figure out things. The biggest use case I see all the time is, “Did I forget something today that I was supposed to do?” You can just say to your Dot, “Remind me of things at the end of the day that I may have forgotten. Somebody emailed me or messaged me,” and it’ll do that. This Dot changes the paradigm of the relationship with AI, where it’s actually helping you and giving you time back. You’re more conservative with permissions than some competitors. I tried to give my Dot my credit card, and it wouldn’t take it. With the creator of OpenClaw in-house, why are Dots’ permissions more limited? This is a space where we want to be very thoughtful and conservative because it’s a new space where you’re entrusting your Dot to take care of things on behalf of you that matter and are meaningful. We’ve just talked about how you go to this 1.2 billion user growth and asking questions. Now we’re asking people, “Can you ask ChatGPT or your Dot to help get things done?” But when you ask it to help get things done, it’s a whole new level of trust. We’ve built up a tremendous amount of trust in giving the right answers to your questions, and we want to make sure that when we build this new product, it has a high degree of trust. It’s a long game. We think this is going to be a new market for a very long time, and we want to make sure that we’re being this trusted player in the market to start. I initially thought Dots would be available on my $20 plan, then realized I had to spend $100 a month to get it. I upgraded, but I’d like to downgrade at some point…. We hope to keep earning your business and make the value good enough. It’s a really good point. ChatGPT’s goal more broadly, which I think is unique for us in the market, is we are focused on bringing intelligence to everyone safely across the entire world. For Dots in particular, there’s no difference. We don’t have anything to share tonight about the date of when Dots will go to a broader set of users. But you can rest assured we’re working very hard, and there are a couple things we have to get right. Over time we’re going to work on more efficient, agentic models that are able and capable of doing things for you. The first one is, right now we wanted to make sure that your Dot is actually really helpful. We started with some of our best models, but over time we’re going to work on more efficient, agentic models that are able and capable of doing things for you. The second thing is around proactivity. We’re still dialing in: How much do I message you to help you get things done? We can always play around with that to understand how much usage should a user use to have a successful Dot. We’re going to work on both, and our goal and ambition is to bring it out to all users. How much background computing does a Dot require? I’ve read estimates that serving a $100 subscriber might cost OpenAI $3,000 in compute, and mine seems to read every email that arrives. How often is it checking connected data sources? Right now, Dots are on the compute-heavier side, and this is one of the things we want to make sure that we can dial back over time. But the goal is to give you the best product. This is our premium, always-on personal assistant. Once we nail that, we’ll figure out how to dial back the compute needs. The thing we’re seeing also from our models, as we train frontier models, is just how—I can’t even keep up with how quickly we have a new model, and each new model is more efficient. If you looked at 6.1 Sol when it came out relative to Astra, much more efficient. I’m very excited about the next set of models we have coming too that’ll be even more efficient that we can use. Elon Musk said the cost of serving Grok Bot was unsustainably high relative to revenue. Is efficiency the key to winning against competitors, or is there more to it? There are a couple of factors that go into it. One is the cost side, but the other is the revenue side. On ChatGPT and on our consumer business, we’ve been extremely proud of our ability to diversify different revenue streams in a way that’s growing really fast. To give you another stat, we announced several months back that we had passed 50 million subscriptions, and the number has grown considerably since then. On ads, within 200 days, we reached more than a billion in ARR, and that business is growing extremely quickly. We also have credits. Rather than paying for subscriptions, users can buy more credits. Between credits, subscriptions, and ads, I’m confident that the value of a Dot is going to be able to pay for itself. Elon has subscriptions too. This is clearly an expensive product to serve. One thing we continue to bet on at OpenAI and ChatGPT more broadly is that the models will continue to get much better and much cheaper, way faster than any of us think. If you look back at the historicals on it, it continues to be true. From what I’ve seen, I see no slowing down of that. What is Meta doing right with Muse? It has spent a lot of time atop the App Store charts. There are a couple of things they’ve done well. The first is people have been craving simplicity in their products. One of the things we have stated publicly as well is, at times AI products can be too complex. We’ve announced we’re merging ChatGPT’s Chat and Work. We’re making it much more simple in the products. You don’t have as many toggles or sliders between efforts and different model pickers. One of the things they’ve done well is this simplicity. You just go in and you can ask a question. You don’t have to think too much about what you’re doing. That’s one thing that seems to have resonated with users, which we also believe in. Second, there’s something really nice about being able to access your agent across many different channels. We just announced and launched Dots on iMessage. Whether you talk to your Dot on email or iMessage or within the ChatGPT app, the ubiquity in getting your assistant out there is going to be key. Those are two things that, if I had to be nice to our competitors, I would say were two big ones. So Alexandr Wang’s meme-tweeting strategy isn’t something you’re going to emulate? I have a different tweeting style. ChatGPT still asks me to choose between Chat and Work, even though some people call this technology AGI. Will that distinction go away? Couldn’t agree more. We have to solve this. Asking users to choose — we’ve heard repeatedly from all of our users it’s too much to understand. When should you go to Chat? When should you go to Work? It’s solvable. There’s real research to solve to make sure the models can understand what your intent is. Are you asking for a fast, quick reply? Are you asking me to go do a long agentic task? We’re going to solve it, and the plan is to bring Chat and Work together. So one interface will work out whether I’m asking for a conversation or a task. When? Coming soon. You told me the majority of ChatGPT’s 1.2 billion users are using image functionality. What are they doing? Today, 1.5 billion images are created per week. It’s hard to even wrap my head around that number. They’re doing a wide range of things. One of the most interesting things they’ve started to do is really use it for productivity use cases. The first thing it started with—I don’t know if you saw the ’80s trend, but it was quite fun. You could take a photo of yourself and say, “Put me and my family in ’80s outfits.” I did this for my family, and it was a really fun poster. But what we’re also seeing is businesses for their menus, or posters for birthdays. People are using it almost in a productivity-like fashion to create visual diagrams of what they would like to see. We’ve actually brought the latency down on images as well, so it’s gotten a lot faster. It went from a very high number of seconds to getting much faster. As it comes down even further, the number of images people are creating and the number of use cases is going to grow a lot. My feature request: When a restaurant makes a menu or sign, prompt it for more specificity so it doesn’t look like every other AI-generated restaurant sign. Or offer a shuffle button for a different style. I agree with the feedback, and we’ll take it to the team. I’m seeing ChatGPT generate little interactive interfaces within its answers. What’s the direction for Intelligent UI, and how are people using it? I am extremely excited about Intelligent UI. If you go back a couple years, these chat apps were all text, and now that’s changing. They’re going to be visuals. Intelligent UI and our first attempt at this with GPT-6 Intelligent UI is really just the beginning. As you go to the extreme, what you can imagine is, let’s say you’re using voice mode, and you just say, “Show me how offside works.” Immediately it should show you a visual diagram, and you say, “No, I don’t quite understand it.” It should just repopulate. That’s where the future of this technology goes. It’s almost like you’re talking to a canvas that will update and change. People are finding it helpful for a lot of things. My favorite one is—it’s hard to admit that I had no idea how hearts work. The last biology course I took was in high school. I just asked it, “How does the heart work?” and it instantly gave me a beautiful interactive diagram of where blood flows and how it goes through. I’m really, really bullish on this for learning in particular. You’ve described useful applications in finance, health, and learning, and ChatGPT has 1.2 billion users. If people are getting so much value, why is public polling on AI so negative? The reality with AI is it is going to change the nature of how work gets done. For a lot of people, that is something that can feel scary at times, and we’ve all felt that. But I remain confident that when people actually use the product and they use AI, it very quickly changes how they perceive it. We’re at 1.2 billion, but there are still a lot of people who haven’t used it. The more people use it, get familiar with it, how it can actually help you in your life, it’s going to feel a lot less scary. Big Technology is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. Thanks!! Subscribe
Who Controls Enterprise AI Agents? Data Platform Vendors Race to Provide the Answer
AI agents are everywhere. Every other news story is related somehow to AI agents. As more companies are starting to use AI agents, keeping track of what they’re doing isn’t so straightforward. Dataiku launched Agent Management in September, and Oracle spent part of its AI World conference in October talking about how businesses can keep […]
How Old Is Interstellar Comet 3I/ATLAS? Scientists Think They Finally Might Know the Answer.
New James Webb observations suggest interstellar comet 3I/ATLAS contains ancient ice that may have formed up to 12 billion years ago.
Snowflake Helps Enterprises Deploy AI Agents with Trusted Business Context and Built-In Controls
Business Ontology, a part of Snowflake Horizon Catalog, grounds enterprise AI agents in trusted, pre-approved definitions, so every answer is consistent...
Should Men Pee Sitting Down or Standing Up? Science Has an Answer
For healthy men, posture barely changes urine flow. But the physics of splashback tells another story.
Worried about uncertainty? Science has answers.
It’s not clear why blood pressure medicine works. Don’t let that stop you from taking it.
Connections: Sports Edition today: Hints and answers for Nov. 3, 2026, puzzle No. 771
Welcome to Connections: Sports Edition Coach — a spot to gather clues and discuss (and share) scores.
Yankees’ perfect trade offer for Dodgers’ Teoscar Hernandez
The New York Yankees do not need to chase every available bat. They do need to ask whether their offense is too dependent on left-handed hitters after being swept by Tampa Bay Rays in the ALDS. Teoscar Hernandez could answer part of that question. The Dodgers may move him this winter, and one speculative trade proposal has already connected him to […] The post Yankees’ perfect trade offer for Dodgers’ Teoscar Hernandez appeared first on ClutchPoints.
Vote Smart Empowers Human Judgment as AI Influences Politics
Elise Blum and Dr. Kyle Dell examine who selects the information behind AI-generated political answers and why citizens must retain the final judgmentDES MOINES, Iowa, Nov. 02, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- As voters turn to artificial intelligence to research politics, Vote Smart board member and educator Elise Blum and Executive Director Dr. Kyle Dell are urging citizens to examine the sources, standards, and incentives behind the answers they receive. In their opinion essay, “Preserving Human Agen
According to science, you may be more likely to gain respect and status by helping others
Human intelligence is still a bit of an enigma. Researchers have some ideas about why advanced intelligence evolved in humans, but they have not come to a conclusive answer. One prominent idea is that ...
AI chatbots are becoming political advisers. Their answers can mislead voters
Millions of Americans are turning to AI for election information, but chatbots are getting voting facts wrong and recommending candidates, raising concerns they could influence voters' decisions.
Is America really that polarized? The answer might be a surprise
The U.S. has become more politically polarized, but research shows people overestimate their differences and there is 'messy middle' majority of Americans who share overlapping political views.
Too embarrassed to ask a doctor? Jacksonville-area physician answers viewers’ health questions
Is This Normal- Questions viewers sent me to ask a doctor for them
COD Modern Warfare 4 has seemingly answered DMZ players' PvE calls with new Story Mission changes - but there are major caveats
COD Modern Warfare 4's DMZ doesn't have a PvE mode, but it seems Infinity Ward may have made a small compromise.
Voter Guide: Healthcare in PA’s 15th Congressional District
Democrat Ray Bilger and Republican Glenn Thompson, who are running to represent Pennsylvania’s 15th Congressional District, answer questions from the News Lab at Penn State about healthcare.
Kansas City Chiefs loss to Denver Broncos will come back to haunt them as Bo Nix answers critics again
The Kansas City Chiefs suffer their second straight defeat after a dramatic finish to Sundays game against the Denver Broncos; listen to Sky Sports NFLs Neil Reynolds and Jeff Reinebold as they reflect on Week Eight in the NFL on Inside the Huddle podcast
Smile Zemi Adds Science, with Writing Coach, to Teach Kids to Back Up Their Answers
New NGSS-aligned curriculum for Grades 1-5 uses hands-on simulations and the Claim-Evidence-Reasoning method to build scientific thinking
Athenahealth launches tool to bring patient health records into Anthropic's Claude
Electronic health record company athenahealth is opening up patient health records to outside AI assistants, starting with Anthropic’s Claude, through a new connection designed to give patients per | Athenahealth is opening up patient health records to outside AI assistants, starting with Anthropic’s Claude, through a new MCP connection designed to give patients personalized answers based on their clinical data.
Sunderland Must Find Answers Fast
Petulance, tactical confusion and a worrying lack of fight have left Sunderland in trouble. Can Régis Le Bris turn things around, or has his time on Wearside run its course?
Connections: Sports Edition today: Hints and answers for Nov. 2, 2026, puzzle No. 770
Welcome to Connections: Sports Edition Coach — a spot to gather clues and discuss (and share) scores.
Abdul El-Sayed ‘left a lot of calls unanswered’ after primary win, says former Michigan lawmaker
Who is TWS? The group answers in heartfelt letters sent to fans and 'To Us.'
The six-member Pledis boy band reflects on its growth, fan bond and ambitions for bigger stages through its new single album.
Parents don’t need all the answers to talk politics with kids, Extension educator says
Parents can help children make sense of elections by listening first and teaching them to check information and form their own opinions, a University of Illinois Extension educator says.
RBL answer the call with back-to-back away wins
Things can change quickly in football. Just a week ago, RB Leipzig were still searching for their first points away from home in the Bundesliga. Since then, the Red Bulls have followed up their home w...
Georgia’s Kirby Smart Raises Major Concern After Win Over Florida
Kirby Smart was asked in his postgame news conference at Mercedes-Benz Stadium on Saturday if the injury toll across the SEC this season feels different, and his answer reached well past the injury report. The question followed the No. 3 Georgia Bulldogs’ 27-8 win over the No. 17 Florida Gators, a rivalry game played in […] The post Georgia’s Kirby Smart Raises Major Concern After Win Over Florida appeared first on Gridiron Heroics.
Which party cares about passing down their politics? New survey finds answer
An American Family Survey of over 2,000 people revealed Republicans are twice as likely as Democrats to say passing on political beliefs is important.
All your bond-market questions answered as rising rates roil markets
"I can't see long rates materially lower from here with inflation where it is, how sticky it is," says bond investor John Sheehan.
Meet the people 'vibe manufacturing' their ideas to life
These techies are using AI to prototype answering machines, toys, and jewelry. They call it "vibe manufacturing," a play on the term vibe coding.
Fortnite Players Can Get Item Shop Skins For Free with the Pirate Shop Token
Fortnite's answer to competing with Grand Theft Auto 6 is to give players the entire Item Shop for free with the Pirate Shop Access Token.
Connections: Sports Edition today: Hints and answers for Nov. 1, 2026, puzzle No. 769
Welcome to Connections: Sports Edition Coach — a spot to gather clues and discuss (and share) scores.
Ashley Walters Reveals Mystery Shooter in ‘Top Boy’ Finale
The answer to the question that has been asked by every fan of the series is here.
Reus, Roberto star as LA Galaxy regain postseason foothold
By Alex RuizCARSON, Calif. – Legendary German star Marco Reus answered the call when his team needed it most on Saturday afternoon, leading the LA Galaxy to a much-needed 4-1 home win over Austin FC...
Nikola Jokic Has Simple Answer After Nuggets' Win Over Suns
Denver's star center did not need big numbers to run the show in Phoenix, and his teammates made the most of the looks he created.
Business Owners Have a Window. Most Aren't Ready to Use It. by Tully Ryan
I spend my working life on both sides of a business sale. As an M&A advisor based in Wilmington, I help lower middle market owners across North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia sell what they've built. As the founder and CEO of IQExit, I work with the bankers, wealth advisors, CPAs and attorneys who sit beside those owners for years before a sale ever comes up. From both seats, I keep seeing the same thing. The market is ready for our owners. Too many of our owners aren't ready for the market. Start with our own backyard. Wilmington's metro area added more than 12,000 residents between July 2024 and July 2025, a 2.6% jump that ranked seventh in the country. It also posted the highest job growth rate of any metro in North Carolina. I see the same pattern in the growth markets I work in across the Southeast. New residents mean new customers and new workers. They also mean new buyers: people who moved here from corporate jobs and want to own something, private equity groups looking for add-ons in HVAC, electrical, landscaping and other trade services, and younger entrepreneurs who would rather buy a running business than start one from scratch. The ownership numbers are hard to ignore. About half of North Carolina's small businesses have an owner who is 55 or older, and roughly 85% of those owners have no succession plan, according to the North Carolina Employee Ownership Center. Nationally, more than half of Baby Boomer business owners have no documented transition plan. That isn't a crisis yet. It's a timing problem. A lot of businesses will change hands over the next decade, and the prepared ones will get the better buyers and the better terms. Buyers have money and they're using it. But an active market doesn't mean a fast one. The IBBA's latest Market Pulse survey found that Main Street deals took six to 10 months from engagement to close in the second quarter, and lower middle market deals took 11 to 12 months. That clock starts after the owner decides to sell. In my experience, the real preparation has to start years before. Two clocks, two playbooks When I sit down with an owner or their advisor, my first question isn't “What's it worth?” It's “When?” The answer puts the owner in one of two groups. If the owner wants out within 24 months, we're in execution mode. There's no time to rebuild the business. The work is cleaning up what a buyer will test: three years of financials that tie to the tax returns, an add-back schedule you can prove, customer and vendor contracts in writing, a lease that can be assigned, and a price the market will actually pay. The goal is certainty to close. If the exit is two to five years away, the owner has something worth more than time. They have choices. That window is where most value gets built, and most owners waste it by waiting. What kills deals In the lower middle market, deals rarely die over the headline price. They die in diligence, or they get retraded late in the process. I see the same causes again and again. The owner is the business. If every key customer relationship runs through the owner's cell phone, a buyer sees risk and a lender sees more of it. The books don't hold up. Buyers spot weak accounting fast. Statements that get revised mid-process, a revolving door in the bookkeeper's chair, revenue tracked on a side spreadsheet, and margins that slip while sales climb with no clear reason all make a buyer nervous. So does an owner who pushes back when asked for documents. And plenty of private owners run personal expenses through the company. Add-backs are normal. Add-backs you can't document turn into a lower offer. The real estate isn't sorted out. Many owners hold their building in a separate LLC. That's fine, but the lease terms or the property sale should be settled before a buyer shows up, not halfway through diligence. Revenue sits in too few hands. Picture a contractor with 40% of its work coming from one builder, or a service company running on handshake deals. Buyers will still look, but the terms shift toward more seller financing, an earnout, or less cash at closing. Owners and advisors: if your exit is three to five years out • Get a baseline now. Find out where the business really stands today: what a buyer would pay, who that buyer is likely to be, and which gaps would hurt you in diligence. You can't fix what you haven't measured, and the answer is often different from what the owner expects. • Make yourself less necessary. Spend the next few years building a manager or small team that can run daily operations and own customer relationships. Put handshake deals into written contracts. A business that runs without its owner is worth more and is far easier to finance. • Clean the books for three straight years. Buyers and lenders look back at least three years. Separate personal expenses, keep the financials tied to the tax returns, track every add-back as you go, and settle the real estate plan early. A word to CPAs CPAs often see a sale coming before anyone else, and you're usually the most trusted voice an owner has. Year-end meetings are the right time to start this conversation. Here's what I'd ask every CPA to do this season with business owner clients over 55: • Ask the timing question. “Do you see yourself owning this business in five years? If not, who takes it over?” Write down the answer and bring it up again at next year's meeting. • Run a proof of cash and review revenue recognition. Make sure the cash in the bank ties to the revenue on the books. Pay close attention to contractors with work in progress and to companies selling memberships or service plans. These issues are easy to fix with years of lead time and painful to fix a month before closing. • Pair the tax return with an exit readiness review. Invite clients to complete IQExit's Exit Readiness Intelligence (ERI) process as part of year-end planning. It gives you and the client a shared picture of readiness gaps and an indicative value range, and the results come back to you as the advisor. That turns a tax meeting into a planning relationship, and it puts you in position to bring in tax and M&A help early, when choices like purchase price allocation can still save the client real money. Changing the conversation For bankers, wealth advisors and attorneys, the hard part is raising the subject without seeming to nudge a client toward the door. I understand that. Nobody wants to tell a 60-year-old owner it's time to sell. So don't. Ask a different question: “If a buyer called tomorrow, what would they find?” That's a planning question, not a pitch, and it's useful whether the exit is two years out or 15. It's the question we built IQExit to help advisors answer. Whether you're in Wilmington, Raleigh, Charleston, Richmond or anywhere else, owners have a real opening right now. The buyers are out there and so is the capital. The owners who come out ahead will be the ones who start getting ready before they're ready to sell.
The Best Time to Fix Your Business Is When Things Are Going Well by Nathan Tayloe
There's a pattern I've noticed working with growing businesses over the years. Conversations about what needs to change rarely happen when things are going well. They tend to happen when growth slows, a competitor starts winning business, or something that used to work stops producing the same results. By then, the decisions are often harder, more expensive, and more urgent than they needed to be. It's understandable. When revenue is growing, customers are coming in, and employees are busy, there's little incentive to question what's working. Leaders have plenty to manage without creating new challenges for themselves. Running my own business has taught me that it's easy to get caught up in what's happening today and put off improvements you know will matter tomorrow. Those periods of success may actually be the best opportunity a business has to make meaningful improvements. When Success Makes Change Less Urgent Most businesses have things they know could be better. The challenge is finding a compelling reason to address them when everything appears to be working. Maybe the company has outgrown its original positioning. Perhaps internal processes haven't kept pace with growth, or the customer experience has become inconsistent as the organization has expanded. These issues don't necessarily prevent a business from growing. Strong demand can make them easier to overlook, especially when teams are focused on keeping up with the work already coming in. Over time, small inefficiencies become accepted ways of operating. Outdated processes remain in place because they've always worked well enough, and opportunities to improve get pushed aside in favor of more immediate demands. The business continues moving forward, but some of the things supporting that growth aren't getting stronger along with it. The Advantage of Acting Early When a business is performing well, leadership has something valuable: options. There's more flexibility to invest, experiment, develop people, and make thoughtful decisions without the pressure of an immediate problem that needs solving. Compare that with trying to make the same changes when revenue is declining, or the market has shifted. Investments become harder to justify, timelines get compressed, and decisions that could have been made strategically become urgent responses to circumstances. I've seen businesses postpone improvements for years because there was never a particularly good time to address them. Eventually, circumstances decide for them, often when they have fewer resources and less flexibility to respond. Growth Changes What a Business Needs This is especially relevant in a growing market like Wilmington, where new businesses, new residents, and continued investment are creating opportunities across the region. As organizations grow, the expectations placed on them change. Customers expect greater consistency, employees need clearer processes and opportunities, and leadership has to make decisions that support a larger, more complex business. What worked when a company was smaller may still work today, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will support where the organization wants to go next. Sometimes the most valuable improvements are the ones that prepare a business for demands it hasn't experienced yet. That might mean: Strengthening internal processes before they become bottlenecks Developing leaders before the organization depends on them Improving the customer experience before inconsistencies affect retention Revisiting positioning before the market outgrows the company's story None of these changes requires a crisis. They require recognizing that a growing business needs to keep evolving, even when current performance gives leadership little reason to worry. Use the Good Years Wisely Successful businesses don't need to constantly reinvent themselves. There's value in knowing what works and having the discipline to build on it. There's also value in occasionally asking whether the business is as strong as its current performance suggests. Are there problems we've learned to work around instead of solving? Are we still operating the way we did several years ago, even though the business has changed? What would we improve today if we weren't waiting for something to go wrong? Success creates the freedom to ask those questions and act on the answers. The businesses that make the most of that opportunity are often better prepared for whatever comes next. The strongest businesses don't need a crisis to recognize an opportunity to improve. They use the good years to prepare for the years ahead. — Learn more about how we help organizations strengthen their positioning, align their strategy, and prepare for what's next at tayloegray.com, or reach out directly at nathan@tayloegray.com.
Suns May Be Delaying an Inevitable Starting Lineup Change
Jalen Green is an exceptionally talented player. However, his inconsistent play is creating more questions than answering them.