Search headlines

How Landslides Renew American Politics

The ideological and policy implications of this month’s massive Democratic midterm victory remain far from clear. The public roundly rejected Republicans but still has a very low opinion of Democrats. And since congressional Democrats won’t have the numbers to routinely override presidential vetoes and did not even run on any shared agenda, they aren’t likely to chart any aggressive new direction in governing over the next two years. But in the long run, it may be the sheer scale and breadth of the Democrats’ win that matters most, and that may signal the dawning of a new phase of American political life. Either party could plausibly dominate that next phase, or power could continue to swing back and forth. But simply by making large majorities imaginable again, and so focusing political competition on the median voter and the challenge of building broad coalitions, this election could allow for some renewal in our constitutional system.

Nov 13 • 10:27 AM EST • Politics • thefp.com

Sailing toward its 10th year in business, Pa. winery ‘finally’ shipping to its club members

Pray Tell Wines, the producer with Philly roots that debuted in Oregon and then moved back home several years ago, had some good news to share in an email earlier this week. Founder Tom Caruso said that he was writing to tell his customers that the winery was “finally” shipping its wine club across 38 states. “I've had the privilege of working with some amazing wineries prior to starting Pray Tell and I've always work-shopped ways I would build our own club,” he wrote. “Seeing it come to fruition at our cellar door in Philadelphia these past two years has been a remarkable privilege. A local community of folks, many of whom come by weekly for a glass of wine and a conversation, has been what I've always dreamt of -- A Cheers bar for the wine fan. “But the gifts of proximity,” the email continued, “have also left us fully incommunicado with so many who have supported us over the years. You’ve likely realized by now, as the shelves of Pray Tell at your local shop have run dry, that we stopped all distribution. As a winery producing less than two thousand cases a year, we wanted to be able to keep up with the demands close to home. But we’ve been working hard to build a cellar and club that we think is something particularly special - Wines for our club. Just for our club. It’s some of our best work to date.” Club members get six different bottles of wine in each of the May and November shipments, and also access to purchase more from it club exclusive list (featuring library wines and past club-only wines). The winery, located on the border of the Olde Kensington and Fishtown neighborhoods at 1615 N. Hancock St. and operating inside a renovated warehouse space, is open to the public Thursdays through Saturdays from 3 to 8 p.m. as well as by appointment or for special events. There is a free private parking lot for guests. Caruso operates the winery with Sydney Adams, who among other things assists with the winemaking. For inquiries about private tastings or events, send an email to sydney@praytellwines.com.

Nov 13 • 8:56 AM EST • Business • wineclassroom.substack.com

Entertainment 360 Buys Influencer Firm Brigade

The talent management firm's acquisition of the Max Stein-run boutique adds a client roster of Substackers and podcast players.

Nov 11 • 10:04 AM EST • Entertainment • hollywoodreporter.com

Moana, The Invite and “What Customers Want”

(Welcome to my weekly streaming ratings report, the single best guide to what’s popular in streaming TV and what isn’t. I’m the Entertainment Strategy Guy, a former streaming executive who now analyzes business strategy in the entertainment industry. If you were forwarded this email, please subscribe to get these insights each week.) Before we get going, I wanted to acknowledge that two of the most important figures in sports media (at least to me and my team) are stepping back from two of the best sports shows of all time. First off, Ernie Johnson will no longer host possibly the greatest studio show in the history of all sports, Inside the NBA. (Charles Barkley has said in the past that he’s retiring when Ernie does, which would be even worse!) EJ is one of the greatest to ever do it, and the NBA won’t be the same without him. Next, Michael Wilbon is taking a leave of absence from PTI, my favorite sports news show. I’ve been listening to the podcast for this show since the 2010s, if not earlier, treating it as my daily sports page. Wilbon, along with his co-host Tony Kornheiser, is also one of the greatest to ever do it. The sports media landscape will be worse without these two in it! Wishing all the best to Wilbon and EJ. Okay, on to this week’s issue. We’ve got two big shows—the second season of Prime Video’s The Terminal List and the third season of Netflix’s _Nobody Wants This—_but both were bested by an acquired title landing on Netflix. All that, plus an Original film from Mexico makes the charts but a formerly huge foreign TV show does not, a notable creator’s latest standup special flops, Ted Lasso finishes as a top season four series of all time, big numbers for the NBA’s new season (finally), the top animated shows on linear and streaming, movie budgets, and all the flops, bombs and misses, and a whole lot more. But first, on the film side, I’m taking a look at Moana and A24’s buzzy film from last summer. Let’s dive right in! (Reminder: The streaming ratings report focuses on the U.S. market and compiles data from Nielsen’s weekly top ten viewership ranks, Luminate’s Top Ten Data, JustWatch and Reelgood interest data, Samba TV household viewership, company datecdotes, Netflix hours viewed data, Google Trends, and IMDb to determine the most popular content. While most data points are current, Nielsen’s data covers the weeks of October 19th to October 25th, 2026. You can find a link to my terminology here.) Subscribe Film - What Do Customers Want? If I could remove one phrase from entertainment journalism, it would be “what customers want”. It’s not that it’s not wrong per se, but I read a lot of articles that use that phrase, but then don’t provide evidence of what customers actually want.1 For example, look at the bar chart below. It shows customer interest as measured by how much customers actually spent at the American box office, comparing four films to four others. Which films would you say represent “interest” the most? The one on the left certainly seems bigger, right? So it seems like “customers” wanted to see those films more. So here’s that chart with names attached: That’s right, four very buzzy films—The Invite, You Can See Everything, Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma and Primetime—went up against four notable “flops” or underperformers—Moana, Disclosure Day, Minions and Monsters, and Supergirl—and the latter clearly had more interest. That doesn’t mean they’re more profitable2 or well-liked by critics, but if you’re asking what customers want to spend their money on, it’s those movies. I’d especially argue that You Can See Everything had about as much media coverage as a film can get—I saw/read about it constantly; whenever random NBA podcasts are talking about it, you know it’s everywhere—and yet Moana will likely best it. I bring this up, because this week features a showdown between a notable box office flop, Moana on Disney+, and a buzzy dramedy, The Invite on HBO Max. Moana was widely considered to be a flop, and it was a disappointment at the box office, only earning $126 million domestically (and $323 million globally). For the budget, that’s a big miss, down from Moana 2’s heights of $1 billion globally. But as I’ve written a few times this summer, we often confuse “this film is profitable” with “more customers want to watch this film”, which is not the same thing. But that’s the box office. Let’s look at the streaming numbers, starting with the Moana live-action reboot. Where, yes, Moana (2026) also disappointed. It made Nielsen, but under 10 million hours, which is low for kid-skewing Disney+ films: It did make Samba TV, but at tenth place for only one week: Those numbers stand in stark contrast to some of Moana’s previous superlatives on streaming. Moana (the original animated film) has made the Nielsen charts 130 times since 2021. Moana 2 opened to 33.3 million hours on Nielsen. Moana was the biggest film on streaming in 2023 and 2024, second in 2020 and 2021, and top six in 2022 and 2025. Moana 2 was second overall in 2025. To be clear, the Moana live-action reboot didn’t work, given how much it cost to make. It’s absolutely a disappointment. But more families paid to see it than people paid to see most of A24’s buzzy films this year, with one notable (horror film) exception. Okay, on to The Invite, A24’s buzzy summer release, which just came to HBO Max. Mainly, I’m curious: Who made money from this film? Or who lost money: the stars of The Invite or A24? No, seriously, read this Deadline article for the details. The Invite’s budget was allegedly “under $15 million” (so...$14 million?) then A24 bought it for “a sum north of $10 million”, which I saw elsewhere as over $12 million (so...$13 million?), but then it just made $26 million in the US. So basically, The Invite’s investors only made money after they sold foreign territories—it made $33 million overseas—but A24 might just make its money back in the US in the theatrical window, assuming it had $0 in marketing. I read one article analyzing this film’s marketing campaign which assumed no marketing spend, even though that article went on to detail how much marketing and PR and ads this film had. For what it’s worth, I saw a lot of marketing for it. A24 will likely just break even after factoring in other windows, but no matter what, this isn’t a hugely profitable juggernaut from Hollywood’s most-heralded film studio. (And, I’d note, most coverage of IP or superhero failures doesn’t account for profitability in future windows.) Really, I’m guessing that the stars—Olivia Wilde, Seth Rogen, Ed Norton and Penelope Cruz—had or kept their backend, hence why they did so much press for this film, which brings me to my actual takeaway, which I just mentioned two weeks ago about Backrooms: I don’t trust A24’s reported film budgets anymore. Either A24 is strategically releasing low numbers to get good press or they’ve really cracked the code on how to make movies at prices no one else can approach. But I’m skeptical about that last point. You don’t keep elite talent happy by keeping budgets in check—see: Dan Lin getting fired—and by all accounts, A24 keeps talent very happy. There’s another option: not paying big name actors their actual quotes upfront by giving away back end/profit participation. Offering backend is one great way to keep the reported budget lower than it actually is, but it makes the film less profitable for A24. (By the way, I’m still running down the numbers on Backrooms’ budget. If you know its actual budget—not the reported $10 million number—reach out to me on my contact page. I’ve heard rumblings I’m on to something, but would love something more concrete.) Okay, enough asking questions about A24’s business model. To the streaming ratings! The Invite came to HBO Max on 23-Oct, so we could look at the streaming numbers now… …and I don’t have any for you since it didn’t make any of the charts I track. And that’s pretty much the moral of the streaming story. Even though it disappointed on streaming, Moana wins this round, too. Quick Notes on Film The only other notable new straight-to-streaming film was S_urviving Hurricane Otis_, a Mexican Original on Netflix. It made Nielsen with 3.4 million hours and Luminate with 4.8 million hours. Overall, I’d call that very solid for a foreign-language title, but still far from a hit. Overall, the Luminate and Nielsen charts felt very light this week. Gladiator II also came to Netflix non-exclusively (it’s still streaming on Paramount+) and had 5.0 million hours according to Nielsen. That’s up from the 3.7 million hours it had when it premiered on Paramount+ a year and a half ago. Netflix’s Animals fell to 4.9 million hours according to Nielsen and fell off the Samba TV charts. Peacock/Universal’s Disclosure Day actually made it for a third week, but only at 2.8 million hours. Apple TV’s Sacrifice was down to 2.7 million from 3.2 million. Still, for an Apple TV film to make two weeks is solid (for them). Toy Story 5 made a fifth week on the charts. We’re just getting started with this issue, but the rest is for paid subscribers of the Entertainment Strategy Guy, so if you’d like to find out… ...how The Terminal List did after a four-year break... ...what acquired surprising title topped the charts… …where Ted Lasso finished in the all-time charts… ...big NBA opening week ratings... …a controversial new reality show that missed the charts... ...what very notable foreign TV show flopped... ...all the flops, bombs and misses... ...and a whole lot more... ...please subscribe! We can only keep doing this great work with your support. If you want an idea of just how much content you’d get in a full issue, check out this older issue.

Nov 10 • 7:58 PM EST • Entertainment • entertainment.substack.com

11/10/2026: Supervisory Status and Health Care Rule Quirks

Union Electric Company D/B/a Ameren Missouri, 14-RM-394835 (Regional Election Decision) A Regional Director dismissed the Employer's petition after finding that Distribution System Operating Supervisors (DSOS) II are statutory supervisors under Section 2(11) of the NLRA, but not managerial employees. The Employer, an electric and gas utility, filed the petition after the Union demanded recognition for DSOS I and II positions. Because the DSOS II are supervisors excluded from the NLRA's protection, no election was ordered. The DSOS I position was not decided, since no one currently holds it, and ordering an election for a unit with zero employees would be contrary to Board policy. As a preliminary matter, the Union was precluded from litigating supervisory or managerial status because it filed its Statement of Position with the Region but did not serve it on the Employer by the deadline. The Regional Director still took evidence sufficient to decide unit appropriateness, as the Board's rules require. Supervisory status rested on the authority to assign. The DSOS prioritize work tickets, choose which Line Troubleman or Traveling Operator to send, pull employees off lower-priority jobs, hold employees past shift end, decide whether to call in crews and how large they should be, and handle sick call-outs, all without consulting anyone. Relying on Oakwood Healthcare and Entergy Mississippi, the Regional Director found this resembled utility dispatchers who used independent judgment in assigning employees to places. It did not matter that the record did not show who selects the specific employees who respond to a call-out. The Employer failed to prove responsible direction because nothing showed DSOS face adverse consequences for field employees' performance. The one Performance Improvement Plan involved a DSOS's own errors. The Employer also failed to prove discipline authority, since switching error forms merely report incidents and upper management decides whether discipline follows. The managerial claim failed because there was no evidence the DSOS formulate high-level employer policy. They exercise technical discretion, sit below Superintendents and a Manager, and are first-level supervisors. Significant Cases Cited Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 348 NLRB 686 (2006): Defined "assign" and "responsibly direct" under Section 2(11) and placed the burden of proving supervisory status on the party asserting it. Entergy Mississippi, Inc., 367 NLRB No. 109 (2019): Held utility dispatchers were supervisors because they used independent judgment in prioritizing outages and assigning field employees. NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care, Inc., 532 U.S. 706 (2001): Established the three-part test for supervisory status under Section 2(11). NLRB v. Yeshiva University, 444 U.S. 672 (1980): Described managerial employees as those who formulate and effectuate management policies and are aligned with management. Ikea Distribution Services, Inc., 370 NLRB No. 109 (2021): Affirmed preclusion of issues for a late-served Statement of Position while confirming the Regional Director must still determine unit appropriateness. NLRB Edge is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe Prime Healthcare Services – St. Michael’s, LLC D/B/a Saint Michael’s Medical Center, 22-RC-392696 (Regional Election Decision) The Regional Director dismissed a petition seeking an Armour-Globe self-determination election for two full-time radiation therapists at a Newark hospital. The union wanted the therapists to vote on joining its existing nonconforming unit of registered nurses, nurse anesthetists, and technical employees. The Regional Director found the union had not shown the therapists could appropriately be added to that unit under the Board's Health Care Rule and the community-of-interest factors. The Regional Director first explained that the Health Care Rule does not categorically bar an Armour-Globe election in a partially organized hospital with existing nonconforming units. Under St. Vincent Charity Medical Center, such an election does not create a new unit and so does not offend the Rule's concern with unit proliferation. The petitioner still bears the burden of showing the group is identifiable and distinct and shares a community of interest with the existing unit. The therapists were an identifiable, distinct group because they do identical work in the same department under the same managers. On community of interest, the evidence was mostly unfavorable to the union. The therapists work in the Cancer Center alongside unit nurses but have separate supervision (apart from occasional coverage), separate break areas, and distinct equipment and functions. Their contact with nurses is limited to routine patient handoffs, and they do not interact with or fill in for technical employees such as radiology technicians. The Regional Director found some overlap in certifications and training, which might tip the scale on those factors, but the union did not establish common terms and conditions. The Regional Director added that shared benefits or work rules would not suffice given separate supervision, no interchange, and physical separation. The decisive problem was the Health Care Rule's classifications. The therapists are professionals who fall within the Rule's "all other professionals" category. The parties' contract expressly excludes "all other professionals," and the union's attempt at hearing to classify some respiratory therapists as professionals contradicted that contract. Adding the therapists would create yet another nonconforming grouping and leave other unrepresented professionals in that category. A separate therapist-only unit would also be inappropriate because the record shows other unrepresented professional employees. A unit of all unrepresented employees in that category may be appropriate. Significant Cases Cited St. Vincent Charity Medical Center, 357 NLRB 854 (2011): An Armour-Globe election in an acute care hospital does not violate the Health Care Rule because it adds employees to an existing unit rather than creating a new one. Rush University Medical Center v. NLRB, 833 F.3d 202 (D.C. Cir. 2016): Section 103.30(c) of the Health Care Rule applies only to petitions for additional units, not to Armour-Globe elections adding employees to an existing unit. Warner-Lambert Co., 298 NLRB 993 (1990): A self-determination election requires that the employees share a community of interest with the existing unit and form an identifiable, distinct segment constituting an appropriate voting group. United Operations, Inc., 338 NLRB 123 (2002): Sets out the community-of-interest factors, and common supervision alone does not require inclusion in one unit absent interchange, contact, or functional integration. Wheatland Electric Cooperative, Inc., 375 NLRB No. 16 (2026): Functional integration requires that positions depend on one another to accomplish their tasks, and minor differences between groups should not be given too much weight.

Nov 10 • 7:37 AM EST • Health • nlrbedge.com

Potential impacts Democratic health care proposals on employer-sponsored health care

Summary: Democratic state and federal wins in the midterm elections could lead to Medicaid expansion in some states, and focuses attention on the House Democrats’ memo on health care priorities in the new Congress. Few of these proposals are likely to become law before 2029, but they could form the foundation for Democratic health care reform efforts after the 2028 Presidential election. Portion of total newly eligible for Medicaid if non-expansion states expanded Source: Cervantes, S et al How Many Uninsured Are in the Coverage Gap and How Many Could be Eligible if All States Adopted the Medicaid Expansion? KFF, July 27, 2026 It’s been almost a week since the midterm elections, and the Democrats will have large majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, although not large enough to overcome Senate filibusters or Presidential vetoes. I reviewed some of what I thought these midterm results could mean in a post last week. In retrospect, I might have understated the elections’ impact on health care due to changes in governorship and majorities in many state legislatures. A Democratic trifecta (governorship and both houses) could mean expansion of Medicaid in Wisconsin, and a Democratic governor and House in Texas and Georgia could increase pressure in both states to expand Medicaid. That’s especially important, because Texas currently represents almost half of those who would be newly eligible for insurance from Medicaid expansions. Medicaid expansions matter to employers because they have been shown to decrease the risk of closure of rural hospitals and support workers’ ability to stay employed and productive. The House Democrats’ Cost of Living Healthcare Working Group published an 84-page memo in September with recommendations for the first hundred hours, the first hundred days, and the first year. The midterm results make this document more important. Here’s a review of what some of these recommendations could mean for employer-sponsored health insurance. Elements that could lower employer health care spending Restore the expanded advance premium tax credit for ACA plans. This could bring healthier enrollees back to the marketplace plans, which would improve the risk status of these plans and decrease the rate of uninsurance. Fewer people with insurance puts higher pressures on provider rates of employer plans. More stable ACA plans could encourage employers to consider transitioning from employer-sponsored plans to ICHRA/Choice, providing a fund for employers to purchase their own insurance on an exchange. Repeal Medicaid work requirements and other administrative rules of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act which as written will lead to a large increase in the uninsured rate. Fewer people with insurance leads to more pressures from hospitals for commercial rate increases. Extend Inflation Reduction Act negotiated drug prices to commercial health plans. These are now only applicable to Medicare Parts D (outpatient drugs) and B (drugs administered by providers. The Medicare negotiated prices are lower than net prices negotiated by PBMs. Hospital price limits. Some of the Democratic House proposals would institute site neutral payment and limit outlier hospital prices to 200% of Medicare. The average commercial health plan pays about 247% Medicare rates for inpatient hospital care, and many commercial health plans currently pay over 300% of Medicare for hospital services. PBM regulations. The proposals would mandate more transparency and prevent PBMs from paying subsidiaries more than market rates. Antitrust enforcement. The plan would break up vertically integrated health care monopolies which could lower prices through competition. Ban on non-compete contractual clauses could increase competition by increasing flexibility and supply of clinicians, although it could also increase physician leverage and lead to higher wages which could raise prices. Lower the Medicare eligibility age, which could take older, more expensive, workers off employer sponsored plans. Create a Medi-Kids plan to insure all children and potentially young adults up to age 26. These plan members have low non-preventive utilization and cost less per person than older plan members, but removing children from employer plans would decrease volatility because a few children have very high medical costs. Elements that could increase employer spending (in many instances for high value services) Mandate three primary care and three mental health visits without cost sharing Eliminate cost sharing for mental health care and substance use care during pregnancy and in the year after delivery Require coverage of infertility services Cap cost sharing for insulin, epipen and respiratory inhalers Count copay coupons and assistance toward member deductibles and cost sharing Cap total health care costs (premium and out-of-pocket costs) at 8% of household income Leave a comment Elements that could improve the market Increased price transparency Tightening enforcement of short-term plans, fixed indemnity plans, and cost-sharing ministries. These skimpy health plans skim off healthier people, leaving sicker people on marketplace exchanges and employer-sponsored health plans. Here’s a past post on the perils of cheap insurance. Most of these proposals are likely not to become law in the next two years, but could form the foundation of a Democratic proposal for health care reform in 2029 and beyond. The document does not provide cost estimates for these proposals. Share Thanks for reading! If you found this useful, please share, subscribe, like, and restack. You can find previous posts at this link. Views expressed in Employer Coverage are purely my own. Thanks for reading Employer Coverage ! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Subscribe

Nov 9 • 5:11 AM EST • Health • employercoverage.substack.com

Whoa, I Missed It! Disney Starts Licensing the Household Silver, When IP Backfires, and More Big Content Moves

(Welcome to the “Most Important Story of the Week”, my bi-weekly strategy column analyzing the most important (but often not buzziest) news story of the last two weeks. I’m the Entertainment Strategy Guy, a former streaming executive who now analyzes business strategy in the entertainment industry. Please subscribe.) Over these last few months, the entertainment business story landscape revolved around Skydance (and their merger) and Netflix (and their leadership shakeup). I don’t even want to scan my archives to see how many times I wrote about just those two companies over the last six months or so, let alone how many times they demanded their own article. Oh, how I long for June, when I could avoid them and write about other mergers and acquisitions (Comcast and NBCUniversal; Fox buying Roku). Well, not really, but you know what I mean. That focus on just two companies meant I ignored a lot of fun and, more importantly, important stories. So, it’s also time for another “Whoa, I Missed It” article. These are stories I wish I had written about, but aren’t exactly current events anymore. And there are a lot of them! Fifteen stories in all, including a very important merger that I didn’t write about, my word of warning about the IP deluge, how “genre” TV is making a big comeback, Netflix’s latest smart acquisition (and a licensing divorce), Disney and HBO’s recent TV show buys (and what they say about reboots on TV), a big cable merger, Amazon’s new bundle, social media censorship, and a lot more. Subscribe Most Important Story of the Week - Buy, Sell or Hold the Latest Content Development and Licensing in 2026!!! Content is king. I’ve written that before, and I believe in it now more than ever. If I had to quantify it, and I have, I put it at about 50% of the fate of any given media company, be they streamer, network, bundler, studio or social platform. This is a hits-driven business, and, as I like to do about every so often, it’s time to check in on the latest content moves. These content shifts on their own aren’t usually enough to be the “most important story” of a week, but if you add them up, you can see the content landscape shifting. The stories also fell into two natural buckets: licensing deals and IP moves. Plus, I’ll offer my “buy, sell or hold” rating for whether I think the deal is smart for a given side. Let’s dive right in. Disney Starts Licensing the Household Silver Disney is starting to license their core brands to Netflix. Quietly, over the last couple of years, Disney had rented some 20th Century [Fox] shows and films to Netflix, but until now, the core brands had escaped that fate. Now? At least some Pixar films will make it to Disney (including Elio) and some Disney+ Originals (like Percy Jackson and the Olympians). Here’s my rating for each company: Disney: Sell. One is tempted to say Disney has started licensing the “crown jewels”, but I don’t think we see that yet. I’d call this the “family silver” instead, which isn’t quite as valuable. That said, Disney’s new CEO clearly is focused on shoring up the company’s profitability, and that means licensing deals, even at the expense of Disney+ exclusivity. This could also help bring eyeballs to Percy Jackson for the upcoming season, a similar benefit to “dual casting” this show, which I also think Disney should do. Still, in the long run, I’d protect the core brands more. Netflix: Buy. This is a smart move, assuming the price is right, and I’d bet it is. (Netflix’s content licensing teams are some of the best in the industry.) Of course, this is another data point that Netflix is moving away from making their own films and relying on licensing instead. That has downsides—they’ll always end up renting—but if you’re buying Disney content, that’s a good move. Prime Video Buys More Live Events Amazon’s Prime Video/MGM Studios keeps purchasing live events, including the Emmys (which I wrote about here) and some regional sporting rights. These bolster their NFL, NBA and Academy of Country Music Awards licensing deals. My theory here is that Prime Video knows that they can sell the advertising for more on live events than on their massive acquired/original inventory of shows and films. (As I’ve been showing with Reelgood’s data, they have a LOT more shows and films than other streamers.) Advertisers want live, engaged viewers, since they’re a lot more likely to be real. Prime Video: Hold. I like Amazon’s focus on live events, but it remains tough to evaluate this company, er, business unit, since we don’t know anything about their financials. Yes, Amazon’s CEO recently released a very carefully worded statement about Prime Video, claiming profitability, but we don’t know by how much by when. (It’s also not audited by third parties, so we have to take it with another grain of salt.) Plus, given that Amazon increased the price of the Emmys by about a third, they also likely overpaid. (Maybe that’s why they’re barely profitable, allegedly.) But also, I think they know they need to dominate live TV, and that’s a smart strategy! So I’m torn, but lean towards calling this a smart move. The Emmys: Definitely sell! I mentioned this in my “Streaming Bonus Content” article, but I really, really, really, really do NOT like this move for the Emmys. Chasing short term dollars over long term awareness is not a smart move. To reach the widest audience, the “dual-cast” format—meaning broadcast and streaming—just reaches more people. Skydance Takes Its Animation Back This is the story that made me want to write a “let’s catch up on content” column in the first place. Specifically, Skydance and Netflix have ended their animated film output deal. It’s not huge, since really, what film has Skydance Animation made that’s broken out? But strategically, it shows you how Skydance is positioning their company. Skydance Animation: Hold. Again, I still need to see Skydance Animation put out a hit or two before I can judge this as a smart move. The other worry for Skydance is they have a lot of overlapping animation houses now, and that’s going to end at some point. Still, if John Lasseter can regain his animation mojo—and his track record has been mixed at Skydance, ignoring his other issues—this could be a powerful point for Paramount. Netflix: Hold (put your films in theaters). Right now, with the Dan Lin upheaval and Peter Rice coming in, we don’t really know what Netflix’s plans for theaters versus straight-to-streaming films are. So I need to see what new films (if any) they buy/rent/produce to replace the Skydance flicks, but it will probably be a smarter investment of capital, since the straight-to-streaming films have just failed to break out, outside of one major example. Theaters: Buy! They do look like they’re gonna end up with more inventory based on the Skydance move, and now Netflix putting four to five films in theaters per year. For example, Netflix confirmed that KPop Demon Hunters 2 will come to theaters, and that’s going to be a smash. Disney+’s Reboot Future So those were the major licensing news stories, and now we get to the IP-related updates. Obviously, I’m generally pro-IP in content development. But that’s not some iron law; not all IP hits equally. Get ready for Entertainment Nuance Guy. And let’s start with a big worry. Scanning the news stories, Disney has three reboots on their lineup between ABC, Hulu and Disney+: Coach (on ABC), The X-Files and Glee. So are reboots as immune to failure as IP? We’re just getting started with this issue, but the rest is for paid subscribers of the Entertainment Strategy Guy, so if you’d like to find out about… Why I’m skeptical about some upcoming genre and IP plays… How Skydance’s merger closing unlocked Paramount and HBO… The focus on “genre” across the streamers and studios… Some big creators leave Netflix… Netflix’s horror TV show licensing play (and what they should have done instead)… A huge merger that I didn’t write about... Whether or not we’ll see a major film tax credit… Amazon’s new megabundle of streamers… And (somehow) more… ...please subscribe! We can only keep doing this great work with your support.

Nov 6 • 2:02 PM EST • Entertainment • entertainment.substack.com

This gen’s top 10 PlayStation Studios games

As we near the six-year anniversary of the PS5, we thought we’d dive into our estimates for the top-grossing PlayStation Studios games since the start of the gen. Together, the 10 games we’re covering today have generated over $6.5 billion across PlayStation (84.7%), Steam (14.1%), and Xbox (1.2% via just Helldivers 2). Let’s have a look at the top 10. Spidey and Kratos sequels take the top two spots God of War Ragnarok takes the top spot with $1.4B in revenue via 21.6M copies – 20.1M on PlayStation (75.2% via PS5) and the rest on Steam. Around 27.5% of the copies sold on PlayStation were physical. It’s another PlayStation evergreen seller, too. This year, Ragnarok has already sold 1.1M copies, generating $60M (68% on PlayStation), outperforming new 2026 titles like Gears of War E-Day and Saros. Overall, our estimates show that Ragnarok has been accessed by 6.7M PlayStation Plus players (it was added to the Extra tier about two years ago). So it’s performed that well this year despite subscription cannibalisation. That’s the pull of God of War IP. And that Bautista series on Amazon is going to be massive - bigger than Fallout, I reckon. Next up is Spider-Man 2 with $1.3B across PS5 (over $1.2B) and Steam (nearly $70M). Spider-Man 2 has sold over 19.1M copies overall, so it should pass 20M early next year. Spider-Man 2 is an evergreen title that always spikes around the holidays (mostly concentrated around Christmas week): In December 2023, it sold 2.1M copies, up 20% from November 2023 (the month after release) In December 2024, Spider-Man 2 sold 460K copies (natural decay), up 60% from November 2024. Despite the Steam version launching in January 2025, it still sold more copies – and made more revenue – the month before. In December 2025, it sold 328K copies, up 30% from November 2025. This year’s December and Christmas will be somewhat limited by Spidey’s February 2026 addition to PS+ Extra, where 6.3M people accessed it for the first time. While subscription inclusions always cannibalise premium revenues to some extent, Spider-Man 2 did manage to sell 578K copies in August 2026 – the most its sold since Q1 2024, following hype from the Spider-Man Brand New Day movie. Want more free estimates and insights in your inbox twice a week? Subscribe below! Subscribe God of War Ragnarok and Spider-Man 2 continue to be huge evergreen tentpoles for Sony. Together, both titles have sold 3.4M this year (2.3M for Spidey and 1.1M for Ragnarok), generating a combined $172.9M ($115.8M for Spidey and $57.1M for Ragnarok). Again, some premium games would take a leaf out of Kratos’ book (not Spidey’s!) and would kill for these numbers in year 1. And we can see why Sony wants to take a leaf from Steam’s book, killing physical to get higher margins from catalogue sales, ensuring they get their cut, and having more control over supply and demand (and pricing for their first-party titles). Hot rods, hellpods, and horizons Gran Turismo 7 takes #3 this generation with $841.9M in revenue via 12.7M copies sold. For more info on GT7, you can check out our write-up from earlier this week. Around 1.1M people have already played GT7 this month, less than six days in. Next up – at #4 – is the first second-party game on this list. Helldivers 2 has generated $786.3M via 23M copies sold across Steam (66.1% of the copies), PS5 (25.7%), and the 1.5-year-later Xbox port (8.3%). And there are plenty of players very dedicated to the Super Earth cause, as over 4M folks have played Helldivers 2 for over 100 hours, while 462K played for over 500 hours. That dedication to democracy is pretty topical… Anyway, Helldivers 2 still attracts about 700K players per day (more if there’s a significant update), and its August addition to PlayStation Plus Extra has led to 1.6M new players overall. This year, Helldivers 2 has sold over 2.5M copies, generating $81.1M in revenue. It’s another evergreen hit for Sony, and draws in engagement numbers similar to Arc Raiders. The Helldivers 2 model, in my opinion, should be the way PlayStation approaches its live-service and second-party releases. Want more free estimates and insights in your inbox twice a week? Subscribe below! Subscribe Horizon Forbidden West rounds off the first half of the top 10, generating $485.8M. That said, PlayStation completely stifled Horizon Forbidden West’s revenue by adding it to PlayStation Plus way too early (one year after launch). You can see the revenue drop-off clearly in our platform: As you can see: Forbidden West was still a healthy catalogue earner right before it was added to PS+ Extra, making about $1.23M a week on PlayStation across late 2022 and into January 2023. After it was added to Extra_, Forbidden West_’s weekly revenue halved to around $610K, basically overnight. Excluding launch month, Horizon Forbidden West generated about $67.2M on PlayStation in the period before the PS Plus addition. In the same period after it joined the service, that fell to $28.1M, a 58% drop. So, PlayStation didn’t trade a little bit of premium revenue for subscriber value here. It gave up well over half of it, and it cut momentum instantly for one of its premier franchises. Could you imagine the kind of cannibalisation if it launched day in date on Extra? Want more free estimates and insights in your inbox twice a week? Subscribe below! Subscribe And the cannibalisation wasn’t a temporary blip that bounced back once the game left the service in September 2024. By then, 19 months on PS Plus had already hoovered up most of the install base that would have bought it, so there was barely a premium audience left to monetise. PlayStation even added it back to PS Plus on October 21 this year, and sure enough, weekly revenue dropped again (by around a third); though, the numbers are small now that Forbidden West is nearly four years old. Worth the trade-off. The usual suspects, platformers, and an Asia-driven second-party hit As for the rest of the list: Ghost of Yotei has now generated $410.1M via 5.5M copies on PS5. Yotei popped off a bit a few weeks ago due to a content update, which we covered here. The Last of Part Us I, a remake that we covered here, has generated $341.3M in revenue (67.2% via PlayStation) via 6.4M copies. It was also added to PS+ Extra about two years after launch, where 7.8M people accessed it for the first time. Ratchet and Clank: Rift Apart has made $334.9M (93.6% via PlayStation 5). It’s now passed 5M copies sold overall. It’s sold 250K copies this year, generating $13.5M in revenue. Time for another Ratchet? Stellar Blade has generated $316.9M via PS5 (59.7%) and Steam (40.3%). However, the share of Stellar Blade’s 5.4M copies sold is far closer (50.4% on PlayStation, 49.6% on Steam) – despite the Steam version releasing a year later. China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong account for 48% of Steam copies and 35% of PlayStation copies (about 41% overall). These markets are regionally priced lower than others, hence the difference. Astro Bot rounds out the top 10 with $292.6M in revenue via over 4.7M copies sold. We covered Astro’s recent performance here, covering how Astro Bot is another evergreen seller and has been a hit with families. Want more free estimates and insights in your inbox twice a week? Subscribe below! Subscribe Even these bottom five games have generated a combined $281.7M this year in catalogue sales. PlayStation wants those numbers to be bigger in the coming years, which is one of the reasons it’s killing the disc (alongside the better margins it and publishers get through digital). No more used discs means more D2C revenue for PlayStation. On that note, we recently chatted to the New York Times again about PlayStation’s digital future, so keep your eyes peeled for that! The last word Reply to this email – or reach out here – if you have any feedback for the newsletter – or want to request a game for us to cover. Want to see why these companies (and many others) are subscribed to Alinea? Get a free platform trial! [Alinea Analytics boasts the most accurate PC and console estimates in the business. Game makers use our platform to understand their audience, keep an eye on the competition, monitor sales trends, and spot new opportunities. We equip game studios and financial institutions with accurate data and the confidence to make smarter, data-driven decisions. Want to talk about all things games market data? We’d love to chat!]

Nov 6 • 10:43 AM EST • Technology • alineaanalytics.substack.com

Still searching for a Zelda 40th Anniversary Switch 2? Nintendo has good news

🥳 Nintendo confirmed Zelda 40th anniversary celebrations will continue into next year, suggesting ongoing Switch 2 restocks 🚨 Want the Zelda Switch 2? Follow our Zelda Switch 2 restock tracker @mattswider on X and we’ll send out an alert when stock appears 🙏 Unlike other limited editions, the console is not expected to have a restricted production run 💰 The special edition costs $519.99 for its ornate design, but does not include the Ocarina of Time remake 🙌 Nintendo President Shuntaro Furukawa ruled out future console price increases due to secured memory supply Walmart: Zelda Switch 2 console Best Buy: Zelda Switch 2 console GameStop: Zelda Switch 2 console Nintendo: Zelda Switch 2 console 🚨 Restock Dashboard: Get our live, audible siren alerts The Legend of Zelda 40th Anniversary Switch 2 is hard to find right now, though we’re doing our best to help people get one using our exclusive restock tracker. However, there is some good news to share. 🚨 We’re tracking Zelda Switch 2 stock updates. If you’d like to know when more stock arrives, follow Matt Swider on X and turn on notifications. You can also become a free or paid subscriber to The Shortcut to help support our work. 🚨 Subscribe Nintendo has provided an update that suggests the console will be easier to obtain in the future. Speaking during Nintendo’s financial results, president Shuntaro Furukawa said that The Legend of Zelda’s 40th anniversary celebrations will continue into next year (thanks, Stealth40k). That strongly suggests that the Zelda Switch 2 console will continue to be restocked, and that it won’t be constrained by a limited production run. Unlike the Xbox Series X25 limited edition – where only 25,000 units have been produced – the Zelda 40th anniversary Switch 2 should be more obtainable once the initial demand from buyers dies down. Of course, whether you can wait as long as next year to get hold of the Zelda Switch 2 is one thing, but knowing that the console will eventually become more widely available should please those who are worried about missing out. The Legend of Zelda 40th anniversary special edition Switch 2 costs $519.99, but doesn’t include a copy of The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time remake. You’re basically paying a $20 premium over the standard Switch 2 for the beautiful ornate design. Luckily, it sounds like the price of the Switch 2 will remain at $499.99 for the foreseeable. Furukawa ruled out any future price increases as Nintendo has managed to secure sufficient quantities of memory. That also means the price of the Zelda Switch 2 won’t be affected. Up next: Zelda 40th anniversary Switch 2 restock: here’s when Target should have stock Subscribe Adam Vjestica is The Shortcut’s Senior Editor. Formerly TechRadar’s Gaming Hardware Editor, Adam has also worked at Nintendo of Europe as a Content Marketing Editor, where he helped launch the Nintendo Switch. He also runs a retro gaming YouTube channel called Game on, boy! Follow him on X @ItsMrProducts.

Nov 6 • 8:43 AM EST • Technology • theshortcut.com

What many get wrong about Amish or Plain Anabaptist communities, measles, and health

The U.S. has reported three measles deaths this week in three different states. All the affected were unvaccinated, and some were too young to get vaccinated, relying on herd immunity. Many states haven’t seen a measles death in more than 30 years. Measles is highly contagious, but it mainly spreads among those without immunity. Social factors typically shape these unvaccinated pockets. Many states describe these deaths as occurring among “under-immunized, rural communities.” (In the future, it could be among other tight-knit groups.) Small signals in the news point to many outbreaks right now among the Plain Anabaptists (APA), which include communities like the Amish and Mennonite. Many know APA communities from a distance through their bakeries, furniture, and roadside buggies. But most of us don’t know enough about them, their traditions, or how those traditions actually interact with health and disease. Rumors, misconceptions, and frustration fill those voids. Tristan Sharratt, a family nurse practitioner and rural health researcher who grew up near and works with these communities in Central New York (and a YLE reader who reached out!), says misconceptions continue to create major problems. If the U.S. wants to stop a tsunami of measles coming down the pipeline, or even support health in those communities proactively beyond measles (which is ideal), we must understand how specific communities protect themselves, their values, and the role broader society plays. This starts with a conversation and some self-reflection. Here are the top five lessons I learned from my conversation with Tristan.

Nov 6 • 8:34 AM EST • Health • yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com

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.

Nov 3 • 11:57 PM EST • Health • emilysbass.substack.com

The Last Disney+ Original?

(Welcome to my weekly streaming ratings report, the single best guide to what’s popular in streaming TV and what isn’t. I’m the Entertainment Strategy Guy, a former streaming executive who now analyzes business strategy in the entertainment industry. If you were forwarded this email, please subscribe to get these insights each week.) Before we get going, I wanted to remind readers about how I plan to keep your trust while I add advertising to this newsletter. As you’ve no doubt noticed, I’m running ads now, but the danger is that it could impact my analysis and writing. I have a list of sponsors on my About Page, so if you think I’m biased, you can check out who’s sponsored this newsletter! This is something that I’m not sure anyone else in digital media does (if you’re a writer or media outlet and you do this, let me know and I’ll shout you out!) but it’s something I’d love to see embraced by the entire industry. Sunlight, i.e. transparency, is often the best disinfectant. Okay, on to this week’s issue. We (finally) have another major Disney+ TV show to talk about, so that’s my main focus for today. Plus, we had a lot of new shows come out, including the fourth seasons of The Diplomat and Tulsa King! And Love is Blind! The Lowdown! Also, four (four!) straight-to-streaming films came out this week, featuring a lot of big names and celebrities, so I’m going to look at those. All that, mixed news for the WNBA, Reacher ends its run on the charts, Skydance does well in September viewership, NYU’s Sundance dominance, all the flops, bombs and misses, and a whole lot more. Let’s dive right in! (Reminder: The streaming ratings report focuses on the U.S. market and compiles data from Nielsen’s weekly top ten viewership ranks, Luminate’s Top Ten Data, JustWatch and Reelgood interest data, Samba TV household viewership, company datecdotes, Netflix hours viewed data, Google Trends, and IMDb to determine the most popular content. While most data points are current, Nielsen’s data covers the weeks of October 12th to October 18th, 2026. You can find a link to my terminology here.) Subscribe Television - Disney+’s Porridge Problem Listen, per my headline, VisionQuest isn’t the last Disney+ Original. At least, I’m pretty sure it’s not. They have other MCU shows in development. Well, maybe one: But it sure feels like the end of an era. I’d call it their “porridge too hot” era, to quote myself from The Ringer. I told Ben Lindbergh that Disney+ seemingly couldn’t figure out the right amount of content. In the heights of the Streaming Bubble Era (circa 2019 to 2022), they started releasing an insane amount of TV shows. After their growth slowed, they’re down to two or three shows a year, and that might be down to 1 by 2027. Here’s my TV shows by year chart: Even at the time, I thought Disney was making too many shows (that cost too much). Today? They’re definitely making too few shows (though the budgets are more in check, at least according to the reporting). Porridge too hot, porridge too cold; too many shows, now not enough. Which makes evaluating VisionQuest so interesting. This show didn’t have a great lead-in, whether it be a Marvel Cinematic Universe film (the last non-Sony-produced-Spider-Man flick came out The Fantastic Four from July of 2025) or Marvel Cinematic Universe TV show (the two this year were Wonder Man back in January and _Daredevil: Born Again_in May, both of which underwhelmed). And so far, VisionQuest hasn’t quite recaptured the MCU Originals glory, but it has some signs of sparks. First, it made Samba TV, though at a lowly ninth place. At least it made it, a feat some other Marvel shows didn’t accomplish. (Ironheart landed on the Samba TV charts one week at tenth place, but Wonder Man and Daredevil: Born Again both missed.) VisionQuest also made Luminate, though with only 3.0 and 7.6 million hours. But it missed Nielsen in its first week. The best news might be its 7.8 on IMDb, on 12K reviews so far, great numbers, even for a superhero show. Looking at those numbers, this show will really need to pick up in future weeks—and it may since it’s coming out weekly—or Disney will have another disappointment on its hands. Disney+ binge-released their last few shows to try to boost numbers, but that meant shows like Iron Heart and Wonder Man didn’t last long on the charts. _Daredevil: Born Again’s_last season missed entirely (though it came out weekly). Here’s the Disney+ Originals by totals: And for a fun new look, here are those same shows, rearranged by the years they came out: That really shows that, in addition to Disney+ releasing fewer shows, those shows just don’t hit like they once did. If I had to offer one main explanation, it’s that Marvel Studios moved away from characters who starred in the Avengersmovies (The Scarlett Witch, Vision, Hawkeye, Loki, Falcon, Winter Soldier) to characters who didn’t (Moon Knight, She-Hulk, Iron Heart, Wonder Man, Daredevil). It sounds trite, but more popular IP tends to do better than less popular IP. In Marvel’s case, beloved, decades-old characters trump newer ones. And yes, I think this is a problem for Disney. The failure of Marvel TV shows to linger for weeks on the charts, unlike in 2021 and 2022, explains why Disney’s share of the charts has plummeted: That’s a strategic issue. Yes, these shows are really expensive, but without them, Disney+ will struggle, especially if Disney+ keeps raising prices AND licenses out its shows non-exclusively. My recommendation? Return to the core value proposition, which is Disney+ as “genre HBO”. The goal is six shows a year, coming out weekly, spaced out throughout the year. When a show hits, keep it coming back. Make three to four of those shows Marvel or Star Wars, and fill out the rest with IP swings like Percy Jackson, Goosebumps or something like National Treasure. And make YA-skewing shows like Coven Academy to fill out the schedule. Disney, you can get this porridge just right, er, make the right number of shows. Quick Notes on TV Netflix’s sophomore, er, junior, er, senior season slump abated very, very slightly this week. I speak of The Diplomat, which returned for its fourth season on 15-Oct. Credit where credit is due, this show debuted in April of 2023, and has put out new seasons every year since. Has that helped the viewership? Not really. This season opened to 16.4 million hours, which is down significantly from the first season (21.7 million hours) and down somewhat from the second season (18.0 million hours), but it is up from last year’s 14.2 million hours opening. On Samba TV, it opened to third place; that’s also very good. On Luminate, it opened to 25.0 million hours, which is good, but over thirty million hours is a hit on that platform. Netflix wisely renewed it, since it’s steady and, frankly, Netflix needs hits.1 Paramount+ put out Tulsa King’s fourth season on a Friday. After putting out most of their big, usually-Taylor Sheridan-scripted shows out on Sundays last year, they’ve clearly moved to Fridays going forward. Was this a thought-out strategic change, Netflix mimicry, or a data-inspired move? Tough to say. Fridays are crowded with new movies, but so are Sundays with new shows. Anyways, this one is coming out weekly, and we haven’t seen it hit the Nielsen or Luminate charts yet. But it did make Samba TV at fifth place, which is a good opening. Still, if this doesn’t make Luminate or Nielsen next week, I’d call it a disappointment. Netflix had two unscripted shows hit the charts this week, one a docu-series and one a reality competition show. Tyson is a four-episode docu-series about one of boxing’s most popular fighters, and it made both the Samba TV and Luminate charts, but not Nielsen. That’s a solid run for only four episodes (assuming it didn’t cost an arm and a leg to produce). Netflix’s latest season of Love Is Blind also returned for its eleventh season, which opened to 10.0 million hours, down from previous seasons. It also had 11.0 million hours according to Luminate, roughly in line with the Nielsen numbers. Last issue, I analyzed the triple successes of Below, Carrie and Crystal Lake, noting that all three have done well. I mostly used Nielsen, but all three shows also made Samba TV (see above). Crystal Lake in particular did very well on Luminate, getting 35.0 million hours, top for Peacock among first seasons: The top “show” of the week would have been Thursday Night Football again, at 41.7 million hours. This is still above last year’s game, but it continues the season’s overall downward trend, which happens every year. (Though a big week is coming, based on the news stories I’ve seen.) As I said before, I’ll do a deeper dive on all the October games later this month, with comparisons to previous years. One company is quietly on a roll, when you consider the shows it makes and streams. I speak of Skydance—a point Variety made—noting that it produces Neagley and Reacher for Amazon, along with Paramount+’s Lioness, which means it produced three of the top four shows of September according to Nielsen. By the way, Neagley fell off the Nielsen charts after four weeks, which is a pinch short for how well it started, but it’s still a huge success. (Interestingly, it finished just 7.3 million hours ahead of the cancelled Ride or Die.) The point, though, which I’ve made before, is that Prime Video still has a problem with how many co-productions it buys, most notably _The Boys_from Sony and Reacher/Jack Ryan from Skydance. It’s not a critical flaw—everyone licenses shows—but Amazon still struggles to make its own hits. Reacher finally fell off the Nielsen charts, so here’s its final rank for season four: We’re just getting started with this issue, but the rest is for paid subscribers of the Entertainment Strategy Guy, so if you’d like to find out… ...An example of the algorithm NOT picking a film… …whether or not Netflix buys shows simply for the movie poster… ...if East of Eden is above the Obliterated Line... ...what four star-studded straight-to-streaming films didn’t chart... ...and a whole lot more... ...please subscribe! We can only keep doing this great work with your support. If you want an idea of just how much content you’d get in a full issue, check out this older issue.

Nov 3 • 7:03 PM EST • Entertainment • entertainment.substack.com

Phantom Blade Zero made $223M on Steam and PS5 in five days

Phantom Blade Zero was always going to be a hit. We’ve been banging on about it for months now. Well, the results are in, and Phantom Blade Zero has indeed been a hit. Yesterday, S-Game reported that Phantom Blade Zero has sold 4M copies. As of this morning, our estimates show that Phantom Blade Zero has generated $223M via 4.3M copies sold across Steam (3.1M) and PlayStation (1.2M). This instantly makes Phantom Blade Zero this year’s #10 new 2026 game by premium revenue across Steam, Xbox, and PlayStation – and without an Xbox release to boot. Want more free estimates and insights in your inbox twice a week? Subscribe below! Subscribe Combined, China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong account for 55% of Phantom Blade Zero’s copies sold – 56% of copies on Steam and 50% on PlayStation. But revenue is slightly different. Phantom Blade Zero actually made more revenue outside of China However, due to regional pricing, China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong account for a lower share of revenue, 45%. The three countries account for 40% of Phantom Blade Zero’s revenue on PlayStation, and 47% on Steam. This is due to regional pricing, which you can easily check in our platform: Using the $59.99 USD base price as a starting point, we can see that Phantom Blade Zero costs the equivalent of $40.31 in China (-32.8% of the US price) and $41.80 in Hong Kong (-30.3%). So while Chinese culture is at the heart of Phantom Blade Zero (in terms of theme and player base), it’s actually making more money in non-China markets. In fact, markets outside of China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan account for $123M in Phantom Blade Zero revenues via 2M copies. Even when we remove revenues from these markets from the analysis, Phantom Blade Zero remains a top 20 new 2026 title by revenue across Steam, Xbox, and PlayStation. Want more free estimates and insights in your inbox twice a week? Subscribe below! Subscribe In other words, Phantom Blade Zero is a global hit. It’s not all China – or even majority China, when it comes to revenues. The China spring board helped, but a successful State of Play and – more importantly – positive reviews helped this one land in other markets. Quality sells. China was hyped from the start, but Western players needed more convincing As we wrote back in August, China was always going to show up early for Phantom Blade Zero. Our daily Steam revenue data shows just that, and we can see when S-Game’s banging RPG won over players outside of China: On the day Phantom Blade Zero’s Steam pre-order button went live in mid-August, China accounted for nearly 70% of Phantom Blade Zero’s Steam revenue. The shares hovered around 68% throughout August. This is the hometown-hero effect we’ve covered in the past, with the home market committing first – almost sight unseen – on national pride and a lush-looking trailer alone. Then things get even more interesting. Following the State of Play on August 18, US daily revenue more than doubled (from $72K to $146K), China’s daily take nearly quadrupled ($237K to $892K), and the rest of the world’s revenues also more than doubled. As China spiked so much harder than the others, its share of revenue hardly moved, holding at around 68%. So the by-all-counts-awesome State of Play got non-China markets and the West interested (you can see daily spend jump), but it didn’t move the needle for overall revenue shares. Positive reviews were the Western tipping point. US daily revenue went from $106K on October 25 to $230K when the embargo lifted on the 26th, to $463K on the 27th, to $899K on the 28th. So nearly 8.5x more revenue in four days, boosted by the positive reviews and subsequent word of mouth. When Phantom Blade Zero launched on the 29th, things hit critical mass. On launch day, the US and the rest of the world combined out-earned China for the first time in Phantom Blade Zero’s whole pre-order history. You can see this unfolding pretty nicely in the revenue shifting shares, too. China’s lifetime revenue share sat at 68% in August and was still 65% as late as October 25th, but it dropped to 45% by November 2. Over that same period, the US nearly doubled its share from 10% to 18%, and the rest of the world climbed from 25% to 38%. Want more free estimates and insights in your inbox twice a week? Subscribe below! Subscribe That’s not to say that China sold less – far from it. The West and non-China markets just showed up later, won over by the reviews and word of mouth. However you look at it, Phantom Blade Zero has become one of this year’s highest-grossing premium games. Daily volume seems to be decelerating a bit (which is natural), so subscribe below for more updates on performance. Speaking of performance and deceleration… Gran Turismo 7 is one of PlayStation’s biggest earners While games like Ghost of Yotei, Helldivers 2, Astro Bot, Wolverine (2.7M now, by the way), and even Marathon and Saros tend to get all the headlines (we hold our hand up there, too!), there’s one PlayStation game from the past five years that’s earned more than all of these games: and it’s one that’s rarely talked about in enthusiast circles. Gran Turismo 7, which launched in March 2022, has sold 12.7M copies. This amounts to $840M in revenue, second only to Spider-Man 2’s $1.3B – if we’re talking PlayStation first-party for this generation. Gran Turismo 7 still brings in around 3M players every month (and between 400K and 700K active players per day). It’s also an evergreen seller every year. For example, Gran Turismo 7 generated: $189.7M in 2023 via 2.9M copies $161.3M in 2024 via 2.7M copies $119.1M in 2025 via 1.7M copies This year, Gran Turismo 7 has already sold 1.3M copies, generating $74.7M And there’s more laps to come Every December is comfortably GT7’s biggest month of the year (except launch), and the gap is widening there. December generated 2.1x a normal month in 2023, and by 2025 that had grown to 2.8x. Want more free estimates and insights in your inbox twice a week? Subscribe below! Subscribe As the typical months cool off with age, Christmas always holds strong, so the holiday period is becoming a bigger slice of Gran Turismo 7 yearly revenue. For Gran Turismo 7, the week around Christmas does 3x to 5x a typical week – three years running: Christmas week 2023: $14.7M (4.6x the year’s median week) Christmas week 2024: $9.3M (3.3x) Christmas week 2025: $8.5M (4.6x) These Christmas peaks happened at the full $59.99 (Gran Turismo 7 wasn’t discounted at all in December 2023 or December 2025). And although there was a discount late in December 2024, GT7’s peak week that year still happened at full price. You can really see why PlayStation hasn’t added this one to PlayStation Plus, eh? Say it after me: Subscriptions cannibalise premium revenue! On that note… Let’s take a quick look at how Gran Turismo 7 is doing versus its nearest competitor, Xbox console exclusive and long-running sim racer Forza Motorsport (released in 2023 as a reboot for the franchise, about 19 months after GT7). Forza Motorsport has sold around 1.3M copies across Xbox (75.4% for Xbox console and PC) and Steam (24.6%), grossing $89.9M across those platforms. Launch aligned, and on just PlayStation, Gran Turismo 7 had sold 10.2M copies, generating $676.1M, by that point. In other words, Gran Turismo 7 has sold the same number of copies this year as Forza Motorsport has sold since launch. When all is said and done, Gran Turismo 7’s 2026 revenues will have lapped Motorsport’s lifetime, too. It’s worth noting that Forza Motorsport was not released on last-gen consoles, and under a quarter of Gran Turismo 7’s revenue has come from PS4 consoles. Critically, Forza Motorsport is also on Game Pass, where nearly 7M players have accessed it. Meanwhile, the Forza Horizon series has been performing incredibly in terms of revenue. This year’s Forza Horizon 6 has generated $583.7M across Xbox and Steam despite Game Pass cannibalisation, and last year’s Forza Horizon 5 PlayStation port has generated $383.5M on PS5 alone. So two questions, then: How well is Forza Horizon 6 going to do when it launches on PS5 in January? Hit subscribe to get that in your inbox in January (which is in two months somehow!?) Subscribe 2. Open-world arcade Gran Turismo when? Also, if you like arcade racers, go and play Star Wars Galactic Racer. It rules. Like GOTY material, seriously. The last word Reply to this email – or reach out here – if you have any feedback for the newsletter – or want to request a game for us to cover. [Alinea Analytics boasts the most accurate PC and console estimates in the business. Game makers use our platform to understand their audience, keep an eye on the competition, monitor sales trends, and spot new opportunities. We equip game studios and financial institutions with accurate data and the confidence to make smarter, data-driven decisions. Want to talk about all things games market data? We’d love to chat!]

Nov 3 • 12:39 PM EST • Technology • alineaanalytics.substack.com

Why ‘Star Trek’ isn’t the ultimate in optimistic, Up Wing science fiction

Right there in the first season of Star Trek: The Next Generation—episode 17, “When the Bough Breaks,” to be specific—we get a classic Up Wing line from Captain Jean-Luc Picard, played by Patrick Stewart, who died last week at age 86. When Lieutenant Commander Data (Brent Spiner) says breaching a planetary force field might be “impossible,” Picard curtl…

Nov 3 • 11:42 AM EST • Science • fasterplease.substack.com

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

Nov 3 • 10:00 AM EST • Technology • bigtechnology.com

New York health officials report 1st measles death in 3 decades

The New York State Department of Health and Lewis County Public Health yesterday reported the first known measles-associated death in New York State in more than 30 years. State health officials state: “The Department has offered resources to Lewis County to assist with community outreach and support local vaccination efforts – both in response to this c…

Nov 3 • 6:41 AM EST • Health • outbreaknewstoday.substack.com

BMP hospital ruling raises wider questions about speaking up in health care

By William Crooks Quebec’s labour tribunal has ordered safer work organization at Cowansville’s Brome-Missisquoi-Perkins Hospital after finding inadequate control of psychosocial risks and insufficient protection of meal and rest breaks. Separately, research involving Université de Sherbrooke researchers found fear of reprisal among more than half of part…

Nov 1 • 6:01 PM EST • Health • publisherpt.substack.com

Why 2026 Is a Health Care Election

_Ypsilanti, Michigan_THE MIDTERM ELECTION IS ABOUT a lot of things: gas prices and groceries, the spread of corruption, and the future of democracy. And yet, as much as any single issue, it’s about health care. You can tell by listening to all the Democrats talking about high deductibles, drug costs, and insurance companies as they campaign around the country. Or you can tell by reading all the public-opinion surveys in which voters consistently rank health care as one of their top concerns. But if you really want to know why this is a health care election, your best source isn’t the politicians or the pollsters. It’s the people on the front lines. One of them is Raymond Rion, a family medicine physician and executive director of Packard Health, a small network of clinics spanning Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti on the western outskirts of the Detroit metro area. Packard is what’s known as a Federally Qualified Health Center, where anybody can get care regardless of income or insurance status. And like similar safety-net providers all over America, for the past decade it has benefited directly from the Affordable Care Act. “We almost went bankrupt in 2011,” Rion told me in a conversation last week, recalling how in the old days staff at Packard would work the phones furiously to get supplies and find specialists who would take referrals. Now many more patients have either Medicaid or private coverage they’ve purchased through HealthCare.gov, the online marketplace that the law created, so that the proportion of uninsured patients has fallen from around one in three to one in ten. It’s a lot easier to find referrals for these insured patients, though thanks to the infusion of paying customers Packard can do much more on its own. In particular, Rion said, the organization has opened two new branches, started a pharmacy, begun offering prenatal services, and vastly expanded behavioral health care by bringing on a half-dozen new doctors, nurses, and case workers. Now a retrenchment is underway. Coverage options on the HealthCare.gov marketplace got more expensive because Donald Trump and the Republicans refused to renew temporary subsidies that had been reducing the price of insurance. On top of that, the first cuts to Medicaid as part of last year’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” are starting to take effect. Rion told me Packard has already laid off a provider in anticipation of less revenue next year.1 Patient volume is down, he went on to explain, in part because uninsured patients sometimes avoid care altogether out of fear a single visit will lead to more treatments with more bills. And postponing care in that way can have serious medical consequences, as his colleague Ron Romero told me. “So you have somebody with diabetes, their chronic condition isn’t getting cared for,” said Romero, who like Rion is a family physician. “Their sugars rise, and they end up having other medical problems. Their kidneys start to get damaged. They start to have eye damage. They increase risk for heart attacks and strokes. . . . They end up in the emergency room.” And things are likely to get worse. Partly that’s because next year most of the remaining Medicaid cuts will take full effect, throwing more people off coverage. And partly it’s because forces that have nothing to do with Trump or Republican actions are making medical care more expensive for everyone, including those with employer insurance and Medicare. That will lead to still more people delaying or skipping care, ending up in the emergency rooms, and putting yet more cost pressure on providers. Rion wasn’t taking a position on the election or political parties, he made clear. He was just describing the reality he sees around him: “The whole system is being pressured. Nobody is immune to this stuff.” He’s right. And here’s the thing: This has all happened before. We know happens next.

Nov 1 • 10:06 AM EST • Health • thebulwark.com

Scaring Up Customers for Halloween Streaming

(Welcome to the Entertainment Strategy Guy, a newsletter on the entertainment industry and business strategy. I write a weekly Streaming Ratings Report and a bi-weekly strategy column, along with occasional deep dives into other topics, like today’s article. Please subscribe.) Way back in 2022, I did a deep dive into each streamer’s horror offerings, looking at the top horror film and TV shows, and which streamers had the best library titles and best Halloween landing pages. If you’d like to check out those articles... Way back in 2022, I ranked all the streamers’ Halloween landing pages. I updated my thoughts in 2023... ...and 2024. After taking last year off, I’m back at it again this year. My theory—then and now—is that Halloween landing pages provide a subtle but surprisingly valuable insight into how the streamers position themselves, and what they do well and what they don’t. They show who relies on libraries, whose libraries across TV and film have the most value, who understands how customers want to access those libraries, and, being blunt, which product teams actually put the time in to make a quality holiday user experience. Plus, three “horror” TV shows had big debuts this month! So today, I’ll answer the questions... What are the all-time biggest horror shows and films on streaming? What streamer has the best library? What streamer has the best landing page? And what does this say about the streaming wars today? But first, let’s look at three big new horror shows on streaming... Subscribe Horror TV Has Dominated October So Far In a fun twist this month, three different streamers released three different horror TV shows. Many scary stories come out every October, but the twist is that all three did well: Two of the shows got over 20 million hours, which is just good. You can see that Below is helping Netflix start October/Q4 off well: And that Carrie is a top seven show for Amazon through two weeks: But here’s the crazier note: even though it doesn’t look huge, Crystal Lake is Peacock’s biggest debut yet: Let’s discuss the streaming elephant in the room: two of these shows are based off classic horror IP: Jason and Carrie. So once again, IP works, in theaters and on streaming. It just does. Oddly enough, horror IP doesn’t draw a tenth of the ire that other IP does, even though, arguably, horror films are the original franchise films, starting in the 1930s and continuing on through the slasher film 80s. So horror TV shows are off to a great start. While I’ve written before that horror films do NOT over-perform on streaming, TV shows are a different story. The Top Horror Films and TV Shows on Streaming All Time To start, here are the top first seasons for all streaming TV shows since 2020 (the start of the Streaming Ratings Era): First take: yep, that’s some power laws at work right there. The biggest TV show hits aren’t just bigger than other hit shows, they’re orders of magnitude bigger. Wednesday dwarfs The Last of Us (a big hit!) and is ten times bigger than the next six most popular horror shows. Wow! So yes, horror or horror-adjacent shows can do as well as the top shows on streaming. Wednesday is proof of this. (Though, even Wednesday is more horror-adjacent than proper horror.) Also, note that Below, Carrie and _Crystal Lake_could/should keep moving up the charts. That said, there is some weakness in these numbers. Only eighteen horror first seasons made the charts, which is low. For context, 541 season ones have made the Nielsen originals charts since 2020. Eighteen out of 541 isn’t great! Plus, again, the IP issue. Wednesday and The Last of Us came from popular IP, and It: Welcome to Derry and Goosebumps are spinoffs. Next up, every horror show from season two on: The bad news here? Besides one iconic example, horror shows don’t last long i.e. generate very many seasons. While many straight-to-streaming horror shows were limited series, many weren’t and only four horror shows got to a second season or beyond. That’s a bad hit rate. And yeah, only one horror show made it to a fifth season! This genre is just not elite (on streaming). Okay, on to the top horror films all time (er, since 2020): We’re just getting started with this issue, but the rest is for paid subscribers of the Entertainment Strategy Guy, so if you’d like to find out… ...What streamers have the most horror films... ...And how FASTs have embraced horror films... ...How many elite horror films are on linear TV or aren’t on TV at all… ...How streamers make it very, very hard to find horror films… …And a lot more... ...please subscribe! We can only keep doing this great work with your support. If you’d like to read more about why you should subscribe, please read this article about the Streaming Ratings Report, why it matters, why you need it, and why we cover streaming ratings best.

Oct 30 • 5:58 PM EDT • Entertainment • entertainment.substack.com

Science Begins With Wonder and Sometimes With a Salamander.

The Bar Harbor Story is generously sponsored by the Don & Beth Straus Center at Birch Bay Village. BAR HARBOR—The children had come to see the axolotls, those odd little salamanders with pink frills around their heads and the remarkable ability to grow back what they lose. But also there were stickers. There were crafts. There was the kind of excitement that makes a roomful of kindergarteners forget, for a little while, that sitting still is ever a requirement. And then there were the animals themselves, alive in their clear cases at the MDI Biological Laboratory, where 12 children from Pemetic Elementary School got to meet the creatures they had been learning about in class. “Do you love them?” their teacher, Carol Null, asked. The answer came back in a chorus. “I do!” “I do!” “I do too,” Null said, smiling. “I love them even more now.” That was the thing about a day at the lab. Science was no longer a picture in a book, or a word on a classroom wall. It had a face, a tail, and a set of extraordinary powers. And for a child, sometimes that is where wonder begins. Sometimes learning about science is about stickers. Sometimes it’s about bright pink feathers and getting super excited about that glow in the dark. Sometimes learning about science is joy—pure and simple joy. That’s how it was October 28 at the MDI Bio Lab as Miss Hannah (known in the lab as Dr. Hannah Lust, director of STEM, undergraduate and graduate Training), other scientists, graduate students, and MDI Bio Lab staff, hosted 12 students from Carol Null’s Pemetic Elementary School’s kindergarten class. The 2.5-hour program created by Dr. Lust focused on axolotls, a species of mole salamanders, a superhero in the animal world: a superhero with some scientific-study worthy superpowers. One of those superpowers come from the axolotls’ ability to regenerate body parts, including entire limbs. But also, they’re cute. This fall, before coming to the internationally renowned lab nestled in Salsbury Cove, Null has been integrating axolotls into her class. They’ve been part of the kids’ vocabulary and their storytelling. They’ve been part of science. They’ve been part of the children’s learning about facts vs opinions. The Pemetic Elementary kindergarten students learn about invasive species and the impact on the ecology and one student related it to their dad, who lobsters, and his worries about green craps, an invasive species in Maine. “Are they bigger or smaller than you thought they’d be?” the children are asked after the scientists show them multiple see-through cases of axolotls, lined up on a table that they’re told not to jiggle. “Bigger!” “I think they’re bigger.” “Smaller!” The bio lab opening its doors to the collaborations and to students and families is a norm, but this is the first program of this kind. It’s meant to encourage kindergarten students about axolotls. But when the students come to the bio lab something else happens too—something beyond Null’s child-focused teaching—the students see science—and the regenerating creatures in real life. They do crafts. They speak with them. They meet people who know all about them: scientists and educators who talk to the kids like they’re equals. That’s a superhero power, too. Null speaks about meeting the kids where they’re at in her classroom, letting their interest and hearts lead her in their learning. That requires recognition of interests, of individuality, of empathy. Some would argue that’s a super power, too, but it’s also in those 12 students as they listen to the storybook, encounter those live axolotls, and hear about how axolotls might help advance society’s understanding of human health. As Eddie Seckeler (comparative animal models, CORE facility manager), carefully puts the axolotls on a cart and rolls them away, some of the children stop what they’re doing to watch. “Bye axolotls.” “Bye!” “Bye!” The axolotls are not just images in a book, Hello, I’m an axolotl by Hayley and John Rocco; they are real and cool. MDI Biological Laboratory scientists Dr. Prayag Murawala and Dr. James Godwin who both feature in the Roccos’ book. The kindergarteners get to meet them in real life, off the page, in the world, doing science. They learn from them, laugh with them. “The visit is about more than meeting an unusual animal. By introducing children to scientists working in their own community, the experience helps make science tangible and accessible. Students can see that science is not just something they read about in books or learn about at school. It is something real people do every day by asking questions, making observations and working to understand how the world works,” explains MDI Biological Laboratory Director of Communications Rebecca Woods. While the students make axolotl-related crafts around tables, graduate students and staff help out. Ryan holds up his construction paper setting and axolotl to show Omar Maged, a graduate student. “Do you like it?” Ryan asks, eyes wide, turning from his axolotl to look up at Omar. Omar studies the construction paper for a moment, smiles and says definitively, each word important. “It is beautiful.” Null says that she’s so thankful for all the “amazing” community partners that her school and her students get to interact with as they learn and grow and live, but emphasized how the MDI Bio Lab goes out of its way to create something meaningful, something that allows her young students to build their own agency, to know that they can be impactful in their community, to show them how how things they learn about in text is connected to themselves and their community. Woods explains, “Axolotls have an extraordinary ability to regenerate, or regrow, certain body parts, including limbs. Scientists study these animals to understand how regeneration works and what their biology might teach us about tissue repair and healing in humans.” The children enter the space for “a memorable introduction to a big scientific question,” Woods said. “How can some animals regrow body parts? The encounter encourages children to look closely, wonder about what they see and begin to understand how scientists use observations and experiments to investigate questions.” “For the students, the visit is an opportunity to explore a fascinating animal and meet scientists in their own community,” Woods explains. “For MDI Biological Laboratory, it is a chance to share the excitement of research, nurture curiosity, and help young learners discover that science begins with asking questions.“ At the beginning of the school year, Pemetic kindergarteners didn’t know what the axolotl was—at least not exactly—now they know all about the axolotl’s life cycle. “It’s different than a butterfly,” one student told Mrs. Null. It is. The change and knowledge might seem small**,** but it offers a glimpse of what happens when a subject moves beyond the pages of a book and into a child’s world. The children have been learning about butterflies at the Charlotte Rhoades Park and Butterfly Garden. At both the garden and the MDI Bio Lab, the children see the animals, meet the scientists who study them and at the lab encounter a question that researchers are still working to answer: how can some creatures regenerate body parts, and what might that teach us about healing in humans? They leave with gift bags, paper-plate salamanders, new things to wonder about and a connection between the science they learn in school and the work happening in their own community. The axolotls may be remarkable for their ability to grow back what they have lost. For these young students, the day offers something different: a chance to discover how much there is to ask, observe, and imagine. When Null’s students had time to use chalk and draw whatever they want, in the beginning of the year, they drew rainbows. Now? They’re using that chalk and choosing to draw axolotls instead. About MDI Bio Laboratory For more than 125 years, MDI Bio Lab has been a center for training and research in comparative biology. In the last two decades its biomedical research has focused on aging, regeneration, and environmental toxins. The Laboratory houses 11 research groups staffed by an international team of world-class scientists and graduate students. It also leads a statewide network of colleges, universities and research institutions that collaborate to provide training, research experiences and financial support to help young Mainers play a bigger role in today’s biomedical revolution. Located on Maine’s rugged coast, the Laboratory’s 100+ acre campus houses research facilities, cottages and dorms that house visiting scientists and students. It is also home to MDI Bioscience, a subsidiary working to design innovative techniques to speed the drug discovery process. The Bar Harbor Story is generously sponsored by Rick Osann Art. LINKS TO LEARN MORE NIH INBRE MDI BIOLOGICAL LABORATORY Pemetic Elementary School Hello, I’m an Axolotl Photos: Carrie Jones/Bar Harbor Story HELP SUPPORT THE BAR HARBOR STORY When we started The Bar Harbor Story, we didn’t know if anyone would read it. But you showed up. You shared. You sent tips. Now—over 400,000 views every month later—it’s clear: people here care about their community and each other. We’ve kept everything free because news should never be out of reach, but every one of our stories takes time to write, and your support keeps The Bar Harbor Story going. If you value our work, please consider a paid subscription, a founding membership, or a sponsorship. It truly helps us cover one more meeting, tell one more story, shine one more light. Even $5 a month makes a difference. Click here to become a one-time supporter now. Thank you so much for being here. Founding member information can be found here. Have questions about sponsorships? Just send Shaun an email at sfarrar86@gmail.com, he’d love to hear from you. Subscribe Share Bar Harbor Story Share Leave a comment

Oct 30 • 9:07 AM EDT • Science • barharborstory.substack.com

Zelda 40th Anniversary Switch 2 restock update: the Nintendo Store remains your best bet

🎮 The Zelda 40th anniversary Switch 2 was released on October 29 and flashed in and out of stock at the Nintendo Store 🚨 Our Zelda Switch 2 restock tracker @mattswider on X will send out an alert as soon as stock appears 👀 Walmart was our top pick to have a restock, but a supply chain delay has pushed the date back ⌚ In-store midnight launches are being held at GameStop, Best Buy, and Nintendo New York/San Francisco Walmart: Zelda Switch 2 console Best Buy: Zelda Switch 2 console GameStop: Zelda Switch 2 console Nintendo: Zelda Switch 2 console 🚨 We’re tracking Zelda Switch 2 stock updates. If you’d like to know when more stock arrives, follow Matt Swider on X and turn on notifications. You can also become a free or paid subscriber to The Shortcut to help support our work. 🚨 The Legend of Zelda 40th Anniversary Switch 2 launched yesterday, and it was the Nintendo Store that held the most restocks. The console flashed in and out of stock repeatedly throughout the day as limited units were sold and quickly snapped up. 🚨 Want the Zelda 40th Anniversary Switch 2? Drop your email for restock alerts before it sells out. ⤵️ Subscribe Many were met with error messages, “sold out” signs, or “couldn’t add the required amount” to their baskets. However, with a little persistence and luck, others were more successful. As it stands, it’s the best place to try to get the Zelda Switch 2, even if the experience can be a little frustrating. We’re expecting a similar situation today as our tracker continues to receive restock alerts. However, we’re reluctant to share them all as many have been false flags, but we immediately notified The Shortcut followers once the first restock went live. [ The Shortcut@theshortcut Zelda Switch 2 is back in stock at the Nintendo Store: nintendo.com Nintendo Switch™ 2 – The Legend of Zelda™ – 40th Anniversary Edition - Nintendo Official Site 4:18 PM · Oct 29, 2026 · 2.09K Views 2 Replies · 2 Likes ](https://x.com/theshortcut/status/2115840807773299128?a=b6yhtCFmoswv5lWWvEs&s=20) Amazon was the only other retailer to hold an online restock, though it sold out almost instantly. No more restocks took place, and sadly, the major Walmart restock of the Zelda Switch 2, which we were confident would take place, did not happen because of a supply chain issue. [ Matt Swider (The Shortcut)@mattswider ](https://x.com/mattswider/status/2115824408938111299?a=quc3qYd6I_Qe5wag2lU&s=20) 🚨 Zelda Switch 2 console at Amazon right now amazon.com/dp/B0HJ6F8L6V?… amazon.com Nintendo Switch™ 2 –The Legend of Zelda™ – 40th Anniversary Edition 3:13 PM · Oct 29, 2026 · 76.7K Views 32 Replies · 4 Reposts · 57 Likes The console will now be available to order online at Walmart on November 6, with Target also offering the same date. Some lucky shoppers could also get the Zelda Switch 2 in-store, with The Shortcut readers sharing their personal accounts of getting the console at Walmart and helping each other out. If you’re willing to travel to your local store, Best Buy and Nintendo are holding in-store events on November 5 (though you’ll need a Warp Pipe Pass for Nintendo’s event). GameStop is also letting customers pre-order in-store.. We’ll still be tracking every retailer with our exclusive Zelda 40th anniversary Switch 2 restock tracker, which provides up-to-the-second information when the Zelda Switch 2 is in stock. If the console appears – which it might – our followers will still be the first to know. Up next: PS5 Pro restock: it’s available again, but you’re paying more than you should Subscribe Adam Vjestica is The Shortcut’s Senior Editor. Formerly TechRadar’s Gaming Hardware Editor, Adam has also worked at Nintendo of Europe as a Content Marketing Editor, where he helped launch the Nintendo Switch. He also runs a retro gaming YouTube channel called Game on, boy! Follow him on X @ItsMrProducts.

Oct 30 • 6:45 AM EDT • Technology • theshortcut.com

The politics of war

Israel went to the polls last Tuesday and it is the turn of the United States next Tuesday. The differences in the two elections are self-evident. Compared with the US, which has favourable geography and does everything at scale, Israel is tiny and part of an unstable region. For its elections, it has adopted an almost pure form of proportional representation based on lists. This encourages multiple parties and can make it almost impossible to form a government, as we can now see. The US system is complex in its own way but discourages third parties. Yet for all the differences in size, geography, and political systems, the fates of the two countries are closely connected. Israel has come to depend on the US to sustain its military strength, and over the past few tumultuous years that dependence has created resentment in the United States. The Biden administration was punished for appearing to give Netanyahu a blank check after the Hamas attacks of 7 October 2023, and not holding Israel back as it employed ruthless tactics in Gaza. Because of the treatment of Palestinians, American views of Israel have grown progressively more negative over the past few years. Only a third now support the Israeli government. While on the left, this is largely because of how Israeli forces have operated in Gaza and, more recently, how the settler movement has behaved in the West Bank, for the American right the issue has been about how Benjamin Netanyahu persuaded Donald Trump to forget his wariness about more Middle Eastern wars and agree to a joint attack on Iran, which has gone badly wrong. The Palestine question was not a big issue for the two large Jewish blocs in last Tuesday’s election. Both supported a tough response to Hamas after October 2023 and neither accepts a two-state solution. It was, however, the threat posed by the ethno-nationalist policies of Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, the two extreme members of Netanyahu’s coalition, and their tolerance, even encouragement, of settler violence, that brought out the Arab voters. (In principle this should strengthen their position though to turn into real power would require the ‘Change Bloc’ overcoming their opposition to involving Arab parties. The alternatives are a National Unity government, defection from the Change Bloc to Netanyahu, or deadlock and another round of elections in the new year.) There was also broad support for the war against Iran among the Jewish parties. The difficulty here is that the objectives behind the war have yet to be met, and that continuing with military operations depends on the United States. In this way the two elections have come together at a crucial moment. If Netanyahu hoped that a victory over Iran would help him retain his majority, cementing his legacy as an Israeli war leader, it did not work out that way. Trump also expected a great victory about which he could boast. He promised at most the end of a hateful and aggressive regime, with a record of hostility to both the United States and Israel, or at least the elimination of Iran’s military capabilities and the end of its nuclear programme. Eight months on, there is not much to boast about; vital objectives remain elusive: the Iranian regime is even more hardline than before; the international economy is barely coping with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz; and Saudi Arabia is struggling with an unwanted conflict with the Yemeni Houthis. For all these reasons, the Iran War has been a dark cloud hanging over both elections. Yet the issue has been approached in different ways. Netanyahu sought to push the issue before the election while Trump has been more cautious. Trump’s essential claim is that there is nothing to worry about and he’s still working out what final steps need to be taken to provide a definitive conclusion to the conflict. Netanyahu’s final pitch was that there was lots to worry about. He focused on Israel’s dire security situation, with the Iran War unfinished and the prospect of imminent economic isolation because of international sanctions. For him it is imperative to defeat Iran decisively, and without delay. Why this different response to the same war? Part of the answer lies in how public opinion in the two countries responded to the war. In this post, I show how this came about. We await the outcome of the US midterms but know the result, at least in terms of the share of the vote if not yet the shape of the new government, of the Israeli election. With the elections out of the way Netanyahu is pressing for another round in the war. Trump is less sure. I conclude with thoughts on the importance of how he decides.

Oct 30 • 5:22 AM EDT • Politics • samf.substack.com

Wolverine lifts PS5, but Xbox struggles despite Gears of War launch

Oct 29 • 10:47 AM EDT • Technology • thegamebusiness.com

Zelda 40th Anniversary Switch 2 restock: Walmart and Target confirm exact release dates

🎮 The Zelda 40th anniversary Switch 2 is out today, October 29, but Walmart and Target are planning online restocks for November 6 🚨 Our Zelda Switch 2 restock tracker @mattswider on X will send out an alert as soon as stock appears 👀 Walmart was our top pick to have a restock, but a supply chain delay has pushed the date back ⌚ GameStop, Best Buy, and Nintendo are holding in-store midnight launches where units will be available Walmart: Zelda Switch 2 console Best Buy: Zelda Switch 2 console GameStop: Zelda Switch 2 console Target: Zelda Switch 2 console Nintendo: Zelda Switch 2 console 🚨 We’re tracking Zelda Switch 2 stock updates. If you’d like to know when more stock arrives, follow Matt Swider on X and turn on notifications. You can also become a free or paid subscriber to The Shortcut to help support our work. 🚨 A new update has dashed our hopes of a major Walmart restock of the Zelda Switch 2 console, which we were confident would happen today. However, a new Reddit post (thanks, Wario64) has revealed that Walmart is waiting until at least November 6 to sell the special edition console online. 🚨 Want the Zelda 40th Anniversary Switch 2? Drop your email for restock alerts before it sells out. ⤵️ Subscribe A employee note says: “Due to a supply chain delay, some stores may not receive the Nintendo Switch 2 Zelda 40th Anniversary Edition in time for its planned Oct. 29 release. To allow time to fulfill preorders and reshop inventory as needed, the point-of-sale (POS) block will remain in place through at least Friday, Nov. 6. As inventory arrives, orders will be fulfilled based on preorder priority and available inventory.” The Redditor who posted the news shared that some people were able to get the console from Walmart after 8:00am local time, so there is still hope. Target recently updated its Zelda Switch 2 listing to reveal that it will also start taking orders of on November 6, with in stores orders beginning November 5. Clearly, the supply chain delay is impacting other stores, otherwise we likely would have seen a restock take place today, as we initially predicted. We now know that Walmart and Target will be taking online orders, and that Best Buy and Nintendo are holding in-store events on November 5. GameStop is also letting customers pre-order in-store via their website. Despite the news, we’ll still be tracking every retailer with our restock tracker, which provides up-to-the-second information whether something is in stock. If the Zelda Switch 2 does appear – which it might – our followers will still be one of the first to know. Up next: PS5 Pro restock: it’s available again, but you’re paying more than you should Subscribe Adam Vjestica is The Shortcut’s Senior Editor. Formerly TechRadar’s Gaming Hardware Editor, Adam has also worked at Nintendo of Europe as a Content Marketing Editor, where he helped launch the Nintendo Switch. He also runs a retro gaming YouTube channel called Game on, boy! Follow him on X @ItsMrProducts.

Oct 29 • 10:35 AM EDT • Technology • theshortcut.com

The Israel debate reshaping Jewish American politics

“There are plenty of people who believe, as I do, that Israel has a right to protect itself,” says David to Lauren, both pictured below, over the dinner table. Subscribe “How does starving children protect Israel?” she replies. “I don’t think Israel is intentionally starving children.” “It’s a little bit absurd to be sitting here talking about all of these very specific things,” Lauren says, “as opposed to looking at the totality of him as a candidate, and the 90% of things that you agree with him on.” This is a snapshot from a conversation between a Jewish father and daughter in Michigan ahead of the crucial Senate race. Lauren supports the Democratic candidate, Abdul El-Sayed. Her father is undecided. That is mainly because of El-Sayed’s stance on Israel, one that mirrors a growing wing of the party that has become critical of the US-Israel relationship following the war in Gaza. You’re reading FourSight, a newsletter from Channel 4 News’ expert journalists explaining the complexities of the biggest global stories Could that alienate Jewish American voters who have a strong connection to Israel - and the majority of whom have voted Democratic? A shifting stance on Israel “An ally that takes your money to push you into wars you shouldn’t be fighting is not an ally,” El-Sayed recently told ABC News, referring to the Iran war and how some Americans believe that Israel pushed President Trump into the conflict. Foreign policy has become an economic issue that’s hitting Americans’ pockets, with the soaring cost of petrol and diesel. El-Sayed, pictured below, has opposed military aid for Israel and accused the nation of genocide in Gaza. That led to the pro-Israel lobby group, AIPAC, funding his opponent, Hayley Stevens, to the tune of $30m during the Democratic primary here. “I frequently criticise AIPAC because I think the way that they are pouring dollars into defeating Abdul and others around the country… is really corrosive to American democracy,” Brad Lander says at a canvassing event in Detroit. Lander, a Jewish Democratic congressional candidate in New York, is an ally of Mayor Zohran Mamdani and has come to campaign for El-Sayed. “Democrats and Americans don’t want to keep paying for Netanyahu’s wars,” he says. “They want a reset in the US relationship with Israel.” The 2026 election has clearly been a bruising one for AIPAC; the Wall Street Journal reported that, in an unpublished letter, the group described the cycle as one of the “most challenging environments in recent memory”. Share And significantly, after the midterms, the group will stop direct contributions to candidates through one of its political action committees. Voters’ concerns We followed a group of Jewish canvassers around one suburb in Detroit. They think that among the 130,000 Jewish voters in Michigan, between 20 and 30,000 are undecided. In a swing state where El-Sayed beat his primary rival by just 13,000, that could prove pivotal. We meet one voter, Jen Friedman, pictured below, who has a “Democrats for Rogers” sign, referring to the Republican candidate. The issue of Israel is very important to her because “having a safe haven is crucial”, she tells me. “What I see is one candidate, Mike Rogers, who is associating himself with people who are very proudly American,” says Jen. “Abdul, on the other hand, is associating with people who say they are anti-American.” Friedman raises two issues. Firstly, Hasan Piker, a left-wing streamer who has campaigned alongside El-Sayed and has been criticised for his comments on the US and Israel. [ ](https://channel4news.substack.com/p/who-is-hasan-piker-the-socialist) [ Why Hasan Piker thinks the US needs a socialist Trump ](https://channel4news.substack.com/p/who-is-hasan-piker-the-socialist) Anushka Asthana · Aug 19 [ Read full story ](https://channel4news.substack.com/p/who-is-hasan-piker-the-socialist) The other concern regards an attack on a Michigan synagogue back in March. The FBI said the man was inspired by Hezbollah and had lost relatives in an Israeli airstrike on Lebanon. El-Sayed condemned the antisemitic attack, but also said “hurt people hurt people”. That upset many here, with El-Sayed apologising numerous times for his choice of language. Jews for Abdul As we follow the canvassers, there are still plenty of lawn signs supporting El-Sayed. Elissa Driker, pictured below, runs out of her house wearing a “Jews for Abdul” t-shirt. “I feel like the values that Abdul has align with how I live my Judaism,” she tells me. She says “Abdul is not Hasan Piker, so I don’t conflate them”. I ask why Piker keeps coming up. “It gets weaponised. I don’t know if you watched the debate the other night, but talk about… weaponising fear and weaponising anxiety and all that Islamophobic dog-whistling that was coming towards Abdul.” I also talk to Elissa about how Americans more broadly appear to be questioning the US-Israel relationship and whether American Jews were ready to do that too. “A lot of American Jews are. My experience is absolutely the tide is turning.” For the first time, Gallup found this year that Americans now sympathise more with the Palestinians than the Israelis. In another poll of Jewish American voters, 65% said they were pro-Israel but also critical of Israeli government policies, 52% support cutting or eliminating aid to Israel. Father and daughter Back at the dinner table, I bring up those polls with David Fink. Why does he think Americans sympathise less with Israelis? [ ](https://channel4news.substack.com/p/how-support-for-israel-in-us-is-declining) [ How support for Israel in US is declining ](https://channel4news.substack.com/p/how-support-for-israel-in-us-is-declining) Kiran Moodley · May 4 [ Read full story ](https://channel4news.substack.com/p/how-support-for-israel-in-us-is-declining) “Because the news media and the extremes of both parties are so willing to tell what I think is a false narrative.” Lauren chimes in: “Do you really think the actions of Israel have nothing to do with the shift in the sympathies?” “I think that’s very relevant,” he replies. “I just don’t think that people really have a full understanding.” Lauren again: “It sounds like you’re saying that the shift is due to how the atrocities are being described, as opposed to what the actual atrocities are.” “There have been some things that shouldn’t have happened,” David says. “I think the polling is being driven by politicians who are taking advantage of this issue.” Lauren then asks, “I’m curious what your response would be if my children were killed in an Israeli airstrike and someone said there have been some things that shouldn’t have happened?” A long pause from her father. “Any reference to my grandchildren has a very deep emotional impact on me. Well done,” he says. “I have an empathy for any civilian in war and I don’t mean to belittle those losses. The loss of any one life is a horrible thing. But it doesn’t make it a war crime and it doesn’t make it genocide.” Lauren and David cannot agree but tell me how proud they are of one another for sticking to their convictions and for agreeing to let me sit in on their conversation. I cannot thank them enough for their time, and hope their honesty informs and educates many people during such a fraught election. Abdul El-Sayed: The candidate testing the US - Israel relationship Thanks for reading our latest FourSight newsletter. Subscribe to receive free weekly newsletters from Channel 4 News. Subscribe Share Channel 4 News Leave a comment

Oct 29 • 8:01 AM EDT • Politics • channel4news.substack.com

A golden age of science is coming

It’s almost hard to remember, but just a few years ago, a lot of very smart people thought that science was in terminal decline. Respected researchers were writing papers with titles like “Are Ideas Getting Harder to Find?”, “Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time”, and “Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science”. In 1996, science writer John Horgan even published a book called The End Of Science: Facing The Limits Of Knowledge In The Twilight Of The Scientific Age. The fundamental idea was that the Universe only has so many insights to discover, and that we’ve picked the low-hanging fruit. It was the idea that Joseph-Louis Lagrange expressed when he said that “we cannot find more than once a system of the world to establish.” As the big ideas and the simple ideas get mined out, we’re forced to throw ever more brains at the mysteries of nature just to keep scientific progress going at a fraction of its old pace: It looked like science was hitting a wall. Then along came AI. It’s far too early to tell how much AI will eventually speed up the growth of total factor productivity. But already we can see signs of a speedup in science. Anthropic Founder Jack Clark assembled some of the hopeful data points in a recent lecture: [ Dror Poleg@drorpoleg "If you pick different parts of science, you see the same pattern show up: Progress is accelerating, and it has started to accelerate in the last two years." Jack Clark @jackclarkSF I’m speaking at the IMF in an hour about the singularity and why I believe it has begun and the choices we'll need to make. Watch live here: https://t.co/Hj9HzcXx5h 6:08 PM · Oct 18, 2026 · 21.2K Views 2 Replies · 10 Reposts · 123 Likes ](https://x.com/drorpoleg/status/2111882070376980529) Anthropic is accelerating its investment into drug discovery, and is already announcing some impressive preliminary results: [ BioTender@Junioryu136689 BREAKING: Anthropic unveils early results from six Claude-powered drug development collaborations. • 70% shorter CAR-T signaling domain • ~35,000 antibody designs • >10× tighter antibody binding • 89% less batch-record review time Still largely preclinical. Anthropic @AnthropicAI Over the past few months, Anthropic scientists have engaged in deep research partnerships with six organizations developing new medicines. We've also begun drug discovery efforts of our own. In doing so, we’ve learned much more about how Claude can support the many stages of 9:43 PM · Oct 27, 2026 · 11.2K Views 3 Replies · 24 Reposts · 205 Likes ](https://x.com/Junioryu136689/status/2115197821150495150) Claude also appears to be enabling rapid progress toward a treatment for food allergies. OpenAI, meanwhile, announced a possible breakthrough treatment for neurodegenerative disease. Meanwhile, Google Cloud Chief Scientist Pushmeet Kohli has a list of recent scientific advances that have been enabled by its new Gemini model, including breakthroughs in nuclear fusion reactor design, rare disease research, and quantum computing: [ Pushmeet Kohli@pushmeet Gemini 4 Argon is a step change in model performance. In recent weeks, it has had a transformative impact on the Science projects in our team at @GoogleDeepMind and our external collaborators, and helped make a number of remarkable advances across scientific disciplines. 🧵👇 4:47 PM · Oct 13, 2026 · 36.5K Views 8 Replies · 41 Reposts · 497 Likes ](https://x.com/pushmeet/status/2110049807385702623) But as cool as these stories sound, they’re just very minor, preliminary efforts. There are a number of reasons to think that AI is going to propel us into a golden age of scientific discovery. That age might not last forever — AI might still run into diminishing returns eventually. But the next few decades are probably going to be an absolutely amazing time for human science. The number of “effective researchers” is no longer limited The most important input into science is scientists themselves. Until this year, that meant human brains — talented, highly trained human brains. The number of trained human brains could be increased by sending more people to grad school, but only to a point — the smartest people tend to be sent into the hardest research fields first, and if you 10x the number of researchers, the average quality will go down. This constraint was already starting to bite, as Ekerdt and Wu argued in 2024: We argue that a substantial portion of the downward historical trend in U.S. research productivity is a composition effect resulting from self-selection in researcher ability and the dramatic expansion of the research sector…[W]e find that this composition effect has lowered average researcher ability by between 37% and 53%[.] And of course, low fertility was making the problem worse, because fewer children meant fewer people who were able to become future scientists. AI just blows up this constraint completely. If an AI agent can function as an autonomous researcher, there’s no constraint on the number of researchers in the world — you can just build more of them, by building more computer chips and data centers that enable the running of more AI agents. Whether or not massive hordes of agents can collaborate to solve individual problems much faster, increasing the number of agents allows them to tackle many different research questions in parallel. What’s more, these AI “researchers” can be trained incredibly quickly compared to human beings. A human scientist takes decades to train, and more years to reach the frontier of their research field by diligent reading and conversation. This is the “burden of knowledge”, and it’s commonly believed to be one reason ideas have been getting harder to find — by the time human scientists can get up to speed, they’re often so old that their ideas are no longer novel. AI just annihilates this constraint — it can assimilate the entire literature and reach the frontier of research extremely quickly, and it can also tell human scientists where the frontier lies without forcing them to discover that for themselves. It can also pivot to new research directions more easily than humans can. And there’s also a self-reinforcing economic cycle here. Because scientific advances enable higher GDP, they enable more resources to be invested into the creation of yet more electronic “scientists”. Now that doesn’t mean the amount of scientific research goes to infinity — there may still be some essential bottleneck task that human researchers are still needed to perform. There are some indications that AI’s progress on open-ended conceptual research tasks is slower than in other dimensions, and it may be that humans are still needed to provide some of this long-term conceptual thinking. I’d bet against this being true for much longer, but it might be true for a long time. Even in this most “pessimistic” case, though, the amount of effective capital that scientists can use to leverage their work just went up by a lot. AI eliminates the theory bottleneck Science proceeds by an iterative process of theory and experiment. The theory part of that cycle is typically short, but non-trivial — it took a couple of years after the blackbody radiation spectrum was observed for Max Planck to come up with the quantum hypothesis to explain it, and decades longer before quantum theory as we now know it was created. It took about a year for Watson and Crick to figure out the shape of DNA after the requisite data was gathered. AI will basically eliminate the theory bottleneck entirely — or at least shorten the turnaround time between experiment and theory by an order of magnitude. AI is an absolute beast at math. Recently, an OpenAI model solved some of the most important open problems in computer science, math, and theoretical physics, and no one even batted an eyebrow because that sort of triumph is becoming increasingly commonplace. One of those solutions was a proof that the Standard Model of Particle Physics could be mathematically well-defined — a problem that human theorists had so far been unable to tackle. Not all research relies equally on theory, but understanding novel experimental results almost always involves some important component of either mathematical or spatial reasoning. That part of the task has now been made much, much faster. And on top of that, science is now open to a greater number of humans who aren’t naturally good at theorizing. AI can read the whole literature Much of the work of human scientists involves reading and understanding endless amounts of papers and going to endless conferences and seminars. The purpose of that work is to understand the existing scientific literature. Understanding the literature allows scientists to do the following things: Come up with new ideas for hypotheses to test Avoid doing research that someone else has already done Synthesize approaches from different areas or fields AI can reduce this effort to almost zero. Consider this excerpt from OpenAI’s blog post about their new research into neurodegenerative disease: The team divided the analysis among thousands of AI agents powered by GPT‑Rosalind, an approach we call distributed biological reasoning. The agents examined a whole-brain CRISPR atlas…a dataset showing how gene disruptions affect different types of cells across the mouse brain. Each agent investigated a gene disruption, analyzed cellular responses, searched scientific literature, and proposed explanations for the results. Their reports were combined into a reasoning atlas linking genes, cellular effects, relevant publications, and possible biological mechanisms. The research team estimated that comparable human analysis and literature review, conducted one perturbation at a time, would take months to a year. The agents reproduced findings from human analyses while uncovering additional leads. Their assessments of novelty and scientific value also aligned with judgments from blinded human experts. These findings help prioritize further experiments needed to test the proposed biological mechanisms. Some of these insights point to new leads for understanding brain disease. [emphasis mine] This is one case in which parallel work by a large number of agents really does make a huge difference: [ Haider.@haider1 this is actually insane openai deployed thousands of GPT-Rosalind agents to analyze millions of mouse brain cells in 32 minutes, work that could take human researchers months to a year also the agents uncovered new leads for brain diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's OpenAI @OpenAI GPT-Rosalind surfaced a new lead for drug discovery: could restoring cholesterol transport protect neurons from degeneration? DCTN1 is a gene linked to Perry syndrome, a rare neurodegenerative disorder. In mouse-brain data, disrupting it increased expression of genes involved in 2:41 PM · Oct 21, 2026 · 51.5K Views 26 Replies · 95 Reposts · 1.26K Likes ](https://x.com/haider1/status/2112917197903540516) Not only does instantaneous literature review vastly speed up the research process, but it allows AI to make novel conceptual leaps from combining approaches from wildly different fields of research. AI regularly does this in math research, combining results, approaches, and theorems from far-flung places that no human mathematician would have thought to combine. It can do it in science, too. Much of scientific innovation, historically, has been “recombinant” innovation — scientists applying insights from one field to another. With AI, essentially all research is now cross-disciplinary — AI can read not just the literature on a particular subject, but the literature on a million other subjects that might have produced useful techniques or insights for the problem at hand. Superscience So far, all of the factors I’ve listed are ways that AI can speed up science as it’s already done. I’ve basically described how AI can send gigantic hordes of superhumanly fast, superhumanly well-read, superhumanly mathematically gifted researchers to re-accelerate scientific discovery. But it’s also possible that AI will enable types of discovery — and ways of understanding the natural world — that no network of humans, no matter how large or how brilliant it was or how long it had to work, would ever be able to discover. In a post back in July, I wrote about how that might work: What if there are lots of…aspects of the Universe that [are] too complex to understand in terms of simple laws, but not so complex that they just dissolve into unknowable chaos? It’s possible that we can reliably control these complex phenomena with AI, even if we never reduce them to the kind of principles that we can teach a grad student in a textbook… Another way of saying this is that there may be laws of the universe that humans can’t understand but AI can. I call these “cloud laws” — causal regularities that can be exploited by technology, but which are too diffuse and complex for an individual human being to either intuit or communicate… Perhaps social sciences like economics, sociology, and political science obey similarly complex regularities, and AI can help us find them. Perhaps there are physical processes — plasma, or topological materials, or aerial turbulence, etc. — that obey cloud laws instead of chaos?… [H]uman collaboration is bottlenecked — it’s limited by our ability to intuit patterns at an individual level, and to communicate these patterns from one individual to another. AI, being a computer, just doesn’t have this sort of limitation; it can work with vast, diffuse patterns without having to break them into pieces or simplify them in order to compress them into the tiny pipelines of person-to-person explanation… If much of the Universe turns out to be ruled by cloud laws, we could be on the precipice of a scientific renaissance. In order to discover cloud laws, AI will need huge amounts of data about the natural world. AI figured out human speech by assimilating essentially all of the text humans have ever written. If it’s going to figure out hidden patterns in biology, neuroscience, materials science, etc., it’s going to need similarly massive amounts of data from physical instruments. That data will be far, far more than humans — individually or collectively — would be able to parse, label, characterize, or model. But AI was built to do this. If scientists simply build huge arrays of sensors to measure complex phenomena like the brain, the cell, the economy, etc., they may be able to feed this flood of data to AI directly and bypass human cognitive intermediation entirely. AI would then learn about the world directly, and it might learn things that humans never could. This “superscience”, if you want to call it that, would actually go beyond the kind of science humans have done heretofore. Many of the technologies it yielded would be beyond human comprehension — indistinguishable from magic. But to the AIs, they would make perfect scientific sense. In any case, it seems clear that the scientific slowdown that threatened human progress will now be delayed — at least for a while. Unless humans have somehow found most of the actual exploitable regularities in our Universe, we’re about to enter a new golden age of science. Subscribe Share

Oct 29 • 5:55 AM EDT • Science • noahpinion.blog

Global Health & WASH

The US National Institutes of Health reopened its center and program-project machinery in force. NIGMS is funding Collaborative Program Grants for interdisciplinary teams, NIAID opened both its Immune Tolerance Network and a next-generation R&D call, the NCI runs its Carcinogen Hazard Assessment Monographs program, the National Library of Medicine is funding institutional training in biomedical AI and data science, and NIH reopened its Centers for AIDS Research. The tell: these pay for standing centers and multi-year consortia at institutions with an existing funded research base, not one-off projects, so the fit is an established US research institution, not a single investigator. Disease-specific foundations are again funding the researcher, not just the research. The Parkinson’s Foundation opened its Paul Oreffice Innovations in Care Award and the National Ataxia Foundation its Research Seed Money Grant. The tell, the same one we flagged last cycle, is a named early-career or seed award that builds a pipeline of scientists committed to one condition, so what wins is a researcher willing to specialize. The post-USAID global-health money is routing through a State Department program statement and multilateral innovation funds. The US Department of State’s Bureau of Global Health Security and Diplomacy opened its Advancing Global Health Annual Program Statement, Grand Challenges Canada opened Nexa Lighthouse for climate and health innovation in Asia and the Pacific at USD $250,000 to $2,000,000, and CEPI opened a rolling call on vaccine-manufacturing analytics. The tell: the largest health money this cycle sits in a standing program statement and in staged innovation vehicles, not in a single bilateral grant. Total Estimated Funding Pool: ~$35.4M across discrete grants. (Separately, large national-formula envelopes not counted in this total: U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Global Health Security and Diplomacy (GHSD).) This post is for paid subscribers. This helps support the time and effort it takes to curate and organize these opportunities. Subscribe To keep this accessible to everyone who needs it, we’re happy to offer pay what you can rates. You can find more details here. New opportunities: Paul Oreffice Innovations in Care Award, Parkinson’s Foundation. *New!* *Closing soon!* The Parkinson’s Foundation created the Paul Oreffice Innovations in Care Award to fund clinicians rethinking how people with Parkinson’s disease receive care. The Foundation is using pilot funding to move promising ideas into testable projects, backing work across four lanes: strengthening community clinician capability, redesigning care models, building patient-centered technologies, and defining the minimum clinical datasets that make better standards possible. It wants hypothesis-driven, clinically grounded projects that can generate evidence strong enough to attract further funding. By opening the door to clinicians at every career stage and strongly preferring projects that involve people with Parkinson’s in their design, the Foundation signals that it values practical, patient-shaped innovation over prestige. The strongest fits are US-licensed clinicians with a focus on Parkinson’s and an institutional home for applied care research. Geographies: united states. Who can apply: Clinicians of all career stages, from fellows to established faculty, who are licensed to care for patients in the United States and have a significant focus on Parkinson’s disease. Physicians must have completed a neurology residency (or justify how their training pathway benefits people with PD); allied health professionals must hold an advanced degree, typically a PhD. Fellows, those in mentored positions, and those within two years of starting an independent position require a mentor and a mentor support letter. The sponsoring institution’s grants office is the authorized recipient and funds are disbursed to the institution. Funding amount: Maximum of $200,000 over two years; up to three awards. Targeted Sectors / SDGs: Health; Innovation; Science & Technology. Deadline: November 1, 2026. Learn more and apply here. Design and Deliver the Next EIT Health Bootcamps, EIT Health. *New!* *Closing soon!* EIT Health is opening its call for consortia to design and deliver the next generation of its health start-up bootcamps, funding the curriculum, masterclasses, mentoring, and investor engagement that turn early health ventures into fundable companies. The organization is using these learning paths to strengthen Europe’s health innovation pipeline across digital health evidence, deep tech and AI commercialization, cross-border investment, and patient access. What EIT Health wants to back is not a single course but durable delivery capacity built by partners who span industry, education, and research. Requiring multi-country consortia and a revenue-sharing stake in the programs signals that EIT Health expects these bootcamps to outlast the grant. The strongest fits are established training providers, universities, and industry partners with proven reach into health entrepreneurs. Geographies: Europe. Who can apply: Consortia only (individuals cannot apply), comprising a minimum of two and a maximum of five independent legal entities. Partners must cover at least two sides of the Knowledge Triangle (industry, education, research), including at least one industry organisation, and at least two entities must be legally established in different Horizon Europe countries. Funding amount: Foundational Learning Path: up to EUR €112,000; Thematic Learning Paths: up to EUR €124,500 per path (up to four thematic projects); up to EUR €610,000 total EIT Health funding available under the call. Targeted Sectors / SDGs: Health; Innovation; Science & Technology; Economic Development & Livelihoods. Deadline: November 2, 2026. Learn more and apply here. Technology Transfer Offices & Entrepreneurship Support Call (Beyond the Lab: From Research to Venture), EIT Health. *New!* *Closing soon!* EIT Health is opening its Technology Transfer Offices and Entrepreneurship Support Call to fund consortia that will deliver the Beyond the Lab: From Research to Venture program for healthcare researchers. EIT Health is using the grant to build local capacity for turning laboratory science into incorporated start-ups, paying experienced technology transfer offices and entrepreneurship support providers to run masterclasses, structured mentoring, and a closing Pitch Day across two cohorts. It wants to back organizations that can walk researchers from discovery to company formation, not just teach theory. Requiring two transfer offices plus one venture-building provider signals that EIT Health values proven commercialization experience alongside academic reach. The strongest fits are European research-commercialization teams with a track record of moving health innovations toward investable ventures. Geographies: Europe. Who can apply: A consortium of two Technology Transfer Offices (representing higher education institutions or research organisations) and one Entrepreneurship Support Provider with demonstrated experience in venture building and start-up support. Applicants may apply for more than one learning path where they can demonstrate the required expertise and capacity for each. Funding amount: Up to EUR €77,000 in 2027 and up to EUR €77,000 in 2028 (up to EUR €154,000 total per consortium over two years). Targeted Sectors / SDGs: Health; Innovation; Science & Technology; Economic Development & Livelihoods. Deadline: November 2, 2026. Learn more and apply here. EIT Health RIS Country Representatives Call (2027-2028), EIT Health. *New!* *Closing soon!* EIT Health is seeking organizations to serve as Country Representatives across eleven Regional Innovation Scheme countries in central and eastern Europe for the 2027 to 2028 period. The money funds a national anchor in each country, an organization that maps the local health innovation ecosystem, connects startups and researchers to EIT Health programs, and builds the stakeholder relationships that let health ventures grow. EIT Health is backing local capacity rather than individual projects, which is why it accepts both single organizations and national consortia that span education, research, and industry. The requirement for co-financing signals that it wants representatives already embedded in their national systems. The strongest fits are established ecosystem builders with deep ties to health innovation stakeholders in one eligible country. Geographies: Croatia; Czech Republic; Estonia; Greece; Hungary; Latvia; Malta; Romania; Serbia; Slovenia; Turkey. Who can apply: Registered legal entities established in one of the eligible EIT RIS countries. Single organisations or national consortia may apply. Consortia must include at least two sides of the Knowledge Triangle (education, research and industry), and all consortium partners must be established in the same eligible country. Suitable applicants have demonstrated experience in healthcare innovation ecosystem development, innovation support and entrepreneurship, start-up acceleration, technology transfer, research and higher education, business support, and stakeholder engagement, with strong links to national innovation stakeholders. Funding amount: Up to EUR €182,000 per Country Representative (maximum funding per project); total call budget up to EUR €1,274,500; EIT Health funds up to 60% of total eligible project costs. Targeted Sectors / SDGs: Health; Innovation; Science & Technology; Economic Development & Livelihoods. Deadline: November 2, 2026. Learn more and apply here. Architects of Trust: Community-Driven Demand Creation for New TB Vaccines, Treatment Action Group (TAG). *New!* *Closing soon!* Treatment Action Group, with funding from Wellcome, is opening its Architects of Trust call to help communities prepare for the new tuberculosis vaccines now moving through late-stage trials. The money backs civil society and community-based organizations to raise awareness, surface local questions and concerns, and press policymakers toward equitable national rollout. By pairing each grantee with an advocacy mentor and running a strategy workshop alongside the Global TB Vaccine Forum, Treatment Action Group is building a durable advocacy bench rather than funding one-off outreach. The two-stage design, starting with a short expression of interest, signals that fit and community rootedness matter more than polished proposals. The strongest fits are locally trusted groups with real TB, immunization, or health advocacy experience and a committed project lead. Geographies: Brazil; Ethiopia; India; Indonesia; Kenya; Malawi; Mozambique; Nigeria; Peru; Philippines; South Africa; Tanzania; Vietnam; Zambia. Who can apply: National, subnational, or regional civil society organizations (CSOs) or community-based organizations based in one of the 14 eligible countries or in Eastern Europe/Central Asia regional networks, with experience in TB, immunization, or other health advocacy and in community engagement or policy advocacy; well integrated into stakeholder networks with membership or affiliation to other CSO or community networks; naming a dedicated project lead (’architect of trust’) who can attend the April 2027 Zaragoza forum in person; and holding (or committing to adopt) organizational policies on safeguarding (bullying, harassment, abuse, and harm), equity, diversity and inclusion, and legal compliance, research practice and governance. Funding amount: Grants of up to US$45,000 will be awarded to 8 CSO partners across 14 high-TB-burden countries plus regional networks in Eastern Europe and Central Asia; each grant funds 12 months of work. Targeted Sectors / SDGs: Health; Governance; Policy & Advocacy. Deadline: November 4, 2026. Learn more and apply here.

Oct 29 • 3:37 AM EDT • Health • impactfunding.substack.com

Nintendo joins Best Buy for midnight Zelda 40th Anniversary Switch 2 restock launch

📅 The Zelda 40th Anniversary Switch 2 releases on Thursday, October 27 🚨 Our Zelda Switch 2 restock tracker @mattswider on X will send out an alert when stock appears 😲 Nintendo Store held a surprise restock on October 26 and is holding a midnight launch event on November 5 🙏 Other retailers may be holding back stock for launch day, too Walmart: Zelda Switch 2 console Best Buy: Zelda Switch 2 console GameStop: Zelda Switch 2 console Target: Zelda Switch 2 console Nintendo: Zelda Switch 2 console 🚨 We’re tracking Zelda Switch 2 stock updates. If you’d like to know when more stock arrives, follow Matt Swider on X and turn on notifications. You can also become a free or paid subscriber to The Shortcut to help support our work. 🚨 🚨 Want the Zelda 40th Anniversary Switch 2? Drop your email for restock alerts before it sells out. ⤵️ Subscribe We’re expecting to see a Zelda 40th anniversary Switch 2 restock tomorrow at major retailers like Walmart, as the console and Pro Controller are set to launch. However, Nintendo has joined Best Buy in announcing a midnight launch event for The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time on November 5, where limited quantities of the special edition console will be available. There is a catch, though. To attend the in-store event, which will be held on November 4 at Nintendo San Francisco and November 5 at Nintendo New York, a Warp Pipe Pass is required, which means capacity will be limited. If you’re lucky enough to receive a Warp Pipe Pass (they’re currently fully booked), you’ll be able to purchase The Legend of Zelda 40th Anniversary Edition console, Zelda 40th Anniversary Nintendo Switch 2 Pro Controller and display stand, the Zelda 40th Anniversary Switch 2 Pro Controller on its own, and the Zelda 40th Anniversary carrying case and screen protector. Purchases will be limited to one “per customer” and will be sold on a “first come, first served basis.” Why you should follow our Zelda Switch 2 restock tracker Obviously, many will be looking to receive the Zelda Switch 2 before November 5, and an instore event isn’t exactly ideal for many. That’s where our exclusive Zelda Switch 2 restock tracker comes in, as we’re providing up-to-the-second US store inventory checks. Those who follow Matt Swider on X and turn on notifications will be the first to know when new stock is live, as you can see in the post below. [ Matt Swider (The Shortcut)@mattswider ](https://x.com/mattswider/status/2114758291322757239?s=20) Zelda Switch 2 console in stock at the Nintendo Store nintendo.com/us/store/produ… 4:37 PM · Oct 26, 2026 · 67K Views 18 Replies · 4 Reposts · 75 Likes We’re strongly expecting retailers like Walmart to have stock on launch day, especially as it’s the largest retailer in the US. Cancellations can also occur in the run up to release, meaning more stock is made available that was previously taken. Thursday and Friday mornings is also when Walmart tends to offer restocks online. We’re predicting other retailers like Target, GameStop and Amazon will also get a new wave of consoles on launch day, and we’ll notify you if and when any Zelda Switch 2 restocks appear. You can trust our restock tracker as we helped over 400,000 people buy Sony’s console when it was in and out of stock for two years. We’ve since made it our goal to help our subscribers purchase hard-to-find items. We’ve done the same with the PS5 30th anniversary edition and many more in-demand products. Up next: Zelda 40th Anniversary Switch 2 Pro Controller restock looks increasingly likely at Nintendo Store Subscribe Adam Vjestica is The Shortcut’s Senior Editor. Formerly TechRadar’s Gaming Hardware Editor, Adam has also worked at Nintendo of Europe as a Content Marketing Editor, where he helped launch the Nintendo Switch. He also runs a retro gaming YouTube channel called Game on, boy! Follow him on X @ItsMrProducts.

Oct 28 • 10:43 AM EDT • Technology • theshortcut.com

Corning’s American Tradition of Knowledge in Materials Science

Founded in 1851 in upstate New York, where it remains, Corning is a manufacturer of specialized glass that has a market capitalization of over $100 billion as of October 2026 (GLW), annual revenues approaching $20 billion, and nearly 70,000 employees worldwide.1 Corning is the world’s leading manufacturer of touchscreen glass, one of the world’s leading manufacturers of optical fiber for long-distance telecommunication, the leading U.S. manufacturer of polysilicon for solar panels, and one of two suppliers of glass for extreme ultraviolet (EUV) photomasks needed to make the world’s most powerful chips with ASML machines. Optical fiber is also increasingly crucial to expand the computational capacity of AI data centers with optical networking. Corning is a rare jewel of the American Industrial Revolution that has not just remained competitive to the present day but repeatedly enabled technological transformations: it developed the glass for Thomas Edison’s first light bulbs in the 1880s, invented optical fiber cable in the 1970s, and developed the “Gorilla Glass” touchscreens for Apple’s iPhones that kicked off the global smartphone revolution in the 2000s. Corning’s leading tradition of knowledge in materials science has allowed it to stave off successive waves of competition over the decades from Europe, Japan, and now China.

Oct 28 • 10:10 AM EDT • Science • brief.bismarckanalysis.com

Politics is medicine on a large scale

In February 1848, a 26-year-old doctor named Rudolf Virchow arrived in Upper Silesia, a poor, rural corner of Prussia that’s now part of Poland. A typhus epidemic was killing thousands, and the Berlin government wanted a doctor to assess how to contain this pathogen, advise local authorities, and propose a plan. Virchow spent a few weeks going from villa…

Oct 28 • 7:40 AM EDT • Politics • yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com

Who Owns What: The Watermania Waterpark Richmond May Expropriate

[There is often a lack of transparency around land ownership in BC. Who Owns What is an ongoing series by The Realist focused on interesting land ownership stories. Have a suggestion for a future story? Email: howardchai@substack.com.] Earlier this month, CBC and Richmond News reported that the City of Richmond is planning to expropriate Watermania, the waterpark located at 14300 Entertainment Boulevard near the Richmond Ice Centre. The City of Richmond currently leases the property from a private owner — 14300 Entertainment Blvd. Investments Ltd. — and the lease is set to expire in March 2027. According to the reports, the two sides have been unable to agree on terms of the lease renewal and the City has since served a Notice of Expropriation, saying it wants to secure “essential community services,” according to CBC, with outgoing Mayor Malcolm Brodie telling CBC that “Watermania is an important recreation facility for our community, and the city’s goal is to secure its long-term future.” Richmond News added that because the expropriation is not for a linear easement like a sewage line or rapid transit, an inquiry can be requested, and one has been scheduled for November 30 to December 4, according to CBC. What was left out of both stories, however, is who the City would be expropriating Watermania from. According to the Land Owner Transparency Registry, 14300 Entertainment Boulevard is legally owned by 14300 Entertainment Blvd. Investments Ltd. and that numbered company is controlled by a Chinese individual named Hai Feng Zhu, who primarily resides in the Jilin province. The registered address of 14300 Entertainment Blvd. Investments Ltd. is 3899 Cartier Street in Vancouver, a mansion in Shaughnessy that BC Assessment values at $10,423,000. The home at 3899 Cartier Street has previously been tied to Kevin Sun of Sun Commercial by reporter Sam Cooper when he was with the Vancouver Sun in a report noting that Sun had an associate named Hai Feng Zhu who is a director of SunOil Ltd., as confirmed by the company’s filings. Another person mentioned in both the report and filing is Denise She. A search of Hai Feng Zhu in the Land Owner Transparency Registry reveals that Zhu also owns four other properties in British Columbia. The Realist then used the PIDs1 to identify the addresses, finding that the two parcels with PIDs beginning 014 are two parcels that form 1155 Bidwell Street in Vancouver and that the two parcels with PIDs beginning 015 are two parcels that form 1755 Davie Street. 1755 Davie Street is the Best Western Plus Sands, 1155 Bidwell Street is a surface parking lot, and both are held under 0993956 B.C. LTD., which is controlled by Hai Feng Zhu alongside the aforementioned Kevin Sun and Denise She, among others. The Best Western Plus Sands is listed under Sun Commercial’s portfolio and Sun Commercial also previously sold the Richmond Ice Centre to the City of Richmond for $32 million in 2019. Denise She, Peter Cheng De She, and Julia MiMi Yang also control 1078635 B.C. Ltd., which owns 1707 Davie Street, the small retail building that sits between 1755 Davie Street and 1155 Bidwell Street. Governments in British Columbia have a tendency to overpay for real estate, so it’ll be interesting to see how much the City of Richmond pays for Watermania if they do end up expropriating the property. BC Assessment values 14300 Entertainment Boulevard at $49,397,000. The assessed value is dated to July 1, 2025 and is a small decline from the previous assessment of $52,584,000. The rest of this story dives into Sun Commercial and $159 million in sales it made last year to KingSett Capital. Become a paid subscriber for all the details. Subscribe Sun Commercial Sun Commercial is based out of the City Square Shopping Centre at 555 W 12th Avenue in Vancouver, which it acquired in 2019 for $225 million, and also has an office located at 415 Yonge Street in Toronto.

Oct 27 • 7:37 PM EDT • Entertainment • howardchai.substack.com

Animals Starves while the Kardashians Miss the Charts Again

(Welcome to my weekly streaming ratings report, the single best guide to what’s popular in streaming TV and what isn’t. I’m the Entertainment Strategy Guy, a former streaming executive who now analyzes business strategy in the entertainment industry. If you were forwarded this email, please subscribe to get these insights each week.) Before we get going, I’d like to offer congratulations to Jonathan Funke, whose suggestion “midflicks” won the poll for what I should call straight-to-streaming films which aren’t big or cinematic enough to go to theaters but seem too expensive for a TV movie. It’s so useful a term, I just used it last week! Now I just need to add this term to my data dictionary! Okay, on to this week’s issue. We’re starting out looking at Netflix/Ben Affleck’s latest crime thriller, Animals. I’ll also look at Disclosure Day heading to Peacock (it did better than you’d remember in theaters...) and a new movie based on toys. Plus, a long-time streaming flop returns for its eighth season...will it finally chart? (No.) Will anyone at Disney care? Probably not. All that, plus another look at new shows landing on streaming on 1-Oct from Reelgood, what streamer hasn’t had a film make the Luminate charts since August, Reacher’s long run on the charts, M_onster: The Lizzie Borden Story’s_ short run, the top shows in 2026 according to Samba TV, all the flops, bombs and misses, and a whole lot more. And I mean that last part: putting this week’s issue together, I assembled OVER 25 images, most of which are bespoke looks I made just for this report. Really, publishing articles like this takes the work of writing two articles: one is the narrative and the other is making charts/graphs. Let’s dive right in! (Reminder: The streaming ratings report focuses on the U.S. market and compiles data from Nielsen’s weekly top ten viewership ranks, Luminate’s Top Ten Data, JustWatch and Reelgood interest data, Samba TV household viewership, company datecdotes, Netflix hours viewed data, Google Trends, and IMDb to determine the most popular content. While most data points are current, Nielsen’s data covers the week of October 5th to October 11th, 2026. You can find a link to my terminology here.) Subscribe Film - Netflix’s Latest Star-Studded Thriller Goes For Glory The tempting angle for anyone writing about streaming film this month, like yours truly, is to ask, “Is this why Dan Lin lost his job at Netflix?” Take Animals, the Ben Affleck-starring-and-directing, Artists Equity-produced crime thriller that opened on 9-Oct. (Kerry Washington and Gillian Anderson are also in it.) If it did really well, then one could argue that Lin has another success on his resume. If it underperformed, then it’s another example of a Netflix underperformance this year. So where did Animals fall? Kinda in the middle, but that means it’s more “not a hit” than “big hit”. On Nielsen, it opened to 12.0 million hours, and here’s how that stacks up for 2026 films so far this year: Obviously, that’s not great. It’s both under my 15 million opening bar for “fine” for a Netflix film and 20 million bar for “great” opening. It did a bit better on Samba TV, getting to first place. That’s very, very good, though again, looking at the Nielsen data, it probably means that it was a light week overall. Luminate’s data is a bit closer to Samba TV’s, tied for 17th all time for single weeks since May of 2024: To top it off, no one seemed to like it. It has a 33 on Metacritic and only a 5.7 on IMDb. Both of these numbers could have been impacted by the stories about Affleck’s comments about using AI to make the film. Given the controversy, the film might not have been as bad as the ratings suggest, but it’s also not a bullish sign. All to say…yeah, on net this film isn’t a point in Dan Lin’s favor. At this point, Netflix’s slide has been long enough—going on since February—that I’m almost tempted to lower the bar for what a “hit” is on streaming. Post-February of 2026 or so, it seems like straight-to-streaming films just haven’t hit the same heights as they did from 2022 to 2025. Before we head onto the “Quick Hits” for film, I want to shout out a fellow newsletter whose articles I’ve been loving this year, LA Material, a new LA-based news outlet. For just a highlight of my favorite articles since July... I loved this article on Ghost Town, a group on Venice that clears homeless encampments. As a Los Angeleno, obviously I adore their articles on LA parking issues. Their article on illegal parking tickets got the City Council to address the issue! Also check out their article on people parking in medians. Check out their deep dive on what went wrong with the LA Jazz Festival and how it fell apart, or what’s wrong with USC’s finances. Finally, they wrote up a voter guide on voter guides for the LA General Election. So meta! In search of a city? L.A. Material is an independent news outlet covering the people, politics, culture and glorious chaos shaping Los Angeles. L.A. Material brings you intel on the city you can’t get anywhere else. From exploring how Reddit short stories became Hollywood’s hottest commodity to reporting on the survival jobs keeping entertainment workers afloat. And answering, once and for all, why the AMC Burbank escalator is always broken. Through their newsletters, podcast, videos, events, and member community, L.A. Material is designed to help Angelenos connect to Los Angeles and each other. Sign up now for the free weekday newsletter. Quick Notes on Film Steven Spielberg’s latest film, Disclosure Day, came to Peacock on 9-Oct, and I’ll admit that, after pulling its stats, I did a pinch of a double take. As I wrote throughout my deep, deep, deep dive on summer box office/Obsession/Backrooms/IP/superheroes, oftentimes the film media discusses films as “flops” or “misses” or “hits” without clarifying what they specifically mean. Since Disclosure Day didn’t make $250 million in the US or $500 million globally, it was definitely a disappointment by Spielbergian standards, who is the highest-grossing director of all time, and arguably even more ahead in adjusted grosses. But it did make $245 million globally on a $115 million budget, so it isn’t as big of a miss as I remember. That’s still probably not enough to break even in the theatrical window, when you factor in marketing costs…but it’s close. And it grossed a lot more even in the US than some titles with about ten times more coverage. Anyways, lots of preamble to say this one only did 4.5 million hours according to Nielsen, so it did make the charts, but on the low end. Here’s how it stacks up to other Peacock titles: Apple TV (née +) followed up their “success for them” Mayday with Matchbox The Movie. This one doesn’t look like a success even for them, but at least it’s not a miss. Apple/Skydance clearly tried to take advantage of the success of Barbie at the box office—let’s greenlight all the toy properties!!!—but of course, this didn’t make it to theaters. And it stars John Cena, who, as I argued earlier this summer, NEEDS to get his movies back in theaters. Anyways, this one has mixed-to-bad numbers. It missed the Samba TV and Nielsen charts in its first week, but did make Luminate with 7.1 million hours. That’s just enough to not be an outright miss, and about half what Mayday did earlier this summer. Speaking of Apple Studio’s Mayday, it ended up lasting five weeks on Luminate, which isn’t bad for Apple TV. On Nielsen, it had a three-week run, racking up 13.5 million hours total. Again, like Matchbox, the issue is the budget; I doubt that this viewership earned enough to justify that budget. Also, to be clear, neither of these films are “midflicks”; both should have gone to theaters. Toy Story 5 is not hanging around on the streaming charts on Disney+, so it’s not as leggy as either Zootopia 2 or Moana 2, and definitely not in the same class as Encanto. (It did make all the money at the box office, so Disney is going to be fine…) The Breadwinner on Netflix (from Sony) is down to 3.9 million hours in its third week. It only lasted for one week on the Samba TV charts. Netflix’s Doing Life had a smaller-than-normal binge release curve bounce, only going to 7.1 million hours from 6.0 to start, but it made Samba TV at fifth place in its second week. The Netflix documentary, The Widower: Til’ Death Do Us Part, also had a small binge release curve bounce to 6.5 million hours, but did make a second week on Samba TV. Meanwhile, Netflix’s Unabomber fell off after two weeks on Nielsen—which is not great at all—and Demon Slayer fell off after just one week. Over on Luminate, the two smaller titles The Swan: Behind the Mirror and Kill. Bury. Print both fell out of the Luminate top ten charts. The story of library film at the first of the month is the arrival of the Ice Age films on Netflix. Now, here’s a small example of optimizing your library that even Netflix could do better. Say you want to rent/license a new film series from Disney**.** A streamer could pay a big paycheck and then drop each Ice Age film on the exact same day of the month, the fourth of October. That’s one choice. In contrast, the streamer could have released each film one week apart, and make each one a mini-event for folks watching Ice Age films. Or even roll them out monthly. Netflix opted for the former strategy, and as a result, only three of the films made the Nielsen charts this week. The “Miss of the Week” goes to Tubi’s YA-ish horror film_, R.L. Stine’s Pumpkinhead 2_, which didn’t even make the Luminate charts like Tubi films usually do, or, should I say, “used to”? Tubi films, most of which are straight-to-streaming, used to reliably make the Luminate film charts (which only covers straight-to-streaming films), but a Tubi film hasn’t made it since August. The first Pumpkinhead got 1.4 million hours last year according to Luminate. As I wrote about this film before, it seems to be a bit muddled in terms of age: too scary for young kids but probably not scary enough for older kids. Speaking of Luminate, Netflix’s latest doc about a comic (expect more docs about comedians all month), Who Is Martin Mull?, flopped, getting just 200K and 700K hours according to Luminate. Three other film/special misses belonged to Hulu, including a standup special, Jamie Foxx: Take Care of Yourself, Neon’s latest horror film, Hokum, which made $17 million in the US, and a Family Guy Halloween special. (That last one was only 22 minutes, so it’s not a surprise it missed.) Finally, another Netflix standup special missed the charts, Mojo Brookzz: I Know You Lying missed too. I can confirm last week’s misses, most notably Paramount+’s Jackass: Best and Last, MUBI’s Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma and HBO Max’s Evil Dead Burn. Television - I Can’t Visualize Nothing: The Kardashians Story Normally, in the mini-dive essays that open the Streaming Ratings Report, I focus on shows that do well or, at the very least, make the charts. Why? Because as I’ve said time and again, I can’t visualize nothing like, say, the Kardashians’ TV shows. Here’s the TV debuts chart for this week with a missing spot for The Kardashians, whose eighth season just landed on Hulu:

Oct 27 • 6:17 PM EDT • Entertainment • entertainment.substack.com

Zelda 40th Anniversary Nintendo Switch 2 restock signals good news for launch day buyers

📅 The Zelda 40th Anniversary Switch 2 releases on Thursday, October 27 🚨 Our Zelda Switch 2 restock tracker @mattswider on X will send out an alert when stock appears 😲 Nintendo Store held a surprise restock yesterday, which is good news for other retailers 🙏 It suggests other retailers may be holding back launch day stock, too Walmart: Zelda Switch 2 console Best Buy: Zelda Switch 2 console GameStop: Zelda Switch 2 console Target: Zelda Switch 2 console Nintendo: Zelda Switch 2 console 🚨 We’re tracking Zelda Switch 2 stock updates. If you’d like to know when more stock arrives, follow Matt Swider on X and turn on notifications. You can also become a free or paid subscriber to The Shortcut to help support our work. 🚨 🚨 Want the Zelda 40th Anniversary Switch 2? Drop your email for restock alerts before it sells out. ⤵️ Subscribe We predicted that a Legend of Zelda 40th Anniversary Switch 2 restock would happen on launch day, October 29, and we’re now even more confident after the Nintendo Store’s surprise restock yesterday. Our followers were the first to know that the Zelda Switch 2 was back in stock at the Nintendo Store, and the console even promised to arrive on launch day if you managed to secure one. [ Matt Swider (The Shortcut)@mattswider ](https://x.com/mattswider/status/2114758291322757239?s=20) Zelda Switch 2 console in stock at the Nintendo Store nintendo.com/us/store/produ… 4:37 PM · Oct 26, 2026 · 67K Views 18 Replies · 4 Reposts · 75 Likes It strongly suggests that other retailers such as Walmart, Target, GameStop, Amazon and Best Buy will have more units – albeit in limited quantities – on launch day for those who currently don’t have a pre-order. Retailers often hold back stock for launch day buyers who haven’t pre-ordered. Cancellations can also occur in the run up to release, meaning more stock is made available that was previously snapped up. Zelda Switch 2 restock – why Walmart will have stock Walmart historically holds back extra stock for launch day, and we’re expecting the same to happen on October 29. As the largest retailer in the US, it usually has the biggest stock allocation, and Thursday and Friday mornings is when the retailer tends to offer restocks online. As we mentioned previously, Nintendo was also a retailer to watch – and it went live with a restock earlier than we thought. It had previously promised the Zelda 40th anniversary Switch 2 would be “replenished”, and it offered a limited amount of stock for those who were lucky enough to snag one. (Hint: Followers of Matt Swider on X and our restock tracker were first in line.) We’re expecting other retailers like Target, GameStop and Amazon to get a new wave consoles on launch day, and we’ll notify you if and when any Zelda Switch 2 restocks appear. Why you should follow our Zelda Switch 2 restock tracker Remember when you couldn’t find a PS5 for nearly two years? Not our followers. We helped over 400,000 people buy Sony’s console when it was in and out of stock, and we’ve since made it our goal to help our subscribers bag hard-to-find times. We’ve done the same with the PS5 30th anniversary edition, Nintendo Switch 2, and many more in-demand products. With up-to-the-second US store inventory checks, The Shortcut and Matt Swider on X offers exclusive Zelda 40th anniversary Switch restock updates. You’ll also receive an instant notification on X (if set to on) as soon as new stock arrives. Up next: Zelda 40th Anniversary Switch 2 Pro Controller restock looks increasingly likely at Nintendo Store Subscribe Adam Vjestica is The Shortcut’s Senior Editor. Formerly TechRadar’s Gaming Hardware Editor, Adam has also worked at Nintendo of Europe as a Content Marketing Editor, where he helped launch the Nintendo Switch. He also runs a retro gaming YouTube channel called Game on, boy! Follow him on X @ItsMrProducts.

Oct 27 • 11:35 AM EDT • Technology • theshortcut.com

Vadim Gladyshev and the Science of Aging

Oct 26 • 8:00 PM EDT • Science • erictopol.substack.com

What Is the Relationship Between Doing Good History and Entertainment?

[Cross-posted from The Tattooed Historian’s Dispatch] What exactly are we doing when we communicate history to the public? Most of us would agree that accuracy matters, evidence matters, context matters, historical rigor matters. But we also live in a world where attention matters (and attention spans are dropping at an alarming rate). Subscribe Whether we’re posting on social media, producing videos, hosting podcasts, giving public talks, or designing museum programs, we’re all competing with countless other demands on people’s time. The public doesn’t simply stumble into history anymore. Now, good history has to find people where they already are. This raises a difficult question: Is making history entertaining part of good historical practice, or is it simply what we must do to remain relevant? “Entertainment” is often treated as the opposite of seriousness. But what do we mean when we use the term itself? Does entertainment mean simplifying the historical record? Does it mean telling compelling stories in a lively manner? Is there a difference between being engaging and being entertaining? And who gets to decide where that line is? Share These questions become even more complicated online. Social media platforms reward attention. Algorithms reward engagement (the positive and the negative). Visibility often depends on producing content that people are willing to click, watch, share, and discuss. What happens when those incentives shape the way history is presented? Can historians work within those systems without letting those systems define the work? Are public audiences being served better than ever before, or are platform incentives changing what kinds of history rise to the surface? These are just a few of the issues that I discuss with John R. Heckman in our latest installment of “Historians Off the Cuff.” Feel free to suggest future topics for us to discuss in the comments section below. Hope you are entertained. LOL Civil War Memory is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe

Oct 26 • 5:27 PM EDT • Entertainment • kevinmlevin.substack.com

Zelda 40th Anniversary Switch 2 Pro Controller restock tracker: we’re watching these retailers

🎮 Nintendo will release a Zelda 40th anniversary Switch 2 Pro Controller on October 29 💰 It costs $99.99, the same as other limited editions 📅 A restock could occur on launch day at Walmart and Best Buy 🚨 Our Zelda Switch 2 Pro Controller restock tracker @mattswider on X will send out an alert when stock appears Walmart: Zelda Pro Controller Best Buy: Zelda Pro Controller Amazon: Zelda Pro Controller Target: Zelda Pro Controller GameStop: Zelda Pro Controller Nintendo is releasing a special limited edition Nintendo Switch 2 Pro Controller to celebrate the 40th anniversary of The Legend of Zelda series. It releases on October 29, 2026, which is when we expect to see a long-awaited restock of the hard-to-find controller. 🚨 We’re tracking Zelda Switch 2 Pro Controller stock updates. If you’d like to know when more stock arrives, follow Matt Swider on X and turn on notifications. You can also become a free or paid subscriber to The Shortcut to help support our work. 🚨 The Switch 2 Pro Controller features the same striking gold and royal emerald color scheme of the Nintendo Switch 2 The Legend of Zelda 40th anniversary edition, and also includes a fun little easter egg on the back: an 8-Bit Link. 🚨 Want the Zelda 40th Anniversary Switch 2 Pro Controller? Drop your email for restock alerts before it sells out. ⤵️ Subscribe This is the same Nintendo Switch 2 Pro Controller we’re used to, aside from the intricate design, but it means you’ll have to pay more as a result. It costs $99.99 instead of the standard $89.99. However, the Pro Controller is the easiest way to play the best Switch 2 games in TV mode. If you’ve been searching for a Zelda 40th Anniversary Switch 2 Pro Controller restock, here’s everything you need to know. Zelda 40th anniversary Switch 2 Pro Controller should restock at these retailers We’ve seen retailers such as Walmart and Best Buy restock items on release day, even when pre-orders have sold out. It’s likely that the Zelda Switch 2 Pro Controller will be up for grabs on October 29, 2026, when the controller and console launches. Demand will be high, and stock could sell out fast. However, we’ll be keeping a close eye on every major retailer, including Target, Amazon, GameStop, and the Nintendo Store and will alert our followers as soon as stock goes live. Why you can trust our Zelda Switch 2 Pro Controller restock tracker We’ve already helped over 400,000 people buy a PS5 when it was in and out of stock during Covid, and we’ve helped our subscribers continue to secure hard-to-find items. The Shortcut followers were some of the first to secure the Switch 2 when it went on sale, and we’ve also helped countless others snag limited edition consoles like the PS5 30th anniversary edition. The Shortcut and Matt Swider on X offer exclusive Zelda 40th anniversary Switch 2 Pro Controller restock updates with up-to-the-second US store inventory checks at the biggest retailers. You’ll receive an instant notification on X (if set to on) as soon as new stock arrives. Up next: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4 review roundup: ‘a strong return to form’ Subscribe Adam Vjestica is The Shortcut’s Senior Editor. Formerly TechRadar’s Gaming Hardware Editor, Adam has also worked at Nintendo of Europe as a Content Marketing Editor, where he helped launch the Nintendo Switch. He also runs a retro gaming YouTube channel called Game on, boy! Follow him on X @ItsMrProducts.

Oct 26 • 12:28 PM EDT • Technology • theshortcut.com

Los Angeles health authorities report 2nd second rabies-positive raccoon

In a follow-up on the report a rabies-positive raccoon found in Los Angeles County, the first in more than 5 decades, the LA County Department of Public Health is investigating a second rabies-positive raccoon found in the Westlake Village area of Los Angeles County. Public Health has confirmed that the first raccoon was positive for a variant of rabies typically found in bats. Strain testing for the second raccoon is currently pending. The second rabid raccoon was found in a backyard in the vicinity of where the first raccoon was reported and appeared sick and aggressive. No residents or pets were exposed to the raccoon. Two people at a worksite may have been exposed to the raccoon and are receiving recommended follow-up for rabies post-exposure prophylaxis. The World’s Deadliest Viruses Prior to these detections, the last confirmed rabid raccoon in Los Angeles County was detected in 1973, when the skunk variant (strain) of rabies was still present in the County. That strain has not been detected in Los Angeles County since 1979. In 2014, a skunk infected with the bat variant of rabies was detected in Long Beach. “The detection of rabies in another raccoon is an important reminder to never touch, handle, or feed any wild animals, even when they appear healthy,” said Muntu Davis, MD, MPH, Los Angeles County Health Officer. “Always keep a safe distance from wildlife and contact your local animal control if you encounter an animal that appears to be sick, injured, or behaving unusually. It is also critical to ensure your pets are up to date on rabies vaccination so they are protected before any potential exposure. Keeping your pets vaccinated is one of the most important steps you can take to protect your entire family.” Outbreak News Today is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe

Oct 24 • 5:01 PM EDT • Health • outbreaknewstoday.substack.com

Poll: Low-information voters have turned hardest against Trump and the GOP

In 2024, the voters who knew the least about politics were some of Donald Trump’s strongest supporters. A Data for Progress poll released just before the election found Americans who didn’t consume any news at all said they’d vote for Trump over Kamala Harris by a 20-point margin, 60%1 to 40%. In February, we reported that many of these voters had soured on Trump. Voters who couldn’t name the party in control of Congress moved away from Trump at about twice the rate as high-information voters. But approval isn’t vote choice. With the midterms less than two weeks away, it is worth asking if these voters are turning against the president’s party in federal elections, too. In our October Strength In Numbers/Verasight poll, conducted Oct. 13–19 among 2,028 U.S. adults, we asked respondents two factual questions about politics: which party has the most members in the House, and which has the most members in the Senate. I classified anyone who got at least one of these questions wrong as “low-knowledge.” About 30% of adults miss at least one question, including 25% of 2024 Trump voters, 22% of Harris voters, and more than half of people who didn’t vote in 2024. In this article, I do two things with this data. First, I repeat my February analysis and compare how these two groups feel about Trump’s job as president; then I look at each group’s voting behavior in the upcoming House midterms. Register for free to read the rest of this piece.

Oct 23 • 10:03 AM EDT • Politics • gelliottmorris.com

Pope hope, that’s entertainment, and getting ahead in the CIA

Happy Friday friends, I want to start by just breathing for all of us a big long collective sigh of relief at the news this week that the pope’s doctors have basically blown the all clear for Leo’s health. Going from knowing nothing to him declaring to the world he needed surgery, to a cancer diagnosis, to bouncing out of the hospital in barely even days, to ringing the bell in less than two weeks is whiplash inducing. But in the best possible way. We are living in a world in which the Roman pontiff, by dint of history, biography and circumstance, is once more at the epicenter of global affairs. Not just conversations about religion, or Christian and post-Christian values, but the bleeding edge of the most pressing issues of human affairs. Think I am exaggerating a touch? Consider the images of the crowds who greeted Leo in Paris just weeks ago, and juxtapose them with the absolute photo negative scenes unfolding there recently. Ask yourself how many world leaders are talking about AI right now and directly citing the pope as they do so. Try to name a country who has had as many top-ranked diplomats in and out of both Russia and Ukraine in the last three years as the Vatican has in the last three months. It has been fascinating to watch Leo XIV emerge as not just a kind of pop culture reference point or totem to be cited (Francis was often name-checked this way) but as a kinetic force in global conversation. Given the state of things, we need global figures of gravitas and values, even better if they have real wisdom behind what they are saying. So news of Leo’s illness was, it seemed to me, a tremor with potentially Richter Scale implications. That not only has the worst not come to pass but instead we’ve had the best of outcomes announced is something to really be grateful for. Humanity, it seems to me, is entering one of its irregular but cyclical phases where the pace of change — technological, social, and geopolitical — outstrips the ability of previously settled norms and received wisdom to cope. Such periods – and I think the first decades of the last century were a similar such time – throw into question the viability of all kinds of institutions. And many of ours have been straining to breaking point for a few years now. The papacy has the power and the potential to be a steadying pole in all of this. That’s my hope, anyway. It’s a lot to freight the office with, though it is arguably its ultimate purpose from its founding, to be a steadying rock on which all that matters can be anchored. It’s also, of course, an intolerable weight of responsibility to place on a single man. But I am encouraged to have hope in – and for – Leo. The apostle whom he succeeds, after all, was famously unequal to some moments, failed some tests of faith, and resiled from taking the road which led ultimately to the circus on Vatican hill. Human frailty and limitations, of health, of character, of temper, can open us to Christ, whose strength is greatest in our weakness, so St. Paul learned. That gives me hope, and I am sure it consoles Leo, too. And so I will continue to pray for him. Because we need apostles of rock right now. Here’s the news. Subscribe The News The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith issued yesterday a new document “Venite ad me: Considerations on the Transmission of the Faith in an Epochal Change.” It’s not a short document, and it is at pains to stress this isn’t a doctrinal note from the dicastery, either. Rather, it brings together reflections on an important issue from the Church around the world. Some of it I actually found really rather powerful. It is, however, 25,000, which is a lot for a busy reader to get through on a weekday. So, you can read our busy reader’s summary right here. — News broke yesterday of an Oct. 22 meeting of U.S. bishops with President Donald Trump. The meeting was organized by an official at the Heritage Foundation, according to several sources close to the meeting. Video of several U.S. bishops praying in the Oval Office over President Trump was posted on social media Thursday afternoon, first by White House Communications Advisor Margo Martin, and then by the official twitter.com account of the Archdiocese of Denver. The meeting has drawn sharp criticism because of its proximity to the upcoming midterm Congressional elections, in which Democrats are widely expected to win control of the House of Representatives, while control of the Senate remains closely contested. Sources close to the bishops’ conference told The Pillar that some USCCB senior officials were surprised by the existence of the meeting when video of it first emerged online. And a source close to conference president Archbishop Paul Coakley of Oklahoma City told The Pillar that the archbishop was “deeply frustrated” by the occasion of the meeting. An official conference spokesperson told The Pillar that the meeting was “not organized with or by the USCCB” and was “not affiliated with the conference.” You can read the whole story here. — The next National Eucharistic Congress will be held in Indianapolis in 2029, a return to the city that hosted the last gathering in 2024. You read it here first. By here, I don’t mean this newsletter, I mean at The Pillar. We broke the story this week. It’s a big deal, in as much as the last congress was a roaring success and the next installment has the potential to be a real focal point for evangelizing efforts in the coming years. Read all about it here. — As Pope Leo prepares for the longest trip of his pontificate, Church leaders in Uruguay say the pontiff will encounter a highly secularized culture, in a country with a very different Catholic history than many of its South American neighbors. The nation has not had a papal visit since 1988, and leaders who spoke with The Pillar say it has a dire need for evangelization, even amid the prospect of a small revival in faith. This is real reporting on the Church in the country, and frankly a story you simply are not going to be able to read anywhere else. Read the whole thing. — The Archdiocese of Detroit announced this week a plan that would see the vast majority of its parish priests reassigned next summer, amid a restructuring process expected to dramatically shrink the number of parishes in the archdiocese. Archbishop Edward Weisenburger said this week that the plan “asks much of our priests,” but is a “sacrifice they are making as brothers of one, unified presbyterate.” The thing is, as JD pointed out in an analysis yesterday, pastors of parishes have a legal right to stability in office, so the only way this kind of wholesale reassignment goes ahead is if all of the archdiocesan clergy agree to resign. That creates its own kind of legal issues, though, and re-raises longstanding questions about the effectiveness of canonical due process protections for priests when dealing with coercive exercises in authority. Read the whole thing here. — More than three months after the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith issued its decree declaring the excommunication of the leadership of the Society of St. Pius X, questions remain about the full effects of the society’s schism. Specifically, the DDF’s July claim that marriages witnessed and confessions heard by SSPX priests are now invalid remains contested — and it emerged this week it appears that the Vatican’s own legal experts don’t agree. You can read my whole analysis of the situation and what it means here. All I would add is that the DDF’s undeveloped, some would say unsubstantiated, claim about the invalidity of some SSPX sacraments came in their July Explanatory Note on the schismatic consecrations by the society that month. It touches directly on both papal acts of governance — indeed it purports to nullify them — and the most intimate pastoral encounters possible in a parish setting. If there is one aspect of the Francis-era style of governance I would like the curia to finally cut out, root and branch, it would be these attempts to try to effect extraordinarily sensitive legislative acts via a note. — At least a dozen French bishops have spoken out following an eruption of violence on the country’s streets Oct. 17. Not surprisingly, they unanimously condemned the violence, but the length and content of their interventions varied significantly. Several sought to distinguish between the actions of rioters and what they suggested were the legitimate concerns of peaceful young protesters. Many also evoked Pope Leo XIV’s Sept. 25-28 visit to France, suggesting it offered a powerful counter-image to the scenes of looting and destruction. A number of bishops also stressed their solidarity with law enforcement officials who struggled to contain the disorder, as well as the owners of the roughly 3,000 damaged or looted businesses. What’s the background to the nationwide unrest that the French media calls “les violences du 17 octobre”? And what exactly are the bishops saying? Read all about it here. — A Polish bishop called for the firm defense of unborn children as well as compassion for their mothers this week, as the lower house of Poland’s parliament passed two bills seeking to liberalize the country’s abortion laws. The bill on decriminalizing assistance in an abortion passed by 217 votes to 213, while the abortion in cases of fetal abnormality bill passed by 233 to 203, thanks to the government’s majority in the lower house. Both bills will now move to the Polish Senate, the upper house of parliament, where the ruling coalition has a larger majority. The fetal abnormality bill is symbolically significant because if it became law, it would effectively overturn a 2020 ruling by Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal that a 1993 law permitting abortion for a severe and irreversible disability or a life-threatening incurable disease was unconstitutional. Read the whole story here. Subscribe **[The St. Paul Center App | Bible Study On-The-Go Read and understand the Bible with St. Paul Center’s new app! With today’s leading Catholic Scripture scholars as your guides, the St. Paul Center app empowers you to read the Bible](https://stpaulcenter.com/app?utm_source=pillar&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=applaunch)** from the heart of the Church. Download the app for free at either the Apple or the Google app stores. https://stpaulcenter.com/app That’s entertainment I have written before about my deep and sincere reservations about the celebrity exorcist subculture which has taken root in American Catholicism. And, because I am very ill at ease with the entire thing, I try to keep a weather eye on the phenomenon without being drawn into the kind of online back-and-forth which these figures sometimes generate. Earlier this week, JD noted that one such celebrity exorcist type, Fr. Chad Ripperger, has undertaken, on the request of his bishop, a year’s fast from interviews and public speaking. I’m sure that will be salutary for him, if for no other reason than that receiving with docility requests from one’s rightful ecclesiastical superiors always comes with graces. Then a second thing happened this week which caught my eye. Apparently, another fixture in the celebrity exorcist world, Fr. Carlos Martins, has initiated a lawsuit against two lay men — apparently associates of Rippenger, though I am unclear in what way, exactly — for allegedly defaming him and his ministry on a podcast. It seems the suit was initiated nearly a year ago and is now pending. At issue, I read, is that the two men described Martins on a podcast as “not who he says he is” with regard to his exorcism ministry and that he “doesn’t know what he’s talking about.” These statements Martins considers to be false and defamatory and, his suit claims, “directly affected the sale and reception of [his] The Exorcist Files book that was newly released at the time these episodes aired.” I don’t want to get too into the weeds of the details here, but a couple of things struck me about all this.

Oct 23 • 9:10 AM EDT • Entertainment • pillarcatholic.com

More Than a Charcuterie Board: A Mother and Daughter Build a Business Around Gathering.

The Bar Harbor Story is generously sponsored by Birch Bay Retirement Village. NORTHEAST HARBOR—Food’s ability to be a social cornerstone is one of the founding premises of one of Mount Desert Island’s newest, and perhaps most unique, endeavors in cuisine based catering. From intimate gatherings to large functions, Olive & Pearl creates charcuterie boards that can not only astound the tongue but also the eye. Many would agree that food can bring people together. In fact, culinary delights, and sometimes adventures, have been utilized as the centerpiece for social and business occasions of all kinds for centuries. Often times it even has the ability to start conversation, temper differences, and build new relationships. Settings can vary, from a multi-course sit down meal, a backyard barbecue, or a couple of bowls of chips and dip in front of a television, but the result can be the same. Humans come together, they share food, and the whole process is a catalyst for thought, communication, and a shared experience. Imagined and created by the mother and daughter team of Dr. Susan Scanlan (formerly MacCready) and Kayla Musetti, Olive & Pearl was started in June of this year and has been creating, delighting, and growing since. We gave the two an opportunity to answer some questions about themselves and their new venture. The love, passion, and pride for what they are doing and the fact that they are doing it as a mother and daughter team came through so strongly in their answers that we decided to present the question and answer session in its entirety. The Interview What did you do prior to Olive & Pearl? We’re a mother-daughter team, and food, family, and hospitality have always been a big part of our lives. Susan grew up in a large family in Pennsylvania, where the table was always at the center of everything. There were multiple dishes, little bites, stories, and plenty of conversation. Food was never simply about eating. It was about gathering, celebrating, and spending time together. After living in several Southern states, Susan relocated to Maine more than 20 years ago, and Maine has truly become home. She loves its sense of community, natural beauty, and connection to local food and makers. Professionally, Susan is a registered nurse and holds a doctorate in health administration. She has worked in a variety of clinical, nonclinical, and leadership roles and currently works as a faculty academic director. Building Olive & Pearl has been an exciting creative venture alongside her career. Kayla is also a registered nurse and works in the ambulatory surgery unit at Mount Desert Island Hospital. While healthcare is an important part of both of our professional lives, Olive & Pearl has given us an entirely different way to connect, collaborate, and create something together. Tell us about the business. Olive & Pearl is a mother-daughter charcuterie business centered around beautiful food, thoughtful presentation, and bringing people together. We create curated charcuterie boards designed for everything from intimate gatherings and dinner parties to weddings, showers, corporate events, boat days, and celebrations of all kinds. We think of our boards as more than food. They’re an experience and an invitation to gather, slow down, and enjoy time with the people around you. We’re intentional about quality ingredients, artful presentation, and personalization. Whenever possible, we also incorporate Maine-made and locally sourced products, including cheeses, jams, honey, seasonal produce, and baked goods. What inspired you to start Olive & Pearl? In many ways, Olive & Pearl grew out of something we had been doing our entire lives —bringing people together around food. We’ve always loved creating beautiful spreads for family and friends. There was something special about watching people gather around a table, graze, talk, laugh, and simply enjoy being together. Friends and family began telling us, “You should do this as a business,” and one day, we stopped laughing it off and started mapping it out. We realized we had an opportunity to combine our different strengths and create something that reflected what we both value: hospitality, creativity, quality, and connection. Charcuterie felt like the perfect expression of that. It’s beautiful and creative, but it’s also communal and approachable. At its heart, it brings us right back to where the idea began, a table filled with food and people gathered around it. Do you have a business partner(s)? Our business partner is each other! Olive & Pearl is truly a mother-daughter partnership, and building it together has been incredibly meaningful and sometimes hilarious! We know each other extremely well, which can be both a strength and, occasionally, a challenge. We have different personalities and strengths, but we’ve learned to lean into those differences and use them to our advantage. There’s a lot of trust between us, and we’ve learned how to communicate, collaborate, and occasionally laugh at ourselves along the way. We’re also building Olive & Pearl while continuing our careers in healthcare and education, so we’re taking things thoughtfully and growing the business one step at a time. We all have to start somewhere. One of the most rewarding parts has been having something that belongs to both of us. We get to learn from one another, celebrate the small wins together, and create something that we hope will become part of our family’s story for years to come. When exactly did you launch the business? Recently, in June 2026, we launched Olive & Pearl, turning an idea we had talked about for years into real business. It has been incredibly rewarding to watch something that started around our own family table and begin to find a place within the community. How is it going so far? How do you feel it has been received? It has been going very well, and we’ve been incredibly encouraged by how warmly Olive & Pearl has been received. As more people hear about us, our orders have continued to increase, and we’re seeing growing interest in boards for events and celebrations. It’s exciting to watch something that began as an idea between the two of us start to grow within the community. One of the most rewarding parts is hearing from customers after their events or seeing photos of our boards being enjoyed. Knowing that something we created became part of someone’s celebration is incredibly meaningful to us. Is there a brick-and-mortar location or is it all online? Olive & Pearl is currently an online business. We’re intentionally starting this way so we can build relationships with our customers, learn what they love, and grow thoughtfully. Our long-term dream, if the business continues to grow, is to eventually have a sit-down space where people can experience Olive & Pearl in person. Do you have any future plans if things go well/keep going well? Absolutely. For now, our focus is on continuing to grow Olive & Pearl, getting to know our customers, and becoming part of more celebrations and gatherings throughout the area. Long term, we would love to have our own physical space where people can come together and experience Olive & Pearl beyond the boards themselves. We can imagine a place that combines food, hospitality, creativity, and community. Ultimately, we want to build something that continues to grow while still feeling personal and connected to the people and community around us. Is there an aspect of the business that you really love? There are so many things we love about it, but the people and the connection are probably at the top of the list. We love creating something beautiful, but what really matters to us is what happens after we hand it over to the customer. We picture our boards on kitchen islands, at backyard gatherings, on boats, at weddings, or around a long dinner table—with people laughing, talking, and lingering a little longer. We also love the creative side. Every board is an opportunity to play with color, texture, shape, seasonality, and flavor. We don’t just want to fill a board, we want to curate an experience. And supporting local makers is especially meaningful to us. Whenever possible, we love incorporating Maine-made cheeses, local jams and honey, seasonal produce, and products from nearby bakeries and businesses. It allows us to showcase some of what makes Maine so special. Perhaps most importantly, we love doing this together. Building something as a mother and daughter has given us another way to spend time together, learn from one another, celebrate small wins, and create memories. Is there anything regarding any aspect of Olive & Pearl that you may think is important that is not reflected on the website? One thing that may not always come through online is just how personal this business is to us. Olive & Pearl isn’t something we created simply because charcuterie was popular. It grew very naturally from our family, our traditions, and the way we’ve always enjoyed gathering with people we love. There is a lot of heart behind every board. We think about the people who will be enjoying it, the occasion they’re celebrating, and how we can make the experience feel special. We also want people to know that we care deeply about supporting locals whenever possible. Using Maine products isn’t just about sourcing ingredients, it’s about telling a little story about where we live and the talented people who make and grow wonderful things here. Is there anything that we have not asked that you think is important/relevant that would like readers to know? We hope people see Olive & Pearl as more than just a charcuterie business. At its heart, it’s about gathering. Our goal is to make it easier for people to create those moments when everyone gathers around the table, conversations last a little longer, and people simply enjoy being together. We also hope people see the mother-daughter story behind the business. We’re building Olive & Pearl alongside our careers, one step at a time, and there is something incredibly special about creating a shared family legacy in the process. For us, success isn’t just about how many boards we make. It’s about becoming part of people’s special moments - birthdays, weddings, weekends with friends, quiet evenings at home, or a beautiful day on the Maine coast. If one of our boards helps people put down their phones, linger a little longer, laugh a little more, and enjoy the people around them, then we feel like we’ve done exactly what we set out to do. All photos courtesy of Olive & Pearl. LINKS TO LEARN MORE Olive & Pearl website Olive & Pearl Facebook Olive & Pearl Instagram RECENT PRESS RELEASES AND BRIEFS To see all the press releases, click here. To see our news, click here. For the full archive, click here. All of these are on our dedicated website. [ ](https://barharborstory.substack.com/p/pemetic-students-share-thoughts-on) [ Pemetic Students Share Thoughts on Declaration of Independence Oct 22 ](https://barharborstory.substack.com/p/pemetic-students-share-thoughts-on) [ Read full story ](https://barharborstory.substack.com/p/pemetic-students-share-thoughts-on) [ ](https://barharborstory.substack.com/p/fall-festival-at-the-noreaster-for) [ Fall Festival at the Nor’Easter for Mount Desert Nursery School, October 24. Oct 22 ](https://barharborstory.substack.com/p/fall-festival-at-the-noreaster-for) [ Read full story ](https://barharborstory.substack.com/p/fall-festival-at-the-noreaster-for) [ ](https://barharborstory.substack.com/p/explore-career-opportunities-where) [ Explore career opportunities where you make a difference for Maine’s natural resources—and the people who enjoy them. Oct 22 ](https://barharborstory.substack.com/p/explore-career-opportunities-where) [ Read full story ](https://barharborstory.substack.com/p/explore-career-opportunities-where) [ Cranberry Isles Comprehensive Plan Committee Oct 22 ](https://barharborstory.substack.com/p/cranberry-isles-comprehensive-plan) [ Read full story ](https://barharborstory.substack.com/p/cranberry-isles-comprehensive-plan) [ ](https://barharborstory.substack.com/p/community-school-hosts-a-pancake) [ Community School Hosts a Pancake Breakfast Fundraiser October 25! Oct 22 ](https://barharborstory.substack.com/p/community-school-hosts-a-pancake) [ Read full story ](https://barharborstory.substack.com/p/community-school-hosts-a-pancake) HELP SUPPORT THE BAR HARBOR STORY When we started The Bar Harbor Story, we didn’t know if anyone would read it. But you showed up. You shared. You sent tips. Now—over 400,000 views every month later—it’s clear: people here care about their community and each other. We’ve kept everything free because news should never be out of reach, but every one of our stories takes time to write, and your support keeps The Bar Harbor Story going. If you value our work, please consider a paid subscription, a founding membership, or a sponsorship. It truly helps us cover one more meeting, tell one more story, shine one more light. Even $5 a month makes a difference. Click here to become a one-time supporter now. Thank you so much for being here. Founding member information can be found here. Have questions about sponsorships? Just send Shaun an email at sfarrar86@gmail.com, he’d love to hear from you. Subscribe Share Bar Harbor Story Share Leave a comment

Oct 23 • 8:00 AM EDT • Business • barharborstory.substack.com

The One Chart That Explains Why Netflix Cleaned House

(Welcome to my weekly streaming ratings report, the single best guide to what’s popular in streaming TV and what isn’t. I’m the Entertainment Strategy Guy, a former streaming executive who now analyzes business strategy in the entertainment industry. If you were forwarded this email, please subscribe to get these insights each week.) Yeah, I’ll be honest: I went with a clickbait-y headline today. One chart? That explains everything? That’s as clickbait-y as it gets. But let’s be real. I’m analyzing a dataset that I’ve built over six years, and c’mon, I never write articles which feature just one chart! If you think this article—which includes a level of data detail unheard of in journalism twenty years ago—is clickbait, fine by me. Really, what I’m doing is using data to explain Netflix’s recent strategy changes, since the story of the month is the turbulence at Netflix. First, head of content Bela Bajaria was fired. Then head of film Dan Lin followed her to the unemployment ranks. (Along with, sadly, 1,000 other Netflix workers.) And then Netflix delivered a “sub-optimal” earnings report, which continued their year-long stock price slide. Then came a flood of articles explaining why all this is happening. (Mine’s coming shortly, rest assured.) I realized I had the perfect chart to explain Netflix’s woes. Specifically, Nielsen’s weekly top ten charts. Usually I focus on one or two weeks in my Streaming Ratings Reports, but sometimes it’s worth stepping back to look at the larger story. And hoo boy, what a story. This article is my annual (plus three months) follow-up to one of my most popular articles of last year. (And a topic I’ve been visualizing for the last half decade.) Subscribe Netflix’s Share of The Nielsen Charts Continues to Decline

Oct 22 • 5:03 PM EDT • Entertainment • entertainment.substack.com

How well have past GOTY winners sold?

We’re less than two months away from 2026’s The Game Awards, and what a year it’s been for fantastic games, including Resident Evil Requiem, Forza Horizon 6, Slay the Spire II, the Blood of Dawnwalker, and Control Resonant – just to name a few. So as we approach the end of the year, we thought we’d look back on our estimates for the GOTY winners of the past four years. In terms of revenue, Elden Ring (2022 winner), Baldur’s Gate 3 (2023), Astro Bot (2024), and Expedition 33 (2025) have generated a combined $3.8B via 73M copies sold: Let’s have a look, then. Elden Ring has generated $2B in revenue Elden Ring is a phenomenon in every sense. It’s sold a whopping 36.4M copies across Steam (50%), PS5 (35%), and Xbox (15% across console and PC). Want more free estimates and insights in your inbox twice a week? Subscribe below! Subscribe Elden Ring also just passed an astronomical milestone: $2B in revenue. While PlayStation and Xbox account for half of Elden Ring’s copies sold across these three platforms, they account for 57.5% of revenue. This – as ever – is due to regional pricing and the higher relative share of PC gamers in lower-priced markets. For example, around 17.4% of Elden Ring’s Steam copies sold were in China, where the game costs about 26% less than the price in the States. There’s an … interesting narrative going around these days that console gamers are only interested in ball-and-gun games and have the patience for little else. Well, Elden Ring’s impressive sales prove that is simply not true, and across all platforms. What’s more, over 9.8M people have played Elden Ring for over 100 hours, with nearly 3.5M people getting all of the achievements and trophies. For reference, 10.9% of Elden Ring’s PlayStation players have the platinum trophy, while 10.5% of players on Steam and 3.9% of Xbox players unlocked all the achievements. Git gud, Xbox players! Of the 1.5M people who played Elden Ring on PlayStation last month, 4% also played Dark Souls 3 last month, 4% played Bloodborne, and 3% played Sekiro. There’s those Soulsborne diehards for you. By many accounts, including my own, Elden Ring is one of the best games of all time. It’s an evergreen seller that will continue to be a cash cow for Bandai and FromSoftware for years to come. Want more free estimates and insights in your inbox twice a week? Subscribe below! Subscribe Elden Ring has sold another 2M copies across Steam, PlayStation, and Xbox this year, generating almost $110M. This means it’s outperforming many of this year’s high-profile releases. Even Elden Ring’s standalone run-based PvE spinoff, 2025’s Nightreign, has sold 7.8M copies and generated $282M in revenue. Baldur’s Gate 3 is another billion-dollar-plus banger Another cross-platform phenomenon is Baldur’s Gate 3, which has sold 23.2M copies and generated over $1.2B in revenue. About 18.7M of these copies (80.6%) are via Steam, 2.9M via PS5 (12.7%), and 1.6M (6.8%) via Xbox. Around 1.3M folks on Steam bought BG3 before it hit 1.0. The PlayStation version launched about a month after the PC 1.0 release, while the Xbox version came four months later due to technical issues around developing local co-op on the Series S. Want more free estimates and insights in your inbox twice a week? Subscribe below! Subscribe Across platforms, Baldur’s Gate 3’s monthly active users have never dropped below 2M, including 2.2M MAUs last month (68.5% on Steam, 21.9% on PS5, and 9.6% on Xbox). And it still regularly brings in 280K to 400K players every day: About 1% of BG3’s Steam player base has played for over 500 hours! That’s a little under 200K people. Astro Bot is also an evergreen seller, albeit a more niche, family one Astro Bot, 2024’s winner, has now sold 4.7M copies and generated $291M in revenue. The budget, including marketing, is almost certainly under $100M, given the small Japan-based core team and three-year dev timeline. You can really see why the tides are changing toward less expensive hubs. Astro Bot is the only first-party winner on this list, but follows other first-party winners of The Last of Us Part II (2020’s winner), God of War (2018), and Breath of the Wild (2017). Around 46.6% of Astro Bot’s copies sold have been physical, which is far higher than the typical game. This makes sense for a couple of reasons: There’s a large family audience for this one, and physical boxes are an item to wrap when giving Astro as a gift. Astro has collector value for the PlayStation core (this is nostalgia-fueled platformer celebrating PlayStation’s history) Want more free estimates and insights in your inbox twice a week? Subscribe below! Subscribe Astro is another one of those games that continues selling over time, regularly selling more than 100K a month. It’s sold around 1M more copies this year ($60M in revenue) and is a popular title with families. We can see this using the Alinea platform’s MAU crossover tool: Astro Bot’s top #2, #3, and #4 games by crossover in any given month this year are Minecraft, Fortnite, and Roblox – without fail. The #1 title every month, though, is Astro’s Playroom, a pack-in with all PS5 consoles. For every month this year, between 20% and 30% of Astro Bot players also played Astro’s Playroom that month. So the free pack-in is a noice funnel for converting players to a full paid product. Expedition 33 sells 8.7M despite Game Pass cannibalisation Finally, we have last year’s winner – Expedition 33. The turn-based-RPG banger has generated $366M via 8.7M copies sold, with 58.8% on Steam, 35.7% on PS5, and 5.5% on Xbox. Xbox’s share of copies sold is this low due to Expedition 33 launching on Game Pass, where 4.3M people across console and PC accessed the game. A little under 700K Xbox players used their subscription to play Expedition 33 this year. That said, the game’s 1.5-year Game Pass deal ended last week on October 16, and we’re already beginning to see a positive trend on Expedition 33’s copies sold via Xbox (but the jury’s still out!). There’s understandably a lot of French pride behind this one, as France is the game’s #3 market on both Steam and PlayStation. Vive la France! One thing that stood out to me is that the GOTY winners aren’t $300M Hollywood productions made in the US. They’re mostly mid-budget studios outside the traditional AAA cost centres. Lots to think about there. Also, good games sell well; who’d have thunk it!? And there’s a whole load of them this year, with GTA 6 still to come, too. GTA just made the cutoff point for the VGAs this year. What a coincidence! Loading... Cool links and other stuff Our physical games newsletter from Tuesday was picked up by GameSpot, Eurogamer, TweakTown, and a bunch of others. We’re offering a free trial of our platform for games companies. Send us a message here, or reply right here on Substack/email, and we’ll set you up. Next week, we’ve got some exciting news regarding the future of our newsletter, so stay tuned! The last word Reply to this email – or reach out here – if you have any feedback for the newsletter – or want to request a game for us to cover. Want to see why these companies (and many others) are subscribed to Alinea? Get a free platform trial! [Alinea Analytics boasts the most accurate PC and console estimates in the business. Game makers use our platform to understand their audience, keep an eye on the competition, monitor sales trends, and spot new opportunities. We equip game studios and financial institutions with accurate data and the confidence to make smarter, data-driven decisions. Want to talk about all things games market data? We’d love to chat!]

Oct 22 • 1:02 PM EDT • Technology • alineaanalytics.substack.com

AI as the next political divide

We have a guest post today from our friends at Focaldata, with whom we have done polling before. They have been doing a lot of work on attitudes towards AI and how this is affecting politics on both sides of the Atlantic. In this post, they explore exclusive new polling – with a whole set of fascinating charts on how voters’ views are developing and why. In particular, the authors explore why the debate is currently so much more polarised by party in the US than in the UK, to the benefit of the Democrats. Subscribe Focaldata HQ is located in Shoreditch, east London. To access the office from the Shoreditch High Street Overground station, you have to walk under the bridge at Braithwaite Street. We mention this not as a navigational aid, but because the posters above caught our eye over the summer. Since June, the area has been the centre of a fiercely contested debate around the construction of a data centre on the Truman Brewery estate on Brick Lane, less than 200 metres from our office. It was one of the first ‘US-style’ protest movements around AI data centres the country has seen, and may not be the last. These protests served as the catalyst for our forthcoming report, examining whether AI could become the next political divide on both sides of the Atlantic. We wanted to understand what was driving the emerging politics of AI and whether the dynamics at play in the US offer clues as to how the British debate will evolve. Over the last month, we polled 3,851 people across the UK and US about their views on AI. Our research found striking similarities between the two countries: for instance, both electorates are evenly split on their views towards AI development, with just over a third in favour (37% in each country), a similar number opposed, and the remainder somewhere in the middle or unsure. Statistically speaking, there is no difference in overall sentiment towards AI between the UK and US. Under the hood, demographic patterns also look largely the same in the two countries, with millennials, degree holders, full-time workers and those who describe themselves as financially comfortable more pro-AI than the rest of the country. Despite this convergence in overall attitudes, there is a striking divergence in how much of a politicised issue AI has become. In the US, attitudes are increasingly split by political affiliation and the issue has become the latest front in the seemingly interminable culture war, playing a role in the upcoming midterms. This stark political polarisation of AI has not happened in the UK – at least not yet. In what follows, we test several hypotheses for why the two countries are so far apart on a political basis. Understanding which hypothesis is correct will give us an indication of where the British dynamics go next.

Oct 22 • 4:43 AM EDT • Politics • samf.substack.com

Derek Thompson on data centers, Substack, and the new pivot to video

The AI boom is swallowing the US economy. That extends to people who make a living writing, author Derek Thompson tells me.

Oct 21 • 11:47 AM EDT • Business • businessinsider.com

The Politics of Tit-for-Tat

Oct 21 • 7:25 AM EDT • Politics • execfunctions.org

Sundar Pichai: Google’s Frontier Imperative, Compute Scarcity Dilemmas, Future AI Products and Businesses

Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai has little patience for doubts about Google’s willingness or capacity to compete at the frontier of AI. His company’s latest Gemini 4 Argon model — long-promised and recently delivered — beats OpenAI and Anthropic’s latest public models on coding, math, science, and knowledge-work benchmarks and has placed Google’s AI back among the world’s best. Amid chatter that Google was fine with good-enough lightweight ‘Flash’ models, Pichai pushed back hard against any suggestion that company is limiting its research ambitions. “We won’t do it any other way,” he told me in a Big Technology Podcast interview recorded this week at Google’s Mountain View headquarters. Pursuing cutting-edge research is costly for Google, requiring compute and chips that otherwise could be sold at a high markup by its cloud business. But Pichai said allocating resources to frontier AI development is “ground zero” for Google. “Our cloud business is at any given moment in time forgoing short-term revenues because we are making compute trade-offs to support frontier AI development,” Pichai told me. In our conversation, we discussed Argon (which Pichai says processed three times as many tokens as Gemini 3 in the 72 hours after launch), AI’s role in developing better models, the AI interface of the future, competition with OpenAI, Google’s partnerships with Anthropic and Apple, data centers in space, and the nature of his optimism. You can read the full conversation, lightly edited for length and clarity, below, or listen to it on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or your podcast app of choice. Alex Kantrowitz: Google is back at the frontier with Gemini 4 Argon, which beats OpenAI’s and Anthropic’s public models on benchmarks spanning coding, math, science, and knowledge work. The conventional wisdom was that Google had given up on the frontier to focus on fast, good-enough models for its products. That was wrong? Sundar Pichai: Very wrong. Look, we are so committed to being at the frontier. It’s in our DNA. We won’t do it any other way. We’ve been thinking about the AI frontier for well over a decade now. The frontier is very dynamic. It’s very competitive. It’s very exciting. I couldn’t be more pleased with how Argon has come together. We took our time with it. We made sure we tested it safely and deployed it carefully. We took a bit longer than our other models, given its capabilities. Across the board, be it for agentic work, knowledge work, coding, creative tasks, Argon is one of the really good frontier models. The first 72 hours since we launched, it’s almost up to 25 trillion tokens used, which is about three times what Gemini 3.0 had in the first 72 hours. And we are capacity constrained as we are serving it. Excited, but there are always areas….. You know, the frontier is very dynamic, and you have to keep evolving the models. There are areas which we can see we need to improve as well. We’ll be at work on all of that as well. Which areas? On any given model, Argon would be across the board better at everything if you just look even two months back. But the space is so evolving. Even on coding, for example, there are pockets where we know we need to do better, and there’s clear feedback. We’ll make it better. The argument for standard models is that they’re already good enough to build great products, with the frontier valuable only for certain tasks. Meta built Muse with good models rather than the best, and Google could put standard models into Maps, Gmail, and Search. Why isn’t that sufficient? It’s definitely not how I have thought about it at all. We are deeply committed to driving the state of the art and actually pushing where this technology can go, all the way from transformers. That’s a journey we’ve been on. You will see us continue to do that. When you’re at the frontier, you get an earlier look into the emerging capabilities, earlier than others, which helps you better prepare for the future. We are fortunate to have a wide set of opportunities across consumer and enterprise. Some of our cloud customers, for sure, want the model at the frontier. The frontier models will be better at developing the next set of models in an era of recursive self-improvement. I would argue it matters there. Internally, we have definitely seen a steep point of inflection by deploying Argon to our developers. It definitely tackles problems which our previous models could not do. Being at the frontier puts you at the innovation frontier and helps you drive that as well. There is room for models of all sizes and capabilities. That’s why we did Flash, Flash-Lite, etc. I agree with you that you can develop very good product experiences with not necessarily the most frontier model, because they tend to be slower and more expensive too. But we care about the Pareto frontier, and we’re committed to doing all of that. You said developing frontier models gives you a look at what’s coming. What do you see on the horizon? What makes this moment so exciting is you build something which you think is a culmination of months of work, and you put it out. You already see clear headroom ahead. We’ve all been working on these agentic, long-horizon capabilities, but clearly the frontier is going to have multiple of these agents working together to do things. That’s an example of an exciting paradigm underway. It’s also clear to me that users, both in consumer and enterprise, will have access to some multi-agent framework for them, working all the time doing things. It feels like a moment of infinite possibilities. Sergey Brin said one of Argon’s core innovations was relying more on the model to help develop the model. Yet incidents involving OpenAI’s bots breaking containment and Google’s bots accessing a site they shouldn’t have suggest these systems still aren’t perfectly aligned. Isn’t there reasonable cause for concern about accelerating toward recursive self-improvement? There are three parts to your question. Let’s first talk about RSI itself. You’re right, Sergey mentioned RSI being a critical contributor as we are developing Argon. But to be very clear, today, in a continuum, we are pretty far from the end state of RSI or something like that. The right way to describe it is you have RSI loops along with AI researchers in various aspects of model development. You almost have agents helping AI researchers in some automated way work together to build these models. It’s good to at least understand where we are today, and it’s super exciting. I expect that continuum to keep making progress as we go into next year. The second question is around safety. Security comes from defense in depth. You’re talking about alignment, obviously. We all are doing a lot of work to make sure the models are as aligned as possible. But it’s an active area of research, and there are clear gaps. That’s not the only thing we rely on. You have the work you do on alignment, but beyond that, we put a lot of effort into real-time monitoring as these models are working. Making sure you have good telemetry into what’s happening so that you can intervene in real time if you see unexpected behaviors. How you do that, the architecture with which you do that, how you make sure it’s all sandboxed and isolated in a way that it can continue doing its job during real-time monitoring — these are all areas of investment. Obviously, when we deploy these models, giving customers, enterprises, control, both with real-time monitoring, but their ability to decide where they deploy, what type of data which models ever have access to, etc. All that work is very, very important, and we are doing a lot of that. As an industry, we need to constantly up our game and take the time to do all this stuff, including dedicating the compute required to make sure you can safely deploy these models. The third part is: Is it all enough? This is why there are a lot of conversations in the industry, and I think it’s reasonable to be worried. The right way to approach something you worry about is early on thinking about what more we can do. As an industry, you’re definitely seeing increased levels of work on alignment, testing for safety, etc., as we deploy these models. The next step would be developing better standards so there are cross-industry standards of how we do these things, including the ability to evaluate using independent evaluators. If you look at areas like financial controls, we have accounting standards, we have independent auditors. Those are all the next natural steps for us as an industry to work toward, and regulation will end up playing a role as we go through all of that as well. Google pursues both language models and world models, while some other AI companies like OpenAI have focused more heavily on LLMs as the path to AGI. Why is world-model research important to you? As humans, you obviously perceive the world around you, and you’re taking all those inputs. Making sure these models are able to understand the laws of physics, simulate the world in high fidelity. All that, I think, are key enabling blocks for intelligence. We are working across all possible applications of this. Take an area like robotics. It’s not an accident: If you look at embodied reasoning benchmarks, Argon is state of the art. That all comes from our experience building world models. Inherently, I would expect there will be architectures which will converge all of this in the future. But for us, we view this as, today, this jagged frontier that is intelligence. We want to be at the frontier of all the possible approaches, and that will help us both drive better research, better insights, and develop a much better AGI model, is how we think about it. Some people argue Google should focus on selling its computing resources rather than using them for AI research. Cloud wants to sell compute at a high markup, while researchers need a very big computer to build the best models. How do you balance those demands? Ground zero for us is making sure we are investing in the compute that’s needed to be at the AI frontier. In 2015, I set the company to be AI-first. AI is that key horizontal ingredient across everything we do, all the way from Search to Cloud to Waymo. That is ground zero for us, making sure both for research and developing the models that we have enough compute needed. Beyond that, we have these independent businesses which each have their own long-range plans. They’re using those long-range plans to project forward, and we plan for compute for all of them. The cloud team, they have a business and they have a projection and they have demand signals. They have committed contracts. With that help, we can plan on a long-term compute trajectory for them. We’re fortunate to have this wide set of opportunities. There’s no company in the world which isn’t making trade-offs at any given moment in time. But the first principles we operate on is making sure we have enough compute to invest in the frontier, and that’s non-negotiable, and everything else works on top. Remember, we are building our own compute, our own data centers. There are long lead times. The compute we have today is a function of decisions I made in 2024. Even if you think back to a year from today, last year the agentic coding takeoff hadn’t happened. Today, obviously, when you sit and look at anything, everyone is short—not just us, other companies—and everyone wishes you had two times what you had planned for. That comes with the territory. At any given moment in time, we are planning for what we would need two to three years out in the future. You’re going to find some decisions you make may look suboptimal two years out, depending on where the state of the art is. I don’t spend too much time thinking about it. The way I think about compute allocation is making sure Google DeepMind, both for research and frontier model development, is cutting edge in terms of compute access. After that, we plan for all our businesses. It’s great we can provide our compute to other people too, like we have done. It allows us to scale that up, get real tests for it in the widest application set possible, test it in the real world, and make sure we are at the cutting edge of technology at every layer of our AI stack as well. Ben Horowitz relayed on a podcast that Andy Jassy had said compute was sold out until 2028. Are you seeing the same thing? If today a customer is coming out and asking us for compute in ’27, that is incredibly difficult to do. Even last year we went out and leased some short-term compute to accommodate some customers and help them out. But yes, we are all dealing with similar timelines. Every major technology shift seems to involve overbuilding, from railroads to fiber. Do you think that’s happening here? It depends on the time frames you’re looking at. This level of build, if I take a long enough time frame, it makes complete sense to me. We are at early stages of the most consequential technology ever, and this is not like fiber. It’s not dark. We are using it. We are capacity constrained on a daily basis. The applications, the underlying technology is improving rapidly. But running a company, the way I work through the moment is you look at your demand signals. You look at your committed revenue opportunities that you’re getting in the form of contracts. You balance that with the underlying technical capability, or internally you balance how we are using it internally, the model trajectories. Based on all that, you take a disciplined approach—a confident, aggressive, but disciplined approach—to plan out compute. But when you talk about the broader economy as a whole, you’re having people operate with various levels of risk. I focus on what I can control as a company and plan through it. If your question is, can there be an overbuild? Yes, because you can have some constrained components. Remember, what matters is a set of everything you need to build out that compute. Memory, electricity, electricians…. Land. Like 2,000 components or more. You could get constrained at some point. There could be things which cause bottlenecks, and then you could have overbuilds. There could be external shocks to the economy. There are macro risks. All that is possible at any given time. But am I confident that the compute we are planning for, we will have uses for it given enough time? Absolutely, yes. I was in the room when you said AI would be as profound as fire and electricity. If you believe that, shouldn’t you give researchers the biggest possible computer, even at the expense of today’s cloud profits? We’re all doing some form of that. Our cloud business is at any given moment in time forgoing short-term revenues because we are making compute trade-offs to support frontier AI development. What you’re seeing is true already. But you want to be thoughtful. Even our AI researchers have some constraints, which are also good. That’s what inspires creativity. That’s what helps you come up with a more efficient algorithmic breakthrough, maybe to use less memory. What we are committed to is to invest what’s needed to stay at the frontier. OpenAI President Greg Brockman told me a few months ago that the ideal AI product might have no interface at all—just as natural as conversation. What do you think the interface looks like in the age of AI? Computing historically has been humans adapting to computing. With AI, it’ll be the other way around. The technology will adapt seamlessly to how humans live and go about their day-to-day life. You want to be able to speak to that AI when you want to. It has context. It can be persistently running somewhere, give you continuity. You’re not dealing with a lot of complexity. It’s natural. All that makes sense to me. That doesn’t mean it won’t have any interface, however. Nowadays, even on my phone, Gemini voice models are so good. I can just press the microphone button. I can just ramble. That’s why we call it Rambler. I can ramble. It intelligently corrects with my personal context. Even my friends’ names, weird names, it gets it right, even if it first guesses it wrong. It’s amazing. I’m not going in, backspacing, editing once I finish saying it. It’s remarkable how good it’s gotten. But there are going to be moments you will need an interface. You may want to entertain yourself. You may want to watch a video. You may ask your AI to create something, and you want to watch it, consume it. The way I think about it is, you want it to be as seamless and as natural as possible, and that you are not doing the hard work adapting to whatever the interface is. The technology is adapting to how you’re working at any given moment in time. When I asked Sam Altman about competition from Google, he argued that OpenAI was building AI-native products and implied Google was bolting AI onto existing ones. Do you accept that framing, and can a “bolt-on” compete with an AI-native product? First of all, it’s a very dynamic moment. We are all pushing each other. OpenAI has pushed us as a company too. This is not just we are doing something to them. Far from it. Yes, Google went into its own version of a code red too. In the AI moment, all of us have to respond with varying levels of urgency at any given moment in time. We are constantly building new products as well. Gemini was built from the ground up as a product—the Gemini app I’m talking about. Or tomorrow, as all of us are adapting to agents, are you bolting agents onto ChatGPT, or are they building it natively? How would you think about that? You can always put these questions back. I don’t think of it that way. I think of it as you want to build world-class product experiences that are AI-native and they are winning. Some of it is adapting products, some of it is rethinking new experiences. They will all be part of how you approach this moment. How do you expect to make money from these AI interfaces? If an agent recommends a product and I buy it, should it take a cut of the sale, even if that’s disclosed? I’m going to put enterprise aside. Consumers are going to increasingly value this technology. Take software developers today. Developers are willing to pay for these coding models because it really helps make them more productive. Nobody would want to code the way they were coding three years ago, or even the same time last year. When you’re delivering value, there’s value to be had. I’ve never seen examples where consumer products really scale to billions of users, where people are using it intensely, and haven’t had monetization to go along with it. If you’re providing value to people, there is inherent value to be had. The nature of it may change. You’re asking a scenario in which agents are doing stuff for you. At the end of the day, you will have commercial needs. The agents need to fulfill those commercial needs. The providers on the other side are going to see value in that. There’s going to be some mechanism by which it gets fleshed out. That’s what an efficient system does. But what matters is that you’re building those world-class consumer experiences. I promised myself one product feature request: Can you make Gemini-powered search in Gmail as good as searching Gmail through ChatGPT? What’s going on here? One of the exciting things we announced recently is the unified Gemini agent for enterprise, and we’re bringing that to consumers. These are persistent agents which run 24/7 in the cloud. We’re spinning up a micro VM effectively for every query, and from the runtime, the harness, the model—it’s all a headless service. It’ll work everywhere, and it has your context with you. You can address this agent whether you’re in Workspace, in Search, in Gemini. Agents are going to drive this unification from a customer experience, which people are looking for. When you have a broad product portfolio and you’re moving forward fast, there are always areas where you’re moving forward faster than some other areas. That’s valid feedback. But we are putting a lot of time and effort into making sure, as we build out our agentic experience, that unification and that capability works well across all these services. People have asked where Google’s equivalent of Muse or Dots is. Do you anticipate creating a new product to compete with them? Our goal with Gemini is to be a personal, proactive, and powerful assistant. That’s what we are working toward. You saw us describe the early versions of it at Google I/O this year with Spark. Effectively, already, if you open the Gemini app as a Pro or an Ultra user, you see Chat and Task, and they start giving you that agentic experience. With Argon now, that capability is dramatically accelerated. What we announced recently in our enterprise event, we are bringing that to consumers as well. Soon in Gemini, you will be able to ask something, and it’s a continuum. You don’t need to think about whether you’re asking a chat or an agentic task. It’ll just automatically do the right thing, and it can work persistently in the background securely and get things done for you. Already, empirically, when I look at what’s coming into Gemini in our app, last year you would have tagged them and most of them would have been chats. But a steadily growing percentage is already agentic tasks in Gemini. Yes, we are going to bring personal agents to our consumers. It’ll work in the Gemini app. It’ll work in Google Search. It’ll work in Gmail. You can address it, call it, etc. We want to make sure we’re getting it right. It’ll be powered by Argon, and we are very excited to bring it to our users. Google has invested and committed tens of billions of dollars to Anthropic. What do you see in Dario Amodei that makes you want such a deep investment and partnership? Very early on, when we looked at the founding team of Anthropic, it was very clear to us this was a world-class team which was involved in some of the earliest GPT models. We were quickly able to assess that they would be at the frontier. We’ve always tried to identify and partner with companies which would be at the cutting edge of technology. We’ve done that with SpaceX. We’ve done that with Anthropic. That’s what we saw, and we had a chance to partner. Is your partnership with Apple to license Gemini for Siri expanding, contracting, or standing still? For both us and Apple, that partnership was about translating the capabilities of AI into better experiences for users. I thought Apple has done a phenomenal job of incorporating—they customize these models and build it into Siri—and it’s been great to see the reception. We are committed to doing more. You’re going to do more with them? There’s nothing specific to comment, but it’s a partnership. It’s working well. What have you learned so far about the feasibility of data centers in space? It’s a very exciting project. Projects like this remind me—I still recall that moment in the desert for the DARPA Grand Challenge, watching the Stanley car compete in it, which ended up being the basis for Waymo. With all these technologies, you’re at a moment in time where it looks a bit like sci-fi, but 10 to 20 years down the line, it’s actually working in a meaningful way. I feel the same in space. We’ve always believed in betting big on these technologies. Quantum has been a great example of it. We’re probably 10 years into the journey. Waymo, we are almost 20 years into the journey. Space, we are two to three years into the journey. It’s clear to me that it’s an approach which will make a lot of sense in the future. Being in sub-synchronous orbits with 24/7 access to the most abundant form of energy we have access to will make a lot of sense for this exponential increase in compute that we are going to need. Having said that, this is a challenging project. The team has disciplined milestones. It was a super exciting milestone to send the TPUs up to space. Sometime, as we are speaking, we are expecting a “hello world” moment from them. I look forward to seeing that happen, and we’ll continue investing here too. You previously said 25% of the code written within Google was written by AI. What’s the number today? That number in our world today is meaningless in the sense that every part of what we now touch is influenced by AI deeply. What we are tracking with Argon, for example, it’s been a point of inflection. People are using Argon to really go tackle complex projects, including projects which affect millions of lines of code. In the four weeks since we have launched Argon, we have seen a 30% increase in CLs, and more importantly, almost a similar increase—a one-third decrease in rollbacks. People are writing code more productively and better code with it. We are tracking it with newer metrics now. How are you dealing with opposition to data centers? If you can’t build in the U.S. the way you want to, where else do you go? We’re very committed to building our data centers very responsibly. When I look at our largest data centers in some of the communities where we have been the longest, I visit them, I talk to people. There are people who come and tell us their kids have gone to college because of our investments in these communities, and we’ve grown in those communities. To me, this is about doing it right. Engaging with the communities early, doing it transparently. We are committed to making sure we are bringing incremental power, and we cover 100% of the cost of our power needs for these projects. It’s understanding the impact on neighborhoods and making sure you’re working thoroughly to address them. Done rightly, you can continue making progress. But we are constantly taking feedback into account. I do worry not everyone operates the same way. People have been surprised by data centers showing up in their backyard. Those are all important. As an industry, we should continue to do better. But part of the reason, in a 20-year time frame, we are thinking about things like data centers in space is making sure we are able to put these data centers where maybe the trade-offs will be different. What unproven area of AI is Google working hardest to crack? Is it continual learning—getting models to keep updating after release—or something else? There are multiple parallel paths. You saw with Argon we have a million output tokens. With our Gemini models early on, we had a one-million context window on the input side. These are all examples of breakthroughs we are constantly working on. How do you think about synthetic data? How do you think about continual learning? How do you think about more efficient architectures? We do dedicate a meaningful percentage of our compute to these research bets too. It always goes hand in hand, including our world models. Those are all bets we are placing. Sometimes, as part of these bets, there are ideas that emerge which just make their way into the mainline models. Maybe we don’t fully talk about it, but we have multiple steps in these areas. Working in technology requires optimism that building something will improve the world, but those bets can leave real consequences when they fail. I recently returned to a town in El Salvador where enthusiasm for Bitcoin had given way to unfinished construction and something resembling a ghost town. How do you maintain the optimism you spoke about in your Stanford commencement address while accounting for those risks? I genuinely have a deep conviction that improving technology and improving access to technology makes people’s lives better. It’s been my personal experience in my life, out of which comes that deep conviction, optimism. But with that, I’ve always felt humanity’s journey is always about working hard to harness that technology to make it work well for society. The optimism is not an optimism that you just build whatever you want, whenever. You work hard to make sure you’re building technology in the service of humanity, to make the human condition better. That’s got to be the defining goal as we are approaching it. With that framework, I’m very, very optimistic. We are in very early stages of the kind of progress that we are going to see on many areas. We’re all talking about areas like healthcare. A lot of the progress is ahead. The ability to make things in a fundamentally cheaper way on many things where things have been getting expensive for a long, long time, discovering new materials, etc., which really bend the curve—it’s tough to step today and understand the impact of all that, but they’re going to be very profound. I’m very optimistic, but we have to be rightfully concerned about all the ways this technology can go wrong. Sundar, I know you don’t do many of these. Thank you. Thanks, Alex. Appreciate it.

Oct 20 • 1:47 PM EDT • Technology • bigtechnology.com

A note to readers: Science, accountability and elections

Dear readers, As early voting begins, I wanted to share some news — and why it connects to the decisions we make at the ballot box. I’ve been selected for the inaugural cohort of the South Atlantic Climate Journalism Hub mentorship program, hosted by Covering Climate Now. I’m excited to join this group, learn from scientists and fellow journalists, and expand my science reporting. Science directly ties to governance. Local officials make decisions about where development goes, how infrastructure is maintained, what emergency preparations receive funding, and how communities rebuild after disasters. Understanding the evidence behind those decisions helps us evaluate whether our government is serving us well. Here in western North Carolina, those connections are all around us, in Lake Lure and beyond. Flood maps inform decisions about property and development. Engineering assessments help identify risks at dams and bridges. Rainfall forecasts guide emergency preparations. Geological information helps explain landslide hazards. Water testing gives communities information they need to assess conditions. Meteorologists’ knowledge and public perception of weather events shape public safety. Each involves scientific or technical knowledge. Each also raises questions about public responsibility: What did officials know? How did they use that information? What did they tell the public? What did taxpayers receive for their money? A study can identify a problem. Elected officials still have to decide what to do about it, how to pay for it, and how to explain their choices. Reporting should examine both the evidence and the response. That is where I want to strengthen my work. My reporting on Helene recovery, infrastructure, flooding, public safety, and public spending has repeatedly brought me to questions that require scientific expertise alongside public records. This mentorship may help me better understand the research, ask more precise questions, and explain the answers clearly. I also bring the perspective of someone living with these concerns. I live downstream of Lake Lure Dam, and landslides affected my property during Helene. Those experiences bring urgency to my questions. Careful reporting helps establish the answers. Readers deserve to know what the evidence shows, where uncertainty remains, and whether officials accurately describe the information guiding their decisions. You also deserve scrutiny of proposed solutions: what they cost, what they are expected to accomplish, and what risks remain. Access to that information matters. As a mostly deaf journalist who relies on written communication, I will continue pressing for written public warnings, records, and explanations that people can read and use in real time. As you consider the candidates seeking your vote, consider how they approach evidence, preparedness, and transparency. Do they support local journalism, even when it’s not parroting a press release? Do they explain weather events clearly in plain English and explain their decisions after them? Make supporting records available? Acknowledge uncertainty? Follow through when a report identifies a risk? Those are practical questions about governing. Thank you for supporting Cops & Congress and the work that makes these questions part of the public conversation. I’m grateful to David Dickson and the CC Now team for this opportunity, and I look forward to bringing what I learn back to you. Annie DanceEditor & Publisher, Cops & Congress — Learn more about this newsletter, ethics policy, how you can help shape this work, and support it. Follow on X and Facebook. Send constructive criticism, fan mail, and tips with public documents for future stories: CopsandCongress@gmail.com ICYMI: View the Cops & Congress archive — Annie Dance is the publisher of Cops & Congress, a newsletter that analyzes what happens when crime, courts, disaster, democracy, and small-town policies collide. Views expressed here are covered by the First Amendment. Dance has a Bachelor of Arts from Manhattan University in Communication with a focus in Journalism and Government. She has been a journalist for over 20 years. Share Upgrade now or give a gift subscription

Oct 20 • 6:56 AM EDT • Science • anniedance.substack.com

Streaming’s Biggest Show Returns…and a Buzzy Genre Struggles

(Welcome to my weekly streaming ratings report, the single best guide to what’s popular in streaming TV and what isn’t. I’m the Entertainment Strategy Guy, a former streaming executive who now analyzes business strategy in the entertainment industry. If you were forwarded this email, please subscribe to get these insights each week.) Obviously, the big news of the week (if not month) is Netflix letting go of executive Bela Bajaria, their chief content officer. I’m going to cover this in my next “Most Important Story of the Week”, but I also have a data angle that I might publish before then. (Too much news this month, am I right?) But first, I have a bonus Streaming Ratings Report issue for you. Today’s article is a bit of a grab bag of topics I’ve wanted to write about, but couldn’t squeeze into the (already very long) Streaming Ratings Report issues. The NFL drives huge viewership numbers, so I’ve got a look at that. A whole bunch of TV shows returned to the traditional broadcast channels, and I have thoughts. And I have a quick look at adult animated shows, since a couple flopped earlier this month. Plus, the Emmys aired earlier this month, and we got some fun data bout how popular those nominated shows are and why I’m not optimistic about the show’s future. That’s a lot, so let’s dive right in. Subscribe Sports - Football Remains the King of Streaming Over the last two Streaming Ratings Reports, I sorta ignored the biggest “show” each week. (I was tempted to say “piece of content” but I know that word bugs folks.) In my database, I call these “specials”, and they sure are special. I speak of the king of American TV: football!!! Streaming football is back and, unlike some other sports, it routinely dominates all viewership. Probably the best way to show this is to update one of my favorite graphics, the “40 Million Hour Club”1 since football games have joined that club each week they’ve premiered: (Yep, that’s the data through 28-Sep, the first four weeks of the season. As a reminder, I take the average minute audience provided by Nielsen, factor out a percentage of linear TV viewers in home markets, and multiply the run time by the three-hour runtime.) Again, the numbers are huge. Let’s start with Netflix. They grabbed the rights to the bonus opening week NFL Kickoff game (which was on YouTube last year) and it put up 18.5 million viewers on average. That nets out to 47.4 million hours of estimated streaming hours. That’s good! Though, notably, it’s well below Christmas Day games from previous years. Compared to other streamers/broadcasters, that’s a bit of a mixed result. On one hand, Netflix’s 18.5 million average is about what YouTube claimed last year, though Nielsen used a bespoke methodology at that time, so I trust this viewership figure more. So that’s good. (The game also shifted from a Friday to a Thursday and that could have helped the viewership as well.) And Netflix continues to best Prime Video in total viewership—as you’ll see next—though Netflix has had much higher-profile (opening week and Christmas Day) games. NBC/Peacock’s opening game the night before averaged 25.1 million average viewers, which is just much bigger than Netflix (or Prime Video). That’s the big caveat to all streaming viewership records: even in success, they can’t compete with traditional linear TV. Previously, I called this my “hierarchy of viewership”, and the data keeps supporting that thesis. The downside for NBC is that this game’s viewership was down compared to previous years, though it may be a counting issue. Here’s a great chart from Sports Media Watch: Indeed, looking at all the opening week games across all windows, Netflix still lags the other primetime windows, but does well compared to the afternoon games: I saw a few folks make the case that streamers still lag traditional broadcasters in reach, and I’d add they really lag compared to “broadcast plus streaming” options like NBC/Peacock, ESPN/Disney+ and CBS/Paramount+. The best data I saw for this came from Samba TV, who charted reach through the 2025 season, and, wow. (Samba TV’s numbers are historically lower than Nielsen’s, so don’t compare their household figures to Nielsen’s hours, but use them as a proxy for the relative reach of the streamers.) The good news is Prime Video is NOT having a down year. Their opening Thursday Night Football game reached 18.6 million viewers (about what Netflix got), but that’s a high for Prime Video on Thursdays and the biggest Thursday night game since 2015. The TNF games the weeks of 21-Sep and 28-Sep continued this streak, getting 43.1 (16.8 million average viewers) and 42.5 total hours (16.6 million average viewers), which were both up from last year. Still, that continues the (typical) season slide: (For those new-to-streaming-football-numbers folks, the viewership declines for Thursday Night Football as the year goes along.) Overall, it appears as if Prime Video is now part of the “football habit”, be it for customers at home or out at places like bars and restaurants. And its viewership is slowly catching up to broadcast. One last chart shows this. Last season, Nielsen started adding out-of-home viewership to the charts, so I try not to do season-to-season comparisons as I did for the first few years. And while Nielsen added Big Data viewing this year, I’m going to compare the last two seasons. Here’s that chart, which shows the season-over-season gains: When it comes to streaming football, we have to keep a few seemingly contradictory thoughts in our head… First, streaming doesn’t come close to matching broadcast’s reach and, thus, viewership. Second, even with that gap, football is still the biggest “thing” on streaming. It’s very, very popular. Third, while some methodology changes have likely helped Prime Video’s numbers, their viewership does appear to be growing. Lastly, yeah, the NFL started the season off poorly, with week one dragging down the numbers in year-over-year comparisons. However—and again, methodology changes may have helped this—the viewership grew compared to previous seasons over the next couple of weeks. So football is still king. On streaming and off. Television - Adult Animation Continues to NOT Make the Streaming Charts In the last two reports, two adult-animated shows whiffed: Netflix’s animated comedy, Dang! Paramount+’s Sega-video-game-inspired fantasy/comedy, Golden Axe. Neither made the charts, but that’s usually the case for animated shows. I mean, here’s literally every animated show that’s made the Nielsen Original charts since the start of 2025: And one of those shows is G_abby’s Dollhouse_! A kids show! The problem with charts like this is that they don’t give you a sense of how many shows miss the charts. Netflix had at least eleven animated flops, including comedies like Big Mouth (a show everyone assumed was popular in the pre-Streaming Ratings Era), Long Story Short, Haunted Hotel, Mating Season, Strip Law, and Alley Cats, and action shows like Blood of Zeus, Castlevania: Nocturne, Devil May Cry, Splinter Cell: Deathwatch, and Tomb Raider: The Legend of Lara Croft. Prime Video had at least six animated misses, two in the same universe (Hazbin Hotel, Helluva Boss), three more comedies (#1 Happy Family USA, The Second Best Hospital in the Galaxy and Kevin) and an action show (The Mighty Nein). Disney+ had MCU and Star Wars animated misses (Eyes of Wakanda, Marvel Zombies, Star Wars: Visions, Star Wars: Maul – Shadow Lord, and Star Wars: Tales of the Underworld) but I can’t tell how many of those shows were geared towards adults. HBO Max had Harley Quinn and Hulu had Solar Opposites. None of these shows made the charts! That’s a lot of misses! If I remade the chart with all those misses, here’s how it would look: Listen, I know the counter arguments. First, it’s cheaper to produce animated shows than live action. Fair enough, but with viewership this low, even that cheaper price point starts to not matter. Second, just look at the acquired charts. Hit animated comedies can generate viewership for years! Shows like The Simpsons, South Park, Family Guy, and Bob’s Burgers do really, really well. Fair enough, but streaming has failed to recreate the dynamic that Fox has mastered so well. That’s a problem for streaming still. Television - Emmys! The annual Emmys broadcast was a few weeks ago, and I’ve got data on how the nominees performed on streaming, plus hot takes on this year’s viewership (and the big news about the broadcast’s, er, streamcast’s future). We’re just getting started with this issue, but the rest is for paid subscribers of the Entertainment Strategy Guy, so if you’d like to find out… The top Emmy-nominated shows… ...why I’m worried about the future of the Emmys telecast... ...the pros of broadcast television ...and the cons... ...please subscribe! We can only keep doing this great work with your support. Coming Soon! Next week, we’ve got a double issue (since the weeks of 21-Sep and 28-Sep were so light), but then I’ll be all caught up after a deluge of streaming ratings data from Nielsen in September. In the meantime, I’m going to try to take a look at Netflix’s stats to explain why Bela Bajaria is out. But even light weeks give me plenty to talk about. The Great British Baking Show returns to Netflix and Apple TV has a buzzy new star-studded comedy. And Netflix has a controversial-but-appears-to-be-popular new game show. Plus big films like Toy Story 5, Backrooms and The Breadwinner head to streaming. And is East of Eden a hit? After that, The Kardashians return to Hulu, Prime Video has a reboot of Carrie, and Netflix has a horror show, Below. Disclosure Day heads to Peacock, The Housemaid heads to HBO Max_,_ a new Ben Affleck film, Animals, lands on Netflix, and Apple TV has a new John Cena action film based on, checks notes, Hasbro’s Matchbox toys. Okay. Longterm, some interesting TV production news. HBO Max ordered How to Survive Without Me, starring Kaley Cuoco, Joshua Jackson, Ray Romano and Rita Wilson, for fifteen episodes! I love that some streamers (or, at least, HBO Max) are finally ordering TV shows with more than eight episodes. In less wise production news, Landman does not appear to be coming back this year, since it just started production. Frankly, I don’t love this (get your shows out on time) but Landman is so popular, I doubt it matters.

Oct 18 • 3:59 PM EDT • Entertainment • entertainment.substack.com

Scaler Wave (@scalerwave)

How’s that “science” workin’ out for ya? -“Outside of running, Yoo was a graduate student at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, known as KAIST, where she researched AI semiconductors. She shared her training and race results online and built an audience of thousands who admired how she balanced demanding research with serious endurance running. In March, she completed the full Seoul Marathon in 2 hours, 56 minutes and 32 seconds, finishing under the three-hour mark. No cause of death has been made public.” Odd….

Oct 17 • 4:27 PM EDT • Science • substack.com

Can AI solve our mental health access problem?

Last week I asked you what worries you most about AI in health. It was close, but your top answer was “AI giving bad health advice.” Last week’s poll results: You’re in good company. This concern was top of mind at a conference I joined at Stanford last week, where researchers, clinicians, and people who build AI systems spent a day debating trust and safety in health AI. Stepping back, I’m also hearing your emerging concerns about AI’s impact on our well-being generally. I see this as a matter of public health, and we’ll take it in pieces as we learn together. Today we’ll focus on AI chatbots used for therapy for mental health. Early this month, Governor Newsom vetoed Senate Bill 903, California’s most ambitious attempt to regulate AI use for mental health. It’s at the center of active debate, and raises the questions patients, family members, citizens, and voters will face as AI moves deeper into health care. Let’s work through it. What is “AI-based therapy”? It’s really two things: purpose-built mental health apps designed to deliver structured support, and general chatbots like ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini that people increasingly use for emotional support—even if they weren’t built for it. Spoiler alert: I don’t know whether the shift toward AI therapy is good or bad. The evidence isn’t there yet. But I do know it’s already happening, and I have some ideas about how we can roll it out with safety in mind. The therapy dilemma, in a nutshell Mental health challenges are common, and strain health and well-being across populations. Therapy (interactive dialogue with a trained, empathetic practitioner) helps many people heal. The demand for licensed therapists far exceeds the supply in California, and AI-based therapy can narrow that gap. AI-based therapy remains novel, unproven, and not well tested. Right off the bat, we can see we’re dealing with trade-offs here. Since the main driver of demand for therapy from a robot is lack of access to therapy from a human, we’ll start there. It’s too hard to find and afford a human therapist California is short roughly 55,000 licensed, non-prescribing therapists and counselors, about 40% of what we need. Psychiatrists, who rely on talk therapy as a complement to prescribed medications, are even more scarce. Eight counties have none, and density ranges from 1.7 per 100,000 residents in San Benito County, to 68.1 in Marin County. My wife is a psychiatrist in Marin, and even here access is tight. If it’s hard in the best-supplied county, imagine rural Sierra County, or the San Joaquin Valley. In 2024, more than half of Californians who tried to make a mental health appointment struggled to find a provider who took their insurance, compared with 14% for physical health care. When Senate staff posed as “secret shopper” patients and called 120 mental health providers in Medicare Advantage networks, they landed an appointment less than once for every five tries. Insurers pay behavioral health clinicians about 22% less than medical and surgical clinicians for comparable office visits. On top of that, billing denials and prior authorizations hit hardest at the solo and small practices common in mental health. Psychiatrists opt out of Medicare at the highest rate of any specialty. In many places, a cash practice for therapy fills quickly with patients paying $250 or more an hour, with no insurance paperwork at all. Families who can pay cash find providers more easily. Those who rely on insurance, including Medi-Cal enrollees, older adults, rural residents, and non-English speakers, compete for what’s left. So we can’t pretend the human system works, and we can’t blame people for turning to AI for support when they’re in distress. AI is filling the gap It’s estimated that roughly a quarter of AI users use it for mental health support. If you have internet, it’s available 24/7, it’s cheap, and it speaks your language. Uninsured adults are about twice as likely as insured adults to do it (30% vs. 14%). It feels anonymous in ways that may enable people to ask things they’re unsure or embarrassed about. The largely hidden, personal use makes it hard to study whether it’s actually helping people with their mental health issues, but researchers are trying. Does AI therapy work? A 2026 analysis of nearly 40 randomized trials found chatbots showed a real but small reduction in depression symptoms. But most of these trials were compared to an alternative of no therapy, not a human therapist. So the benefit of AI therapy is probably real, but modest, and mostly untested against the alternative of human contact. We need more studies. Serious concerns OpenAI’s own estimate is that more than a million ChatGPT users each week show signs of suicidal planning or intent. These are high stakes encounters, and AI doesn’t always get it right. That’s partly because a chatbot can sound like a therapist, but it has no license, no duty of care, and it’s not clear who to hold accountable when it gets things wrong. AI is also designed to help users in whatever task they’re seeking to accomplish. People may feel like they’re getting therapy, but they’re mainly getting a convincing conversation. It’s easy for an AI companion to wander into gray areas, like playing along with “creative writing” that may be about the user’s own suicidal intent. Courts are driving safety conversations A wave of lawsuits have been filed on behalf of families claiming that chatbots pushed people they loved toward self-harm, including teens who died by suicide. The first settlements came this year. OpenAI is headquartered in San Francisco, and dozens of cases alleging that ChatGPT drove users to suicide or self-harm are now before a San Francisco judge. Character.ai has filed for bankruptcy after several states brought lawsuits accusing the chatbot of pushing dangerous content to kids. But the technology seems to be improving. Last month, an independent evaluation found that newer AI models “almost never endorse suicide.” That’s progress, but our societal appetite for even one preventable death is very low. So how do we move forward? Finding a middle ground Earlier this month the governor vetoed Senate Bill 903, a bill designed to place guardrails on the use of AI for therapy. The bill would have prohibited any AI-based platform from being advertised as psychotherapy, and would have required a licensed professional to review and approve each encounter where AI was used to support therapeutic decisions. Newsom called it overly broad, since even routine screening questions would have needed clinician sign-off. Knowing we’re already short on mental health providers, requiring human review of AI encounters may not relieve our access problems. Still, the answer isn’t no oversight. Here’s one feasible short term solution. Rather than reviewing each encounter, a licensed clinician can design the guardrails: what counts as a crisis, what triggers an immediate handoff to a human, and what gets sampled for audit each month. The AI runs inside that structure. Conversations get checked, failures get reported, and a real clinician owns the framework. Medicine already has models to learn from. The FDA process for rolling out newly approved medications is an example. After a product reaches patients, we keep watching for adverse events. Patient-facing AI needs the same “digital pharmacovigilance”: systematic tracking of harms, near misses, and the types of groups that get hurt and why. It’s also critical that users know that they can reach a human if they’re in crisis. Most chatbots now include messages like these: Bottom line The rush to use unproven AI tools for mental health support is mostly a workaround, a sign of a health system people can’t get into. We need better access to proven care from licensed clinicians. That takes reimbursement that makes accepting insurance viable, and a bigger workforce. But, built and tested well, AI could be part of the answer. It could be the 2 a.m. check-in when no one else is awake, or a way for patients to practice skills their therapist taught them. It could be the first step to get someone the right level of care, and take paperwork off clinicians’ plates so they spend more time with patients. None of this is simple. The SB 903 veto doesn’t end the debate, and the legislature will be back. In the meantime, those of us using these tools need to stay informed, ask hard questions, and hold the companies building them accountable. I’ll try to do my part, and we’ll keep learning together. Love,Matt P.S. If you or someone you know is struggling with mental health challenges, emotional distress, substance use problems, or just needs to talk, call or text 988- you’ll reach a real person— or chat at 988lifeline.org 24/7. Dr. Matt Willis is the author of Your Local Epidemiologist in California. A California native, he’s served as a primary care physician, CDC epidemiologist, and public health officer for Marin County, where he guided the pandemic response. He lives in Marin with his family and their dogs, Teddy and Ramona. Thank you Cynthia He, MD, PhD, and Parnika Saxena, MD, for their guidance in preparing this article. Cynthia works in an outpatient mental health clinic, treating patients who have Medi-Cal or, sometimes, no insurance. Parnika works in an inpatient psychiatric unit, treating patients with public or private insurance or self-pay ability. All opinions are their own and do not represent their employers.

Oct 16 • 10:32 AM EDT • Health • yourlocalepidemiologistca.substack.com

Morocco health alert issued due to diphtheria: US Embassy

In the North African country of Morocco, the country’s Ministry of Health reported a small diphtheria outbreak with clusters in multiple regions in Morocco in late September. Moroccan health teams are tracing contacts and providing preventive treatment and vaccines. This has prompted the US Embassy to issue a health alert for U.S. citizens in Morocco. Diphtheria is a serious bacterial infection. It spreads primarily from person to person through coughs and sneezes (respiratory droplets). Most Americans were vaccinated as children and have received Td or TdaP boosters as adults. The risk to U.S. citizens in Morocco remains low. U.S. Citizens may contact their local doctors if they would like immunizations. Embassy officials advise citizens to watch out for the following symptoms: Sore throat or hoarse voice, mild fever, a thick gray or white coating in the throat or nose, swollen neck and trouble swallowing or breathing. If you or a family member has trouble breathing or swallowing, please contact your local doctor. They also advise on the following actions concerning vaccines: Check your vaccination records and your family members’ records. Get a booster if you need one. Adults need a diphtheria booster (Td or Tdap) every 10 years. Make sure your children are up to date on their routine vaccines. Outbreak News Today is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe

Oct 16 • 9:01 AM EDT • Health • outbreaknewstoday.substack.com

Plague is stoppable. The next health threat may not be.

The word plague is scary. Centuries ago, the Black Death killed tens of millions of people and changed the course of history. Plague still kills people around the world, and the word still evokes catastrophe. New fears of plague surfaced on October 2, when a lab worker in Irkutsk, Russia, died of pneumonia. Reports suggested that she may have contracted plague through a laboratory exposure. Understandably, people were alarmed. On October 7, the World Health Organization called for the Russian Federation to be transparent about what it knew. WHO issued an update on October 10. Russian authorities told WHO that testing did not identify plague and that investigations found no laboratory release. WHO said confidence in its risk assessment remained limited and that further clinical, epidemiological, and laboratory information was needed. The cause of the woman’s illness remains unknown, and WHO says a laboratory-associated exposure cannot be excluded. As I explained in a recent interview, this incident is very unlikely to lead to a pandemic. Plague is still active, including in the U.S., which sees a handful of cases each year. But it is a disease we can prevent and treat. Plague doesn’t spread readily, and it responds to antibiotics. The standard response—isolate the patient, trace contacts, and administer antibiotics and monitor for symptoms among contacts for seven days—works. We have even planned for antibiotic-resistant plague. At CDC, we developed a playbook for antibiotic-resistant plague and ran exercises on how to find and stop it. CDC guidance anticipates engineered resistance and recommends two different classes of antibiotics if there’s reason to suspect it. There is no evidence that resistance—or even confirmed plague—is involved in this incident. We have thought through how to address plague, but we’re not ready for the next major health threat that emerges from a lab or from animal spillover to humans. What should concern people is how little stands between the world and the next pathogen to get loose. Since peak COVID, epidemic preparedness has fallen off the political agenda, but the risk is greater than ever. More labs handle dangerous pathogens with more ways to make those pathogens deadlier, and more people live and work in close contact with animals. There are actions we can take now: We need better lab safety in every country. The number of labs that work with dangerous pathogens has increased worldwide over two decades, but there’s no enforceable international standard and no inspection regime; the Biological Weapons Convention, fifty years on, still has no verification mechanism. Labs that study dangerous germs need strong safety systems, training, and oversight. We need to reduce spillover events. Three in four emerging human infections start in animals, and there’s a lot we can do to reduce spillover risk, but the world is doing very little of it. Live-animal markets are one place to act. For instance, closing live-bird markets helped control H7N9 influenza in China. Reducing opportunities for people to encounter infected animals can prevent infections before they become outbreaks. In The Formula for Better Health, which is now out in paperback along with the hardcover, Kindle, and audiobook versions, I argue that labs do too many risky experiments with too many dangerous pathogens in too many institutions, and that every experiment should first answer one basic question: Is the likely benefit greater than the risk? Spillover risk can also be reduced: In the book, I discuss how Brazil cut its deforestation rate by 70% from 2004 to 2012 while increasing agricultural production and reducing risky contact between people and forest animals. We need faster detection and response. Delay costs lives. Strong surveillance, good labs, and trained responders can turn a single case into a small cluster of infections instead of an epidemic. Resolve to Save Lives has worked for nearly a decade to help countries find and stop outbreaks faster. The 7-1-7 target, which Resolve to Save Lives developed with partners in Uganda and elsewhere, provides a clear standard: detect within 7 days, notify within 1 day and complete all essential early response actions within 7 days. In Uganda’s Kasese district, for example, a review of a measles outbreak using 7-1-7 identified shortages of accessible funds, fuel, and vehicles that delayed the response. District leaders established funds they could access quickly. When, a few months later, the Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever appeared, the district detected it in three days, notified authorities in one, and mounted an effective response in two. Only one case was confirmed, and the patient survived. Because funds were available before the emergency, authorities were prepared and able to act. This kind of preparation can’t wait until the next crisis begins. Plague is an old disease we that know how to stop. The next threat may be harder to recognize, harder to treat, and easier to spread. Safer labs, less risk of spillover, and faster outbreak detection and response need sustained investment now, while we still have time to prevent the next emergency. Share

Oct 16 • 8:57 AM EDT • Health • tomfrieden.substack.com

IP Saves the Day On Streaming

(Welcome to my weekly streaming ratings report, the single best guide to what’s popular in streaming TV and what isn’t. I’m the Entertainment Strategy Guy, a former streaming executive who now analyzes business strategy in the entertainment industry. If you were forwarded this email, please subscribe to get these insights each week.) Before we get started, I wanted to highlight a new idea I saw from Real Good AI, proposing a ratings system for AI use. (H/T to Anthony Kaufman’s article highlighting this.) It would look something like this: In general, I think that this is a solid, middle-ground solution that should appease both the pro-AI camp (who love AI) and the anti-AI camp (who wants to know if what they’re watching didn’t come from humans). Regardless of your feelings on AI/LLMs—I’ll never use it for my writing—transparency is often the best solution to many problems. In general, I think way more media outlets need to be using way more AI disclosures. My quick “Yes and...” to this idea: what about ads? In particular, I hate it when I see or hear ads that are obviously AI-generated, but a person or voice says, “I used this product”. AI doesn’t use products! Just today, I watched a YouTube ad where a “person” said they use some sort of rain wind chime...but that’s not a real person! They didn’t use this product. (Especially since the video of the wind chime itself also appeared to be AI-generated...) I believe most traditional advertising already has standards like this anyway.1 Okay, on to this week’s issue. We’re covering the week of 14-Sep, and then next issue, I’ll be fully caught up with Nielsen’s new release schedule. In the future, I plan to put out Streaming Ratings Reports each Monday after Nielsen’s Thursday releases. Overall, we had some big new shows this week, like Prime Video’s Reacher spinoff_, Neagley_, which is off to a big, big start, and Netflix’s latest in its Monster anthology, which is their largest opening since June and the second-largest since One Piece came out in March. All that, plus Slow Horses returns, the trio of returning shows (Lioness, Reacher and Ted Lasso) continue to dominate the top tens, Paramount+’s latest crime drama, a big whiff for a Netflix original film and a precipitous drop for Netflix film charts, all the flops, bombs and misses, and a whole lot more. Let’s dive right in! (Reminder: The streaming ratings report focuses on the U.S. market and compiles data from Nielsen’s weekly top ten viewership ranks, Luminate’s Top Ten Data, JustWatch and Reelgood interest data, Samba TV household viewership, company datecdotes, Netflix hours viewed data, Google Trends, and IMDb to determine the most popular content. While most data points are current, Nielsen’s data covers the weeks of September 14th to September 20th 2026. You can find a link to my terminology here.) Subscribe Television - IP For the TV Win Can I use the dirty word of entertainment journalism right now? IP. Shhh. Don’t tell anyone I said it. But IP works at the box office, and we’ve seen some evidence it works in TV too. Not as well, and not all the time—no absolutes here!—but often enough. And glancing at the Nielsen top ten…it worked this week! Take Prime Video, who has a monster hit in the crime drama Reacher. Would a spinoff work for that show? Yep! They binge-released Neagley, about a detective from the original Reacher series, and its eight episodes debuted to 29.6 million hours. Here’s how it stacks up to Reacher, one of Prime Video’s biggest shows: That’s great. Nearly as strong as Reacher’s opening! (Both shows started with eight, binge-released episodes, so this comparison is apples-to-apples.) Notably, Prime Video scheduled the debut of Neagley to overlap with Reacher’s most recent season, to help drive tune-in. Obviously, I love smart release strategies like that. And even though I wrote “obviously”, it’s not really that obvious, since streamers don’t often take advantage of natural overlaps like this_._2 Other data backs how well Neagley performed. It opened at second place on Samba TV for two weeks and got 51.7 million hours on Luminate. That’s the eleventh biggest opening on Luminate since May of 2024 and tied with Bridgerton’s third season opening. That’s a huge opening! Its IMDb is solid too, a 7.7 on 24K reviews. Netflix’s latest edition in the “Monster” series—which started with Jeffrey Dahmer and comes from Ryan Murphy—did well too, opening to 24.7 million hours. That’s the biggest opening for Netflix since I Will Find You in June, and second biggest since March. Unlike the Reacher series, this franchise is trending downward, though. The first Monster show—Dahmer - Monster—was giant. More than anything, I think this reflects that Netflix running out of extremely popular—if that’s the right word?—serial killers to feature. Still, the data says this is a very good opening. It made it to third place on Samba TV for two weeks. It also opened to 40.0 million hours on Luminate. That’s not quite as elite as Neagley, but still very, very strong. I’ll be honest: my priors coming into any given week are that IP works to help drive buzz for new shows, but TV shows need to stand on their own even more than movies, so they will succeed or fail based on their quality. But these two spinoffs definitely worked. Quick Notes on TV The top show, film or special this week? Football, again. Specifically, Prime Video’s season opener of Thursday Night Football. The games run long (three hours) but mainly a lot of people watch each game. That adds up to a lot of viewership. Paramount released the second season of MobLand on an unusual day for that service, a Friday! Often, they put their new shows out on a Sunday, as they did last year with a run of shows (Lioness, Tulsa King and Landman). MobLand didn’t make Nielsen in its first week, but on Samba TV it got to eighth and seventh place. Luminate had a smaller opening too, only 5.3 million hours. MobLand missed the Nielsen charts for its first eight weeks, so this season is off to a stronger start. (Bonus note: the first season streams on both Prime Video and The Roku Channel, but I only have it as Paramount+ on those charts.) I’ve mentioned a few times that foreign-language originals do lower numbers than English-language originals on Netflix most of the time. But I don’t usually emphasize what country those originals come from, and observationally, they tend to be from Western or Northern European countries, in general. So credit to Not a Stranger, a Turkish Netflix original, for breaking through on Luminate, getting to 7.9 million hours in its first full week on those charts. As I mentioned last issue, Crew Girl ended up making the Nielsen charts in its second week. That’s still a soft performance compared to many shows, but again this, one looks affordable. And if you’re curious, here’s how it stacks up to some other sports romance shows: We’re just getting started with this issue, but the rest is for paid subscribers of the Entertainment Strategy Guy, so if you’d like to find out… …about a new data source and how it drives streaming viewership… ...what reality show is struggling in its latest season…. ...what Netflix film bombed…. ...How Reacher, Ted Lasso, and Lioness are doing on the charts… ...what obscure sport put up great viewership numbers… …how far streaming films are falling… …all the flops, bombs and misses for the last week… …and more… ...please subscribe! We can only keep doing this great work with your support. If you want an idea of just how much content you’d get in a full issue, check out this older issue. Coming Soon! Next week, we’ve got a double issue, then we’ll be all caught up with Nielsen’s data. Yes! The goal is to have my report out on the Monday after I get Nielsen’s data. So next issue, I’m looking at East of Eden, The Great British Baking Show, a Willy Wonka game show (that people are upset uses AI, but viewers might not care), and a Cosby show spinoff reboot on Netflix, and Brothers on Apple TV (starring Woody Harrelson and Matthew McConaughey). That’s about it for TV, but who’s going to win the streaming week, The Breadwinner or Backrooms on streaming? Answer: Toy Story 5. Plus Netflix has a Unabomber film and a new Tyler Perry film, Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma tries to repeat The Substance’s run on MUBI, and Paramount+ has Jackass: Best and Last. Long term, Netflix is remaking Lonesome Dove. I love this choice, but man, there are a lot of westerns on TV right now. And they’re making Sega TV shows, including a Crazy Taxi TV show and Sonic show with an “edge”.

Oct 15 • 3:32 PM EDT • Entertainment • entertainment.substack.com

Fixing Call of Duty: Inside Activision’s Modern Warfare 4 comeback plan

Oct 15 • 9:00 AM EDT • Technology • thegamebusiness.com

Inside Gavin Newsom's taxpayer-funded team that never stops posting

Gavin Newsom has been a Twitch stream guest, a Substacker, a Tiktoker and a podcast bro. Here’s how he’s used the media to boost himself as governor.

Oct 15 • 8:00 AM EDT • Politics • calmatters.org

Ubisoft plans cuts at German studios, adding to wave of workforce reductions

Ubisoft is planning to reduce its workforce in Germany, where it operates a trio of studios, by about 100 workers, Game File has learned. The company wants to offer employees buyouts to, should enough people accept, avoid having to lay anyone off. “In Germany, we initiated discussions with the Works Council last week regarding a proposed voluntary departure plan across Ubisoft Dusseldorf, Ubisoft Berlin & Ubisoft Mainz,” a company rep told Game File. A “works council” is a union-like group representing employees. “The voluntary plan is the primary measure being proposed to support the intended organizational changes,” the Ubisoft rep added. The company declined to confirm the scale of the potential headcount cut. Of the impacted studios, Mainz might be the best known to the public. It leads development of the Anno series and shipped the well-reviewed strategy game Anno 117: Pax Romana in November 2025. Berlin and Dusseldorf operate as support studios within Ubisoft’s creative network. Berlin recently supported the development of Rainbow Six Siege and the Rayman Legends Retold remake. Dusseldorf also contributed to those projects, as well as The Settlers and Ubisoft-branded escape rooms. Dusseldorf is the biggest of the three studios, with some 400+ workers, compared to just over 100 at the other two, a source familiar with the reductions and the teams told Game File. More than half of these new reductions of about 100 people are expected to happen at Dusseldorf. The planned cuts were announced at a town hall for the German studios on Tuesday of last week. In an email follow-up, the studio group’s managing director, Benedikt Grindel, said the cuts were intended to “best position our German studios for the future... with a clearer focus on their role, capabilities and organizational setup needed for the work ahead.” The email was an echo of the past. In January 2025, Grindel had emailed the Ubisoft developers in his region (or studio “zone”) to explain that a round of 185 cuts at the time, including about 65 at Dusseldorf, were “essential to improve our operational efficiency and ensure the long-term sustainability of our studios, the zone and the company.” A half-decade of continued job cuts Ubisoft has been aggressively cutting its headcount for years. At the end of September 2022, it had 20,729 workers. By the end of March 2026, that total was down to 16,590. Studio management is trying to trim costs as it grapples with a changing industry and a drought of releases, let alone hits. The company announced earlier this year that it had reduced its costs since 2022 by “nearly €325 million” ($362m) and planned to lower them through 2028 by another €180 million ($200m). In June the company said it was closing down its Winnipeg and Belgrade studios and cutting roles in its Barcelona team. Even commercial and creative success hasn’t spared studios from this ongoing company-wide contraction. As Game File was nailing down details around the proposed cuts in Germany, Ubisoft management was informing workers of cuts in its Singapore studio, which shipped a hit remake of Assassin’s Creed IV: Black Flag this past July. Some 70 positions in Singapore are being eliminated “to align the studio with upcoming production needs,” per a company rep’s statement to Game File. In early 2024, a large team in the Singapore studio launched the multiplayer pirate game Skull & Bones. It performed poorly but has been supported with regular content updates since. Many of Ubisoft’s studios around the world are heavily subsidized via regional grants and tax breaks. Singapore had been among them for years, but received no such local assistance in the 12 months ending this past March. News of the Singapore cuts broke today alongside word that Ubisoft is also proposing the closure of RedLynx, pending negotiations with officials. The Finnish studio behind the motorbike series Trials was founded in 2000 and sold to Ubisoft in 2011. As reported by VGC (and corroborated by Game File), Ubisoft management told employees it could not come up with a new, sustainable assignment for RedLynx. The 2025 workforce at Ubisoft Dusseldorf were straight-up cuts. This time, Ubisoft is hoping the reductions at its trio of German studios will largely come from workers taking a payout to leave. The company offered such voluntary dismissals at its Massive Entertainment studio (The Division) a year ago. For the German studios’ buyouts this time around, Ubisoft and the Works Council had discussed a formula that’d pay a worker’s monthly salary multiplied by 1.5 and by the number of years they’ve worked at the company, according to Game File sources. The formula is still subject to negotiations with the Works Council and has not yet been part of an official offer to workers. It could be adjusted up or down, and it could be supplemented with additional bonuses. Asked about the floated payout formula, a Ubisoft rep told Game File, “The terms of a potential voluntary departure program remain subject to negotiation with employee representatives. No final agreement has been reached, and we won’t comment on specific proposals while discussions are ongoing.” Game File is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe Item 2: Epic’s AI adventures Epic Games (Fortnite, the Unreal engine) is all-in on using AI to try to transform the way it makes video games and game-making tools. It’s leaders appear to be undeterred by any resistance among gamers and some game developers around generative AI—and instead emboldened by advances, particularly in AI-assisted programming. A recap of the last three days: On Monday, Bloomberg reported that Epic management told workers last week that development of an upcoming game combining Star Wars and Marvel characters would be “AI first.” Employees would be expected to use AI models such as Claude to code the game. A manager told Epic’s developers there would be “[n]o more hand-written code” and that art for the game would be “generated with full AI workflows,” per the outlet. Just ahead of that story running, Epic founder Tim Sweeney tweeted: “We have a huge pivot underway here at Epic, moving developers around to retool for maximum AI acceleration. The aim isn’t to do the same stuff with fewer people, but to enable everyone here to build MORE and BETTER stuff, and to bring the benefits to all teams using Unreal.” In a follow-up, Sweeney predicted that most game development processes would be at least three times faster a year from now than they were in January 2026, thanks to AI. To a person on X who told him he was failing to read the room, Sweeney said: “Much of the room wants it to be 2016 again, but it’s not. Our job, as the provider of tools and technology to much of the industry, is to design for the present that is and the future that will soon be.” On Wednesday, Epic announced it was releasing a faster launcher for its Epic Games Store marketplace. It did so by stating in a blog post as clear as could be that the launcher is an AI-enabled, vibe-coded project: Programming is hard. So, instead of doing that, we vibe coded a new Epic Games Launcher that’s way faster and more responsive than the current one, and has a new look. Programming is hard? That was unexpected phrasing from a company founded by a legendarily great programmer. Back in 2011, Sweeney told me that he’d picked up programming quickly as a kid and rejoiced at the power it gave him. “I could look at any program that anybody else had written and, with enough effort, build something cooler.” Item 3: The Xbox Labs experiment (and one of the people behind it) Microsoft’s Xbox division, which is flooding the zone with announcements lately, yesterday revealed a new internal tech-tinkering team called Xbox Labs. In the words of Xbox boss Asha Sharma Labs is “a small group of game makers, engineers and scientists whose job is to turn emerging ideas into things our players and developers can experience.” Conventional wisdom coming out of the announcement is that Labs is a team that’ll focus on ideas driven by generative AI. In her announcement, Sharma cited some of the dizzying achievements in tech and gaming over the past month as AI agents and other AI tools have been deployed to swiftly figure out how popular games work, then rebuild them and mix them up. She mentioned seeing ”games rapidly decompiled and rebuilt to run on hardware they were never originally designed to support” and said “[p]erhaps more surprisingly, we’ve seen many of the biggest games in the world have been remixed into the source code of another.” (Minecraft plus Elden Ring, for example, or Fortnite + Super Monkey Ball + Overwatch + Diablo + others.) Sharma also cited the work of Windows PC games being ported to run in browsers, a seeming reference to a recent AI-assisted fan port of Halo. Or perhaps Call of Duty or GTA. Sharma didn’t use the specific term “AI” in her memo, but she came close, citing AI “agents” and their potential for game-making tools that Labs could help craft: I think XBOX has an important role to play here. Coding became the first major workload for agents because they can write, run, and test software. Games share many of those same properties, and people spend more than 72 billion hours a year playing XBOX games, roughly five times the estimated time spent writing code worldwide. We’ve spent 25 years learning how to make great games, and I want our game makers to help shape what these new technologies make possible. As we learn, we’ll share the tools we build with developers across the industry, just as we always have. When I asked an Xbox rep if Labs was an AI-centric team, they said genAI was not the focus, describing it as having a broader mandate for using new tech in new ways in gaming. As an example, they pointed to Xbox’s recently launched disc-to-digital gaming usage rights program. Microsoft didn’t specifically name anyone involved full-time in Xbox Labs yesterday, but on social media and LinkedIn, I spotted Adrian Mato IDing himself as leading the creatio of tools at Labs and talking up the launch. Mato first caught my attention in late September, when he said on X that he was “starting to build a new team at Xbox focused on products and tools for how games get built and distributed as agentic tools become more capable.” At the time, he framed AI-based tools as a supplement to traditional game dev tools. “I don’t think we need to replace them,” he said. Since then, he’s publicly shown interest in AI and in games. He’s recently spent some of his X feed marveling at the power of AI agents and praising the lighting in the latest Gears of War. Following the Labs announcement yesterday, he enthused about the Xbox Labs’ stylish landing page. He wrote: “We built some fun tools to art-direct shaders in real time, experimented with interactive ASCII art, and sprinkled in lots of tiny details. “Move your mouse to leave a colorful trail that reveals the original footage, or interact with the video to trigger bursts of particles. “A lot of love went into making it all feel just right. “More to come”

Oct 14 • 4:31 PM EDT • Technology • gamefile.news

How the Zelda Ocarina of Time remake changes the classic game’s script

At the start of the iconic 1998 Nintendo 64 game The Legend of Zelda: The Ocarina of Time, our playable hero Link wakes up in his tree cabin, heads outside and is greeted by his friend Saria. “Yahoo! Hi, Stotil!" she says. In other people’s copies of the games, she might say “Hi, Link!” or “Hi, Brick!” or use whatever other name the player was allowed to input when first launching the game. The more important point is that she starts with a “Yahoo!” In Nintendo’s 2011 remake of Ocarina of Time for the 3DS handheld, Saria greets Link with that same word. But for the 2026 Switch 2 re-remake of Ocarina of Time, out November 5, Saria’s salutation has changed: “Hello, Link!” she exclaims. There’s no “Yahoo” to be heard. Last month, in an official Nintendo video preview, Zelda series producer Eiji Aonuma described the remake as a “faithful interpretation using modern technologies.” Faithful means the gameplay hasn’t changed much. Dungeons, quests, and just generally what you do in the game doesn’t seem to have changed, not based on what Nintendo has shown nor the hour of the game I played in New York City a couple of weeks ago. The graphics have been overhauled. The controls have been tweaked. Players can now manually control the camera and make Link jump with the press of a button, both notable differences from the original 1998 design. But Link’s journey appears to take the same path, with the same obstacles in its way. The remake’s biggest alteration to Ocarina of Time that I’ve spotted so far just might be the script. About the game’s story, Aonuma said in September, “We’ve added quite a lot of new dialogue for the characters, so that their personalities shine even more.” Earlier this month, I played a chunk of the Ocarina of Time remake at a Nintendo showcase. In the game’s earliest moments, I made a point of talking to characters and recording what they said. I found the script to be more colorful, more natural in its phrasing, more careful to establish its characters, and certainly more wordy even with the removal of that one “Yahoo!”. I’ve got some very early-game examples, so you can judge the new writing for yourself.

Oct 14 • 11:32 AM EDT • Technology • gamefile.news

Politics Chat, October 13, 2026

A newsletter about the history behind today's politics.

Oct 13 • 9:46 PM EDT • Politics • heathercoxrichardson.substack.com

When 1 + 1 = 1: The Miserable Math Behind Many Media Mergers

(Welcome to the “Most Important Story of the Week”, my bi-weekly strategy column analyzing the most important (but often not buzziest) news story of the last two weeks. I’m the Entertainment Strategy Guy, a former streaming executive who now analyzes business strategy in the entertainment industry. Please subscribe.) The last few issues of this newsletter have circled two topics: September’s streaming viewership and all the Paramount/Skydance/Warner Bros./Discovery merger news. I’m happy to say on the Streaming Ratings Report front, we’ll be all caught up by early next week, then the SRR will come out on a tight weekly schedule. Then, after today, I’ll have slayed my PSWbD dragon. It’s such a big story, it demanded multiple issues. With the announcement of a name (just Skydance) and executive team, though, I think we can almost close the book on this story. In terms of topics, it becomes just another studio to cover. So today, I have one last set of takes on that merger. As I’ve sat with it, reading about who was staying and who was going, a big worry crystallized in my brain, and I gotta get that take out. Plus, I still owe you a host of “ugliness” that didn’t fit in my previous “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly” takes. Let’s dive in! Subscribe Most Important Story of the Week - As Paramount Shuffles Deck Chairs, Will They Build or Consolidate? On social media—I try to avoid most social media platforms, but sometimes I end up checking in—the best joke I saw about the announcement of the new name of Skydance was from fellow reporter Claire Atkinson who pointed out… Yeah, I laughed out loud at that one. Later, though, I saw another Twitter response (that later got deleted, so I can’t shout the person out) that did give me pause. The person noted that the Titanic film made the better analogy: a super expensive project everyone in the town doubted that went on to conquer the globe. So yeah: on one hand, the image of the Titanic recalls the actual ship and its infamous end, but that clip is from a movie which proved the doubters wrong. So for all the skepticism of the latest massive media merger, one could wonder which way this one goes. Does it crash like the Titanic or rise to glory like Titanic, the movie? Either way, this deal is “Titanic”, looking at the massive debt required to close the deal, which is not going well when it comes to borrowing costs for Paramount… …or borrowing costs for Oracle. But I’ve started to get worried about another outcome: the sum of this merger will be smaller and weaker and less profitable than its former parts. In other words, one plus one won’t equal three or two, but an even smaller number. Skydance paid to take a traditional studio off the board, but they won’t really capture the upside. Let me explain what I mean, but first, let’s look at the series of news that inspired this thought. Skydance Sets Its Leadership Team As soon as the Paramount-Skydance-Warner Bros.-Discovery merger closed, the new leadership team announced a new name—Skydance, which I’ll use going forward—and a new executive leadership team. You’ve probably read through all the executive shuffling, but if you haven’t, here’s a quick, incomplete summary, in rough order of importance: Mattel’s CEO Ynon Kreiz—who previously ran Maker Studios—joined as co-CEO with David Ellison. HBO/HBO Max’s Casey Bloys will stay and run streaming. Former head of streaming for Paramount-Skydance Cindy Holland—who was also at Netflix—will depart. The former heads of Warner Bros.—Pam Abdy and Mike De Luca—are out. The film studios will be run by Dana Goldstein and Josh Greenstein. George Cheeks of Paramount will run Skydance TV, controlling all the TV production units. In comic book news, the DC films will still be run by Peter Gunn and Peter Safran. Lastly, the head of CNN, Mark Thompson, will stay in place. Let’s quickly opine on the particulars before diving into the broad ramifications. We’re just getting started with this issue, but the rest is for paid subscribers of the Entertainment Strategy Guy, so if you’d like to find out… Who I like and dislike in their next gigs… Why I think this consolidation will likely leave Skydance worse off… The math behind which mergers succeed and which don’t… A lot more ugliness in this merger… And a whole lot more... ...please subscribe! We can only keep doing this great work with your support.

Oct 13 • 3:20 PM EDT • Entertainment • entertainment.substack.com

How worried should Catholics be about the pope’s health?

Pope Leo XIV announced on Sunday that he will undergo surgery this week to remove a “nodule” from his lung. The pope made the announcement at the end of his Sunday Angelus address, asking for prayers. “Dear all, recently, during some checkups, the doctors discovered a nodule in my lung. It was detected at a very early stage and was well-localized,” Leo said. “The doctors felt it was necessary to intervene, and so, following their advice, I decided to have surgery to remove it. The procedure is already scheduled for the next few days. I thank you for your spiritual support and I entrust myself to your prayers.” The Vatican press office subsequently added that Leo is scheduled to undergo surgery at the Gamelli hospital on Tuesday, Oct. 13. The pope is expected to spend up to a week in the Gamelli recovering, after which, for the moment, he is still expected to undertake his largest and longest to-date Apostolic journey, heading to Argentina, Uruguay, and Peru, beginning Nov. 6. Prayers have, understandably, poured in from dioceses around the world, accompanied by the best wishes of heads of state and international institutions. So how worried should Catholics be for the health of the pope? The Vatican’s messaging around Leo’s pending surgery is, in many ways, a new approach to papal health issues. But, despite the pope’s personal candour, the Holy See’s messaging perhaps raises as many questions as it answers. Subscribe — Leo’s decision to announce his own medical status and pending hospital stay during the Sunday Angelus is, it should be said, already something of a big deal. Traditionally, the health of popes simply hasn’t been discussed publicly or officially, until circumstances made it absolutely necessary. Memorably, in 2023 Pope Francis was rushed to the Gemelli in an ambulance, exhibiting signs of cardiac arrest according to many close to him, only for the Sala Stampa to put out a statement insisting he was merely going in for “pre-scheduled” tests. That Pope Leo has decided to announce his condition himself, with remarkable frankness, is a significant comms policy shift around the Apostolic Palace. This might reflect a deliberately more open posture, as opposed to the traditional, otiose evasiveness, and the first fruits of an American pope and American prefect of the Dicastery for Communications favoring honesty as a baseline. Equally, it must be allowed, it could be that the pope’s situation is serious enough that there would be no keeping it under wraps or playing it off, and the decision was made to be as open as possible to head off speculation about the papal health. Certainly, Leo appeared to make every effort to sound reassuring — stressing that, whatever the diagnosis is, exactly, it is “well-localized” and “early stage.” Of course, for everyone listening, talk of a “nodule” in a lung will immediately send thoughts — and prayers — running to concerns about words not used, like “cancer,” “tumor,” “begnin” or “malignant.” To be clear, none of those words may yet be medically appropriate. And there is every reason to believe and assume that Leo is giving almost as much information as he may have himself at this stage. But the context of the pope’s announcement and the timing of his surgery do reasonably raise reasonably serious concerns for Leo. We don’t know, and this isn’t to say anyone has the right to expect to know, when the routine medical checks made this discovery. It could have been last week, last month, or even earlier. As such, it isn’t really possible to say with what kind of urgency Leo is being brought in for surgery. However, there is clearly some serious urgency to the matter. Leo making the announcement and going into hospital this week, of all weeks, means he is having to miss the balance and conclusion of his global meeting of the heads of the world’s bishops conferences, which he convened in Rome this week. That, as the Vatican has announced, has meant some serious changes to the schedule, with the newly minted dean of the College of Cardinals, Cardinal Tagle, subbing in for the closing Mass on Wednesday, and the meeting’s organizers announcing that the final working document/summary of the meeting being delayed until Leo can read and feed into it. Those changes suggest that the timing of Leo’s surgery isn’t of his own choosing, and he is acting on the best medical advice he can get by moving urgently. Had this issue been discovered weeks ago, it seems reasonable to assume the pope would have seen it dealt with before the meeting began. And were it possible to delay it, even by a few days to allow the meeting to conclude as scheduled, the expectation would surely be he’d have opted for that. It cannot be excluded that Leo is simply having to fit in with the schedules of his medical team, but a man who occupies arguably the most important and prominent role in Italy, if not Western Europe, could generally be assumed to be the one whose calendar others work around. All this points to a very recent medical discovery leading to a “days matter” diagnosis, or at least suspected possible diagnosis. Of course, another factor weighing in the balance is Leo’s upcoming apostolic visit to three South American countries, including a return to Peru, where he spent many years as a priest and bishop. It is entirely possible that the doctors, and the pope himself, are more concerned about the potential knock-on effects of surgery, and the time needed for recovery, for a 71-year-old — even one as physically sound and actively sporty as Leo. The pope is due to depart Rome November 6 for his 10-day three-country trip, returning on Nov. 17. It may be that Leo has simply made the decision to allow maximum time for his own post-op recovery, and even allow for potentially unforeseen circumstances, so that he is at full strength for the landmark trip. While it might be an inconvenience, and clearly a last-minute wrench in the works for the Amoris meeting, it is possible that Leo simply weighs the importance of that conference more lightly in the balance than even the possibility of missing his homecoming trip to Peru, or even having to scale back his itinerary for the trip. If that is the case, it would suggest a real abundance of caution by the pope approaching his Latin American tour, and a sobering indication of where Leo ranks the non-synodal meeting currently underway in Rome. In any event, what can be said for certain is that the pope having to take this, of all weeks, out of his schedule for surgery and an extended hospital stay is extremely unfortunate timing. It is clear that this is a decision Leo has made on the advice of his doctors. Together, they clearly consider that the risks of delaying, even by a little as a few days, represents an unacceptable risk for the pope. Even expecting and allowing for Leo’s full and speedy recovery, that should be a very sobering thought for Catholics everywhere. Subscribe

Oct 12 • 6:38 PM EDT • Health • pillarcatholic.com

The science, instinct and hard work behind Roosters’ success

Enter your email address to get each Tribune edition sent to your inbox Subscribe There’s a fair bit of unseen work that goes into winning an NRL premiership, dating back many months - just ask Simon Jones. The Sydney Roosters Head of Performance, who hails from Southland, has been in the thick of it. He played a lead role in guiding the 2026 champions through a marathon campaign that ended with a grand final win over the Newcastle Knights. The Roosters had to navigate the lengthy round-robin competition, including the pre-season, before playing through all four weeks of the finals series. It was a demanding stretch that tested the players and the staff responsible for keeping them on the field. “It is a hell of a beast, mate, to be honest,” Jones told The Roar Podcast. “There’s such a great group of staff there that know what they’re doing, and the boys are pretty professional.” Jones believed the Roosters managed the physical demands well, pointing to the health of the squad throughout the campaign and the decision to rest a significant portion of the playing group in the final round of the regular season. That call, made by head coach Trent Robinson and his coaching staff, proved valuable as the Roosters entered the finals with some energy in reserve. “We did finish the season physically where we needed to be, and we’d sort of had a pretty healthy squad all year,” Jones said. “To the team that do that, mate, mission accomplished, really.” It is the sort of work that often goes unnoticed when the spotlight falls on the players scoring tries and making match-winning plays, but Jones knows the cumulative effect of those decisions can be significant over a long season. After a win over Penrith had helped establish them as premiership favourites, losses to the Wests Tigers and Dolphins were followed by a defeat to the Panthers in the opening week of the finals. Rather than panic, the club refocused to position itself to challenge for the title. “The Tigers’ performance was probably the only one where you’re really quite disappointed because it’s hard to get to the top of the competition,” Jones told The Roar Podcast. “We had proof that we could; we knew what we needed to do. We just had to get back to that.” For Jones, the answer was not necessarily a radical change to the programme. It was about executing the basics consistently, both on the field and in preparation. “We just do the basics better than anybody else,” he said. “Whether that is actually the way you play the game or how you’re preparing, it’s just be really consistent, do the basics really, really well.” Like many professional sports teams, the Roosters are entrenched in sports science and performance data. The club has access to a range of information, including players’ sleep, GPS metrics and neuromuscular scores, helping staff assess how individuals are coping with training and competition. “We are very science-backed, and some people would say data-driven, but it’s people first,” he said. “The reason you collect all this data is to try and be the best for that person.” Jones said the club was also prepared to reconsider testing methods if they were not generating useful discussions or helping staff make better decisions. In an environment where technology is continually evolving, he believes experience and gut instinct remain important. “The data is no good unless you have conversations,” he said. “When you strip it right back, mate, trust the gut still and obviously, you know, just doing the basics really, really well.” The return of halfback Sam Walker provided a further example of the importance of individual determination and the work of the club’s medical team. Walker underwent ankle surgery late in the regular season, with his premiership campaign appearing in doubt. However, he was determined to return for the preliminary final. Jones said Walker was back at the training ground three days after surgery, walking freely enough to surprise those around him. While the surgeon’s work was crucial, Jones credited the halfback’s mindset as a major factor in the remarkable turnaround. “He was quite clear with Robbo after he got the surgery that he was going to make it back for the prelim finals,” Jones said. The Roosters’ performance programme also sits within a wider club culture that Jones believes is central to their success. Each season, players develop their own team mantra through a lengthy process facilitated by Robinson. It provides principles that the squad can connect to its actions on the field. Rather than simply carrying over the previous year’s wording after a successful campaign, the club repeats the process because the players’ ownership of it is what gives it meaning. “When it’s led, player-owned and player-led, mate, it’s really powerful,” Jones said. Get more from Logan Savory in the Substack app Available for iOS and Android Get the app Jones joined the Roosters in 2024 and said the environment had evolved as experienced players departed and younger members of the squad took on greater responsibility. Maintaining continuity in the club’s culture and preparation had helped the group navigate those changes. The premiership was a significant achievement for Jones, who acknowledged how difficult it was to win the NRL’s ultimate prize. However, he is already looking at how the performance programme can improve. “There’s still things within my role and things that I’d like to help improve at the club,” he said. For Jones and his team, the challenge now is to review the season, refine their systems and prepare for another campaign. The celebrations may have followed a memorable title win, but the work behind the scenes never really stops. The Southland Tribune is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe

Oct 11 • 9:14 PM EDT • Science • southlandtribune.substack.com

Gears of War: E-Day sells 230K copies

Gears of War: E-Day has sold 230K copies since its advance-access launch on October 1 and full release on October 6. Steam accounts for 168K of those, with Xbox (console and PC) selling 62K. But there’s more to this story, as Xbox makes up the bulk of revenue. E-Day is the best-reviewed Gears game in nearly two decades (and the best one ever made, in my opinion). The Coalition has made a banger here (it’s currently in my top 10 of the year). Despite E-Day’s undeniable quality, this is a soft result. And it’s down to the business model, really. E-Day has made $37M so far, thanks to the Premium upgrade On Xbox, Game Pass is cannibalising much of the premium revenue. Our estimates show that 1.7M folks accessed E-Day via their subscription rather than a copy. But Xbox is having it both ways – or having it halfway, at least – via its Premium Edition Game Pass upgrade. Game Pass subscribers could pay $30 (or their local equivalent) for up to five days of early access starting October 1. Our estimates show that of the 1.7M who accessed E-Day through Game Pass, 722K paid for the upgrade. Between the review embargo lifting on October 1 and the full release, E-Day managed to shift another 250K early-access upgrades – no doubt helped by the campaign’s rave reviews. So despite selling far fewer copies on Steam, Xbox accounts for almost three-quarters of the revenue (roughly $26M of the $37M, versus about $11M on Steam). So “230K copies” undersells the paying audience. Including the 722K upgrades, nearly 950K people actually paid something for E-Day. The $30 upgrade is a halfstep from cannibalisation, but will Xbox go all the way? While E-Day is a sublime game, these are soft numbers for a flagship when Xbox badly needs revenue wins. E-Day sold 62K copies on Xbox against 722K Premium upgrades, so for every one copy sold on Xbox, nearly 12 Game Pass upgrades were sold. The $70 premium SKU is – functionally – dead on Xbox. Normally you can’t see what a Game Pass player would have paid, because the game’s just there in the subscription. But the $30 early-access upgrade estimate shows that 722K people demonstrated they’ll spend real money on this game. In a world without day-one Game Pass, many of these folks would have bought E-Day at $70. They paid $30 for five days early access to something they don’t own. Xbox is, in effect, charging its most valuable customers the least, based on a hangover from a tried-and-exhausted strategy from a previous administration. Those 722K willing-to-pay players generated about $21.7M via the upgrade. If three quarters of this group – mostly US and European audiences – bought E-Day outright, that’s nearly $40M. Of course, Game Pass does bring in meaningful recurring revenue, and E-Day is adding value for hundreds of thousands of subscribers. However, Game Pass is no longer growing, so Xbox is at a crossroads. Xbox is reportedly looking to do a Netflix and bolt on an ad-supported tier to pad it further. But that will just set a new floor, and leadership keeps telling us the priority now is revenue growth, which is subscriber-speak for ARPU. Xbox has already pulled Call of Duty from day-one Game Pass after day-one inclusion hammered its sales, with new CoD titles now arriving on the service around a year late. We know that some Microsoft executives believe the service devalues games outright, and rumours (which Microsoft has dismissed so far, to be fair) suggest that day-one releases could be taken off Game Pass. Want more free estimates and insights in your inbox twice a week? Subscribe below! Subscribe When a game this well-reviewed does this softly on its home platform, the model – not the game – gets brought into question. What else E-Day’s early adopters have played (including this month so far) Looking at E-Day‘s players on Xbox, most have played the franchise before (86% have played Gears 5, 76% Gears 4), and every game on the crossover list is either a shooter or a title from an Xbox-owned studio (though Game Pass is inflating those numbers, of course, more on that later): As for what else Xbox’s E-Day players have played this month, the top three are Fortnite (16%), Roblox (7%), and Call of Duty (6%). Another 5% played Minecraft Dungeons II, which is also on Game Pass and launched a couple of days before Gears‘ advance-access date. Many Game Pass players are happy to check out most big new additions. Want more free estimates and insights in your inbox twice a week? Subscribe below! Subscribe Over on Steam, the top crossover games are also mostly shooters (slightly more PC-coded ones), including Space Marine 2, which was itself heavily inspired by Gears: Looking at what E-Day‘s Steam players are into this month shows who they are – as subscriptions don’t skew the data. The top three are Wardogs (13%), Deadlock (12%), and CS2 (10%), so you’ve got the restless shooter crowd checking out the new hotness. A little further down are Helldivers 2 and Space Marine 2, your co-op PVE shooter players who’ll feel right at home in Horde mode. Game Pass is skewing the playtime distribution on Xbox Looking at the playtime distribution in our platform, E-Day players on Steam are – relatively speaking – playing for longer: 54% of E-Day players on Xbox have played for five hours or less (versus 32% on Steam) 19% of Xbox players played for over 15 hours (versus 33% on Steam) 14% of Xbox players played for over 20 hours (22% on Steam) The absolute number of people playing for over 15, 20, and 50 hours is, of course, bigger on Xbox, thanks to the sheer volume of folks who came in through Game Pass (upgraders included). None of that is cause for alarm. Game Pass is the reason Xbox playtime skews lower, as when a game is free to try, people try it and bounce without putting in even an hour (17% under an hour on Xbox versus 6% on Steam). Want more free estimates and insights in your inbox twice a week? Subscribe below! Subscribe The subscription brings in tourists alongside the committed, dragging down the average even when the game is excellent (but also perhaps winning over the uninitiated). It’s standard across every subscription-included title, on PS Plus too. Forza Horizon 6, for instance, had 11% of its Xbox players bounce under an hour, versus just 2% on Steam. So, Xbox’s crossroads So there we have it. Gears of War: E-Day is an incredible game whose revenues have been stifled by subscription inclusion and exclusivity. It’s the best-reviewed entry in the series in fifteen-odd years, but it still turned into one of the year’s softer flagship launches, not because players didn’t want it, but because Xbox’s own storefront gave its most willing buyers a reason not to pay. Which leaves Xbox at a crossroads. Will it keep making Gears games when the financial returns are this thin and the margins this low? And if it does, does the next one arrive off Game Pass at day one – the way CoD now does, or even on PlayStation? I think it should. Alright, back to E-Day for me! The last word Reply to this email – or reach out here – if you have any feedback for the newsletter – or want to request a game for us to cover. [Alinea Analytics boasts the most accurate PC and console estimates in the business. Game makers use our platform to understand their audience, keep an eye on the competition, monitor sales trends, and spot new opportunities. We equip game studios and financial institutions with accurate data and the confidence to make smarter, data-driven decisions. Want to talk about all things games market data? We’d love to chat!]

Oct 9 • 11:49 AM EDT • Technology • alineaanalytics.substack.com

Substack welcomes its influencer marketing era

Rothy's is going all-in on Substack with IRL events and sponsoring personal essays. Other brands are following suit.

Oct 9 • 7:45 AM EDT • Business • businessinsider.com

Trump bucks and the politics of mailing checks

The checks started going out last week, nearly one million of them, and mostly to battleground states. With a return address for the U.S. Treasury and a letter enclosed signed by President Donald Trump, these one-time checks for $500 were ostensibly government rebates for Obamacare enrollees who overpaid. In the accompanying letter, however, Trump attacks his predecessor and talks about his record in office on an important issue he’s not polling well on, which makes it seem more like the most expensive political mailer in U.S. history. The average piece of direct mail costs between 30 cents and $3, according to Mail Processing Associates, a print, mail, and fulfillment company. At $500 a pop plus roughly 50 cents each to issue the paper check, the cost of Trump’s healthcare mailer sent to more than 950,000 enrollees comes in at more than $475 million. Trump’s midterm healthcare message “For years, the Biden Administration overcharged you to fund the operation of HealthCare dot gov,” Trump wrote in the letter. “That money belongs to hard-working Americans, not the Government, and now, I am returning it to you!” In the letter, Trump makes false and misleading claims about his administration’s record on healthcare costs, an issue Democrats have a 20 point advantage on over Republicans, according to a recent poll from KFF, a nonpartisan health policy think tank. Trump touts his administration’s TrumpRX program, which he claims is “delivering massive discounts.” However, new research from KFF found that of a selection of drugs available on the TrumpRX platform, just five were the lowest price, while 13 were the highest price. Trump also falsely claims in the letter that he’s fighting to lower healthcare costs. In reality, average monthly premium payment costs for enrollees rose 58% under Trump while marketplace sign-ups declined 5%, per KFF. Under Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, it’s estimated 10 million more Americans will be uninsured by 2034. You get a check and you get a check and you get a check Trump’s long promised cash outs to his fans, from his days as a casino operator and gameshow host to his presidency. During the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the first Trump administration made the unprecedented move to put Trump’s name on checks that went out under the CARES Act (notably the $500 refund checks this time around don’t feature Trump’s name). Ever since, Trump’s been chasing that high. In his second term, Trump’s promised more stimulus that never arrived, like refund checks from DOGE cuts and tariffs, while he said at his party’s convention last month that he’d give out $5,000 checks to everyone if Republicans win in November. In reality, DOGE overstated its cost cutting and Trump’s government actually now spends more than former President Joe Biden’s, while Trump’s tariffs actually grew the trade deficit. His proposal for $5,000 checks would add about $1.2 trillion to the national debt. The problem is there’s no money to give. These $500 checks — plus $90 Medicare rebate checks also going out as well as $250 deposited this week in some Trump Accounts for kids courtesy Dell Technologies CEO Michael Dell and his wife Susan — represent the closest Trump’s going to get to making good on his promise to deliver cash fast. And the checks seem especially targeted. Though the $500 checks went out to enrollees in one of 30 states that use the federal HealthCare dot gov marketplace, a Reuters review found 71% of the payments, or $339 million, went to enrollees in 13 states that have the most competitive elections for governor and U.S. Senate. Most Americans don’t buy it Could Trump bucks sway the election? An Economist-YouGov poll found 57% of U.S. adults doubt Trump will deliver on his promise for $5,000 checks, compared to 21% who do. “I’m waiting on my DOGE check and I’m still waiting on my tariff check,” one 2024 Trump voter who’s since turned on him told a recent focus group. “It felt like kind of trying to buy people’s votes, which honestly felt like in elementary when the class president was like, hey we’re going to take you to the water park if you vote for me. It’s like, I don’t think it works like that.” But for voters in swing states who got a check, it could still matter. One survey published in 2022 found receiving a physically personalized check in the mail during the pandemic was associated with a much greater self-reported likelihood of voting for Trump in 2020, and those gains mainly came from out partisans. The issue for Trump comes if these checks are mostly going to Obamacare enrollees whose premiums have gone up by more than just $500 since he took office and who view the money as something like a bribe before the election rather than an actual long-term solution to lowering household costs. Spending $500.50 per mailer would be absurd as a normal campaign expenditure, but since Trump’s checks and letter are a government rebate, his campaign and super PAC didn’t have to spend a dime and he got out his message regardless. If enough voters in key states are swayed by the one-time payment, it could prove to be the best $0 the Trump campaign spent. Subscribe [ ](https://www.yellopolitics.com/p/why-independent-candidates-are-making) [ Why independent candidates are making independence central to their brand ](https://www.yellopolitics.com/p/why-independent-candidates-are-making) Hunter Schwarz · Oct 6 [ Read full story ](https://www.yellopolitics.com/p/why-independent-candidates-are-making) [ ](https://www.yellopolitics.com/p/these-designers-and-grocery-nerds) [ These designers and grocery nerds will brand Mamdani’s NYC grocery stores ](https://www.yellopolitics.com/p/these-designers-and-grocery-nerds) Hunter Schwarz · Oct 2 [ Read full story ](https://www.yellopolitics.com/p/these-designers-and-grocery-nerds) Trump wants to turn his first-ever golf course into a government course for presidents

Oct 8 • 6:01 PM EDT • Politics • yellopolitics.com

Breaking into the Peer-Reviewed Engineering Literature

Editor’s note: We are delighted to present a new series by William Dembski, adapted from his Substack. This is the 14th post. Find the full series so far here, “My Personal History with Information.”…

Oct 8 • 9:33 AM EDT • Science • scienceandculture.com

The Math Singularity Is Here, and Science May Be Next

OpenAI has released an extraordinary body of mathematical work produced by an unreleased frontier model: 722 manuscripts spanning 372 research families across fields including number theory, complexity theory, and mathematical physics. Each result required, on average, the equivalent of roughly three hours of ChatGPT Pro reasoning. A New Era of Discovery We may be witnessing the beginnings of a “math singularity”: a point at which machine-generated discovery accelerates beyond humanity’s ability to independently reproduce, verify, or fully absorb it. If frontier models can generate hundreds of meaningful results in the time it takes a human researcher to investigate one, the constraint will no longer be producing new mathematics. It will be our capacity to validate, interpret, and integrate it. This does not make mathematicians obsolete. It changes their role. They may increasingly serve as guides, critics, and meaning-makers. Increasingly, they will decide which questions matter, determining which results can be trusted, and explaining why they are important. Mathematical insight may become abundant, while human judgment becomes more valuable than ever. Mathematics May Be Only the Beginning Every scientific discipline could eventually experience a similar acceleration. AI systems could generate and test hypotheses, connect findings across specialized fields, and explore possibilities at a scale no human research community could match. In medicine, imagine models identifying overlooked disease mechanisms, designing drugs and clinical trials, personalizing treatments, or discovering cures in months rather than decades. In materials science, AI could help create better batteries and cleaner industrial processes. In climate science, it could accelerate advances in energy, forecasting, and carbon removal. In biology, it could uncover relationships hidden across enormous genomic and molecular datasets. The result would not simply be faster research. It could expand the frontier of what is scientifically possible. The New Bottleneck Scientific discovery, however, is not the same as scientific progress. A medical breakthrough must still survive laboratory testing, clinical trials, regulatory scrutiny, manufacturing constraints, and real-world deployment. As machine-generated ideas multiply, the bottleneck may shift from producing breakthroughs to validating them safely and translating them into practice. We may soon have more hypotheses than laboratories can test, more drugs than clinical trials can evaluate, and more mathematical results than experts can review. That imbalance will require better systems for automated verification, reproducible research, prioritization, peer review, and collaboration between AI and domain experts. The importance of OpenAI’s work is not merely the number of manuscripts produced. It offers a glimpse of a world in which intelligence can explore thousands of intellectual paths in parallel. If ideas cease to be scarce, humanity’s defining challenge will be deciding which are true, which matter, and how to turn them into progress. The math singularity is not the end of human inquiry. It is the beginning of a new kind—one in which machines expand the frontier of knowledge and humans decide where it should lead. Subscribe Share Leave a comment

Oct 8 • 4:22 AM EDT • Science • douglevin.substack.com

Who Won August and September: Original Films or Franchises?

(Welcome to the Entertainment Strategy Guy, a newsletter on the entertainment industry and business strategy. I write a weekly Streaming Ratings Report and a bi-weekly strategy column, along with occasional deep dives into other topics, like today’s article. Please subscribe.) I just heard someone say that if you’re reading a pundit or data analyst, and they don’t tell you that they got anything wrong, they’re not a pundit but an “influencer”. I agree with that. You have to tell your audience when you get things wrong, or they won’t (or shouldn’t) trust you as much. Today, we’ve got another edition of “What I Got Right, What I Got Wrong”. In general, I’m patting myself on the back (and patting very hard) about a few things like IP at the box office, LIV golf, horror films, crowdfunding movies, superheroes, and old people going to the theaters. That said, I also made a couple of data mistakes on the streaming bubble popping and HBO’s datecdotes, so I’m not perfect. But first, I need your feedback... Subscribe Follow-Ups: What Should We Call Mid-Budget Movies Which Aren’t Cinematic Enough for Theaters But Are Too Expensive to Make Money on Streaming? After I asked for feedback on what we should call straight-to-streaming films that are too big to pencil out on streaming but not really big enough to resonate in theaters, I got some great suggestions from you all, including... “Moldilocks” from John Aboud “Little Big Indie” from Travis Frick1 “Midflicks” from Jonathan Funke. “Extra-Medium” from Jona Nwuke. (Read the explanation in the footnote.) Between these and Brandon Katz—who suggested “Bermuda Budget Triangle”, “The Platform Gap” and “The Distribution Deadzone”—we’ve got some excellent suggestions. And they’re better than my suggestion, the “Streaming Budget Dead Zone”, so let’s take a poll! The winning entry becomes the new term. Loading... RIGHT: LIV Golf is Fully Bankrupt…Is Anyone Else Next? A few years ago, I was always a bit perplexed at all the articles I’d read praising LIV Golf and their strategy to disrupt the PGA. LIV Golf, a brand new professional golf league, offered PGA stars ten times what they made on the PGA Tour to join their new league. And folks praised this strategy for its initial “success” in that a lot of big names did indeed leave the PGA. Yeah, of course the players came over. LIV Golf paid them so, so, so much more! But LIV Golf hadn’t discovered a way to increase potential revenue. So think about this in basic business terms… They paid much more in costs… …but had no real way to increase revenue. That’s not a strategy! That’s deficit financing. It won’t work unless you bankrupt the competition (and then turn around and pay those same golfers much, much less). It’s not a sustainable strategy and only lasts as long as the company/person/nation backing it decides they’re cool with losing money. For LIV Golf, that meant Middle East oil wealth, in particular Saudi Arabian money. Clearly, the current Iran War has hurt Middle East finances, so they need to trim their more exorbitant spending. And LIV Golf was part of that trimming. This should be a major warning for others. TGL’s parent company, TMRW Sports, just got a $1 billion valuation, despite TGL’s (the indoor golf league) horrible TV viewership of less than half a million viewers per match. Unrivaled, the women’s basketball league, just secured a $650 valuation, despite its horrible TV viewership and a new rival (Project B) entering the scene next year. To relate this to streaming, Hollywood should ask which streamers may have wealthy patrons funding their losses. (Let’s be clear: Google, Amazon and Apple.) Could those patrons lose their appetite? For Amazon, probably not. But Apple has a new boss, so maybe! WRONG: My Analysis of the Streaming Bubble Was Missing a Week I’m going to be congratulating myself a lot today, but I make mistakes too, like this data goof. When I last compiled the data on the decline in TV shows, I was missing one week at the end of June. If you look at the first image, you can see that one week was mislabelled as “July”. Mainly, this image got updated to show a 27% decline, not 29%: This change doesn’t really impact the overall analysis, but it is two percent better. By the way, through the third quarter, the decline increased and it’s now a 30% decrease since 2022. (I’ll write/visualize this in an upcoming article.) But I want you to trust me and my data. Especially these days, when many people are using LLMs that I know are inserting faulty data into their charts, I want to keep earning my audience’s faith. So that’s the accurate data. RIGHT: IP Remains Very, Very Popular In July, I wrote a giant (and I mean giant) article on Backrooms, Obsession, and the box office, going over what we know, what we don’t know about what works in theaters, looking at YouTubers, IP, the horror genre, comic book movies, and a whole lot more. The month of August really tested a lot of my theses and, being honest, mostly supported my arguments. Let’s start with IP. Looking at 8-Aug (the weekend after Spider-Man: Brand New Day came out) to 18-Sep (the weekend that Resident Evil came out, which I think provides a nice bookend to this time period), there were seven films based on pre-existing IP: Resident Evil (2026) ($126 million) Practical Magic 2 ($65 million) _Insidious: Out of the Furthe_r ($65 million) Coyote Vs. Acme ($59 million) Paw Patrol: The Dino Movie ($53 million) Tony ($15 million) Super Troopers 3 ($7 million) Compare those to the notable original films from the past month—I actually could have included more movies, but here are just thirteen, bringing us to an even twenty films—including.... The End of Oak Street ($54 million) Buddy ($26 million) Mutiny ($15 million) By Any Means ($15 million) The Dog Stars ($14 million) Runner ($14 million) One Night Only ($11 million) Hope ($8 million) Spa Weekend ($7 million) The Uprising ($6 million) Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma ($6 million) Onslaught ($3 million) Eli Roth’s Ice Cream Man ($2.8 million) Here’s that in chart form: Five of the top six films in this time period were all based on IP. I made a big chart of films that grossed over $200 million at the box office before Spider-Man: Brand New Day and The Odyssey hit theaters. Let’s update that chart! By the way, if you want to see how I categorized each film—so another bar chart—here it is: I know that many of my fellow critics/pundits/analysts dislike films based on IP and how Hollywood is making so many of them. And I’m sympathetic to this point of view. As I’ve written many, many times before, you need a balance between existing franchises, new IP, and original films. And Hollywood clearly needs to make more films like Resident Evil (a well-made film from a visionary director) and fewer Practical Magic 2’s (which didn’t get critical or customer buzz). But at some point, critics and pundits need to contend with what audiences are telling them: Movie-goers aren’t showing up to original films. Audiences are speaking with their dollars, telling you they want more IP and franchises. You can try to convince studio heads to make fewer IP-based films and franchises, but the data and numbers aren’t there. Instead, critics need to work harder to convince audiences to show up for original films. Aim your ire/concern at the average person, not studio heads.2 Because they’re just making the films that audiences are telling them to make. WRONG: Original Horror Films Didn’t Break Out I’ll be honest, even though I wrote an article casting some skepticism on the horror genre in July, if you asked me to make a prediction, I would have predicted that, in August, a new, original horror film would have blown up. No, seriously, I just assumed that Obsession and Backrooms presaged a change in audience behavior. But none of the buzzy new original horror films from August—Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma, Onslaught (not an action film in spite of the ads), The End of Oak Street, Eli Roth’s Ice Cream Man, or _Buddy—_broke out. To be clear, exactly one of those films (Buddy) had good “ROI”, but again—I try to be specific in my language—none were “popular” in any broad sense of the word. None of them will be “saving” movies theaters like Backrooms or _Obsession_helped save the summer. The new Insidious film and Resident Evil, both based on IP, were far and away the biggest horror films since July. (We’ll see if this changes in October/Halloween season.) RIGHT: Stay Skeptical about Crowdfunding... I’ve long been skeptical about crowd-investing platforms as one of Hollywood’s saviors, mainly because there’s so much hype/buzz. People need to stay more skeptical about more things, explaining both the potential upside but also the downsides. In particular, the media often hypes crowdfunding at the start and never checks in on the actual results after they’ve come in later. And August gave us our first update! _Ice Cream Man—_directed by Eli Roth—grossed $6 million off of a $5.5 million budget. This is a production of The Horror Section, which was one of the first “crowd investing” studios with 2,400 investors, which means that 2,400 investors probably lost money. They certainly aren’t getting as great of returns as if they had just invested their dollars in the stock market. Hopefully Stiletto (Tagline: “Someone’s Going to Make it Rain Blood!”) does better next month. WRONG: Another Data Goof Here’s another data error. When the first episode of House of the Dragon came out, HBO put out that it had 21.5 million viewers in the first three days, and I read that to mean in the US…but no, it was global. So my US-only datecdotes charts shouldn’t have included it. We never got US-only numbers for the first episode, but for the final episode, HBO put out that it had 11 million US viewers. (And that global dropped to 21 million viewers.) Here’s the updated chart (which I’ve since used in the Streaming Ratings Report): Still, this show is absolutely huge. RIGHT: Superhero Films Remain Very, Very Popular After Supergirl flopped, I read a few takes that “comic book movies are going the way of the Western”. Post-Spider-Man: Brand New Day, that take didn’t age well. To be fair, I have a very nuanced take on the superhero genre right now; it’s down right now, for a lot of reasons. But it’s not “dead”. Maybe _Spider-_Man is just a really popular character? I saw that take, and it’s a fair counter-argument. (But pundits arguing that superhero movies were dead should have mentioned this $1.5 billion counter-argument…) But is it just Spider-Man? The next Avengers film already has $50 million in pre-sales (and I was skeptical that that film would do well) and the Avengers: End Game re-release topped the box office two weekends ago (over three original films). And I wouldn’t bet against Batman or Superman. So maybe it’s just Spider-Man, Batman, Superman and the Avengers. Oh, and Deadpool, of course. And Black Panther. And Wolverine. And probably the X-Men. Plus a well-made Wonder Woman or the Hulk film could break out. But that’s it! It’s just those ten characters/teams. Oh, what’s that? Lanterns is also doing well on HBO? (See previous section…) To be fair, I’m actually pretty sympathetic to the argument that more popular characters—like Spider-Man and Batman—anchor more popular films. In fact, I made that exact argument three years ago when I first wrote about the “Marvel-cession”. In many ways, you can blame The Guardians of the Galaxy for fooling Marvel Studios (and the rest of us) into believing that any character could pop. It turns out, the list of iconic characters is probably smaller than most people think. But it’s probably too early to say that superhero films and comic book movies are dead unless “death” means a slight decline over a longtime. RIGHT: Who Killed Theaters? Old People I get frustrated whenever I see headlines or analysis about how young people are “returning” to theaters. As I’ve detailed(for years), young people have always powered the US box office, despite narratives about “kids these days” and their “phones”. Really, what’s changed post-2020/pandemic is that old people aren’t going to the movies nearly as much. This summer, I saw a movie (from an older director) in a theater near a retirement community, and multiple older people at the theater were talking about how this was their first time seeing a movie in years. I dislike personal anecdotes, so YouGov can fill in the data, best summarized by this headline: “Who killed movie theaters? Not the youths”. According to them, 64% of people aged 18-29 have seen a movie in the last year, but only 30% of 65-and-older. 20% of 18-29 have seen a movie in theaters in the last week and 42% in the last month. Here’s the polling data: Most concerning? Many Americans (17%) think theaters are a worse or much worse experience than watching films at home. Slight WRONG: Hadestown Opens Big A live theater capture of the Broadway musical, Hadestown, made $20 million at the US box office, which begs the question: was I wrong to be skeptical about musicals a few years ago? Yes and no. On the one hand, $20 million is a far cry from being “popular”, so yeah, the genre isn’t that popular overall and Hadestown is one of the more popular musicals from recent years (i.e. the “Taylor Swift Data Fallacy” in action). On the other, I doubt filming this cost all that much, and I don’t think that they spent much on marketing, so this is a good source of ancillary revenue. Smaller Updates WRONG: As I mentioned in a Streaming Ratings Report, I underestimated the budget for Enola Holmes 3. It probably cost more like $50 million, if not more. But... I’m not sure that it really matters? At sub-10 million hours, prices have to come down to make this work. WRONG: Netflix is giving Ink a 27-day in theaters! To quote the kids/YouTubers these days, let’s go! Now I might actually have a chance to see Danny Boyle’s latest in theaters. I’d complained about this in a “Coming Soon” section, but I was heartened to read that Netflix is giving multiple films longer theatrical windows this year. RIGHT: Netflix is sending 4-5 films per year to theaters. Netflix is slowly but surely sending more and more films to theaters, as I cautiously predicted earlier this year. For now, it’s just three big films and a number of awards contenders, but still, this is great news. And they’ll be releasing box office grosses! Just this week, Ted Sarandos confirmed that KPop Demon Hunters 2 will come to theaters (and my guess is it performs in the box office top ten at a minimum). WRONG: Angel has 3 million subscribers! How do I know this? Well, they told Deadline, who reported it. I marked this as “wrong”, since they’ve doubled their subscribers in one year but, you know, they don’t really have a hit film to speak of and they’re still losing money. WRONG: Furious was only renewed for one more season. I accidentally wrote “two more seasons” in my latest “Renewals, Cancellations, Un-Orders and Removals Update”. RIGHT: House of David is ending with its third season. In July, Prime Video renewed House of David for a third season, as I just wrote in my latest “Renewals and Cancellations” report. Well, now it’s ending after that third season. Why? As I’ve been writing, its viewership wasn’t great. I got feedback that this show didn’t cost very much, but it cost enough that its limited viewership didn’t save it. WRONG: Adults was a Hulu original! So I missed Adults when it first came out last year; I saw that it aired on FX and just assumed that it was a linear-first program. Turns out, it aired three episodes on FX, but binge-released the rest of its episodes the next day on Hulu. Huh. So I should have covered it last year! But I just wrote about it. 1 “When I was a kid in the 90s, if you wore a t-shirt to school that wasn’t too big and also wasn’t too small, but somehow didn’t quite fit, we’d say you were wearing an “extra-medium” shirt.” 2 As always, a huge exception is Disney, which barely makes anything original anymore.

Oct 7 • 6:41 PM EDT • Entertainment • entertainment.substack.com

Some furloughed Star Wars Zero Company developers are returning to work, studio says

Bit Reactor, the Maryland based company, behind this summer’s well-received tactical combat game Star Wars Zero Company says that “more” of its team is returning to work after being furloughed ahead of the game’s release. This is the studio’s first statement on the matter since Game File’s August report that “most” of the development team had been furloughed—technically kept as employees, but without pay or benefits—a few weeks prior to launch. Some of those furloughs ended this week. “This week, we started the process of returning more of our team back to work at Bit Reactor, an important step forward in our continued support for Zero Company, “ Bit Reactor CEO Greg Foertsch said in a statement. He continued: “Having to ask team members to step away after we navigated unexpected business developments outside of our control and so close to launch was an incredibly difficult decision, but one that was necessary to help us eventually bring as many people back as possible. “This team means a tremendous amount to me, and I am incredibly proud of what we have accomplished together. Thank you to our fans for the incredible response to the game and for supporting us along this journey. We look forward to sharing more updates regarding Bit Reactor and Zero Company soon.” Game File reported in August that Bit Reactor had retained a small team to work on updates for Zero Company. One person familiar with the situation told Game File that the returns announced today bring the studio’s pay-rolled headcount to more than half of what it had been ahead of the furloughs. That means a considerable number of people have been brought back, but that a fair number also remain without pay. While companies in the U.S. are often legally required to publicly disclose how many people they’ve laid off, furloughs can often be kept private, for a time. The United States Department of Labor requires companies to publicly report mass furloughs if they meet specific criteria, including any expectation that they will last more than six months. For those game makers who remain furloughed by Bit Reactor, it’s now been about two months. For more about Bit Reactor, the furloughs, the studio’s back-story and the ongoing lawsuit that brought this to light, read my August report. [ ‘Most’ of Star Wars Zero Company studio Bit Reactor was furloughed ahead of launch ](https://www.gamefile.news/p/star-wars-zero-company-bit-reactor-furloughs-lawsuit) Stephen Totilo · Sep 1 Last week was meant to be a moment of triumph for Bit Reactor, the Maryland-based game studio founded in 2021 with ambitions to create a great new tactical combat game. [ Read full story ](https://www.gamefile.news/p/star-wars-zero-company-bit-reactor-furloughs-lawsuit)

Oct 7 • 1:03 PM EDT • Technology • gamefile.news

1 Smart Business Story: How Founders Use PR To Dominate

Media is a minefield. From Substacks and livestreams to podcasts and newspapers (where they still exist), it’s a lot for founders to juggle. Fortunately,

Oct 7 • 12:21 PM EDT • Business • inc.com

Brazil: Lessons from a Disaster

By Antonio Martins (Outras Palavras) Defeats become deeper and more prolonged when we misunderstand what caused them, avoid correcting course, and embrace “solutions” that only compound our mistakes. Lula’s government and the Brazilian left suffered a disaster in Sunday’s election. Contrary to every poll, the president finished the first round 2.2 million votes behind Flávio Bolsonaro—and, more significantly, 3.4 million votes below his total four years ago, when the machinery of the state was working against him and in favor of his opponent. His vote share declined in 98 percent of Brazil’s municipalities. The PL, the main party of the far right, elected 121 deputies and 28 senators, becoming the largest caucus in both houses of Congress. The parties aligned with the Centrão—Brazil’s bloc of transactional center-right parties—were somewhat diminished, but will still hold roughly 250 seats in the Chamber of Deputies and 35 in the Senate. That will make it easier to assemble the majorities needed to amend the Constitution or impeach Supreme Federal Court justices. If elected, Flávio Bolsonaro could appoint four members of the Court, substantially altering its internal balance of power. What produced these results? How can the far right be prevented from consolidating them into a prolonged political hegemony? And what is the essential change of direction the left now needs? Explaining the Disaster Across the commercial media and the exuberant chaos of digital platforms, interpretations are multiplying. Some focus on specific episodes: Lula’s absence from the Globo debate, his very close relationship with Alexandre de Moraes, or his emphasis on issues supposedly remote from most people’s everyday concerns, such as rare earth minerals. Among the more systemic interpretations, three seem especially questionable. One argues that the principal defeat was not the left’s, since its congressional representation declined only slightly. The decisive movement captured at the ballot box, according to this view, was a shift within the right itself—from the more moderate and transactional forces of the Centrão toward the more ideological and radicalized forces of the PL and Novo. A second interpretation holds that the nature of electoral and political processes has changed. The material interests and aspirations of society, it argues, no longer play the central role they once did; they have given way to forms of subjective self-identification that the left has yet to understand. And a third concludes that, because of these two developments, we should expect a political winter: a prolonged period in which the far right and the broader right dominate Brazilian political life. There are important elements in all three interpretations. The problem lies in what they deny or leave out: Lula’s third government was a small-bore government. It offered the majorities that elected it neither a clearly better life nor reasons to believe again in politics and its power to transform society. These failures flowed from two fatal accommodations, which I will examine below. As a result, the government suffered a slow but steady erosion of support. And, as has happened in so many Western countries, it gave the far right the opportunity to present itself as anti-system and to benefit from popular frustration and distress. The interpretation that emphasizes the migration of votes from the center-right and traditional right toward the far right has been advanced, among others, by the courageous journalist Leonardo Sakamoto. In his UOL column on Monday, October 5, he highlights the miserable behavior of the traditional conservative parties. Over the past four years, they repeatedly joined forces with the “neo”-fascists, helping to “normalize” them—a criticism that could equally be directed at almost the entire corporate media. Believing they could use the far right as a stepping stone, they instead ended up partly devoured by it. This was especially true in the Senate, where the PL’s gain of 13 senators and Novo’s gain of two came at the expense of the PSD, which lost nine; the MDB, which lost two; the PSDB, which lost two; and the PP, which lost one. Sakamoto’s observation is accurate and necessary, but it leaves uncomfortable questions unanswered. Why did the erosion of the Centrão benefit the far right rather than, for example, producing growth for the left—as has happened so many times before, both in Brazil and elsewhere? The answer is not difficult. Throughout its four years in office, Lula’s third government was almost invariably associated with the Centrão. Here lies its first accommodation: accepting the limits imposed by conservative institutions; avoiding, as much as possible, any attempt to strain those limits through popular pressure; and believing only in the modest changes that could be squeezed through openings in Congress. The failure of the campaign to end the six-day workweek is emblematic. Lula could have electrified the presidential race by pairing it with a popular campaign for passage of the measure. Instead, he chose to place his hopes in the hands of Senate president Rodrigo Alcolumbre. He generated no mass mobilization, did not force his opponents onto an uncomfortable defensive, and won no victory. In September 2025, the government squandered the greatest of its many opportunities to shake up conservative power in Congress. Popular opposition to the so-called Shielding Amendment—which, if approved, would have restricted criminal proceedings against members of Congress—brought crowds into the streets, mobilized primarily by artists and social movements. This opened the possibility for a broader political education: a campaign that could begin exposing the limits and dysfunctions of Brazil’s political system while putting Bolsonaro’s movement on the defensive for its predictable support of political privilege. The amendment was defeated. But the executive branch then backed away from the fight. It remained associated with an institutional world widely seen as corrupt, elitist, and indifferent to ordinary people’s struggles. In doing so, it forfeited its credibility as a vehicle for the protest vote. On Sunday, it reaped the bitter fruits. Are We Doomed? Taking a different approach from Sakamoto, the philosopher Moysés Pinto Neto and other writers have drawn attention, in their first analyses of October 4, to the fragmentation of the public sphere produced by Big Tech platforms. Through their algorithms, these platforms present each person with a different view of social reality. As a consequence, it becomes much harder to identify common material problems and demands—for example, the fight for labor rights or for a properly funded public health system. Voters no longer embrace such demands, these authors argue, because they no longer see themselves as part of a collective. Instead, they tend to value the identities assigned to them by neoliberal subjectivity—the role of the entrepreneur, for example. On this interpretation, the left’s possible error lies in clinging to outdated illusions. Moysés’s warning is highly relevant and resonates with arguments such as Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor’s “Apocalyptic Fascism and the Billionaires’ Bet.” Unlike a century ago, the far right no longer promises a radiant future. It concentrates instead on resentment—especially that of young men. “They belong to a generation that fears it may never own a home, but compensates with the pleasure it gets from constantly provoking progressives online. Convinced their future has been stolen, they share memes romanticizing historical authoritarian regimes,” the authors write. But Moysés seems to confuse this danger with inevitability. He fails to see that the left’s answer cannot be adaptation. On the contrary, it must strengthen the possibility of politics as collective action. Nor does he recognize that precisely such a reversal is already becoming possible in some of the most promising mobilizations of the twenty-first century: the election, at the end of 2025, of the young Muslim Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York, on a platform centered on the intensely material fight for an affordable city; the Left Party’s victory in Berlin two weeks ago, built around the demand to expropriate private real-estate corporations; and the very recent wave of demonstrations in Spain—including an occupation of Madrid’s Puerta del Sol—in which tens of thousands of young people mobilized by the Tenants’ Union have demanded limits on rents. By putting itself in the straitjacket of the “fiscal framework” in the first months of 2022, Lula’s third government adopted the second fatal accommodation of its term. Faced with conservative institutions and a country devastated by four years of Bolsonaro, increased public investment was the government’s remaining weapon for offering a more dignified life to the majority and forging an anti-conservative pact with them. The same state that disburses 1 trillion reais a year to enrich a small class of rentiers could instead spend money to extend the Family Health Strategy to every Brazilian, at a cost of 30 billion reais; provide full-day public schooling and childcare to all adolescents and children—and, especially, relief to their mothers; achieve universal sanitation while cleaning up polluted urban rivers; multiply metro systems; begin transforming the urban peripheries; and undertake many other urgently needed projects. In April 2023, an article in Outras Palavras warned that the fiscal framework could “shrink the Lula government and preserve the forces that condemn the country to inequality and regression.” A year later, another article showed that restraints on public spending were strangling policies vital to ordinary people and undermining the president’s popularity. In November 2024 came a reality check, in the form of the government’s humiliating defeat in the municipal elections. Even then, the fiscal lock was neither removed nor loosened. On the contrary: throughout the government’s four years, fiscal restraint remained central to its political narrative. The administration proudly proclaimed that it had “put the state’s accounts in order,” without grasping either how misleading that phrase was—given the payment of 1 trillion reais in interest—or how badly the message was hurting it politically. Lula finally woke up in September 2026. The increase in Bolsa Família benefits, after four years of being frozen; the announcement that anti-obesity drugs would be offered through Brazil’s public health system; and the ban on online betting showed that the state has the power to act decisively on behalf of the majority when those in government are willing to confront obstacles. The huge marches that closed the campaign in Fortaleza, Salvador, Rio de Janeiro, and São Paulo on the eve of October 4 showed how such initiatives can mobilize activists and the broader public. But it was too late—and too little to change the outcome of the first round. History has not ended The possibility of a turnaround in the three weeks leading up to November 25 cannot be ruled out. It will not be simple or easy. Lula must not only make up a deficit of 2.2 million votes; he must also offset the movement of voters who backed other right-wing candidates in the first round, most of whom are likely to move toward Flávio Bolsonaro. Pulling that off will require a broad, grassroots effort to win over voters, potentially reinforced by new initiatives from Lula. The coming hours and days will be decisive. If Bolsonaro’s movement also wins the presidency, the result will create a high-risk situation for Brazilian sovereignty and democracy. The enormous challenges posed by such an outcome would require the left to reexamine, in depth and with a genuine willingness to engage in self-criticism, its political projects—or its lack of them—and its practices. But would that mean we are condemned to the long winter of far-right hegemony that some analyses are beginning to forecast? It is far too early to say, suggests a recent text by Álvaro García Linera, the thinker who served as vice president of Bolivia under Evo Morales. His central hypothesis is that this political current will prove short-lived. At a moment when the entire world is once again talking about sovereignty and protecting national economies, the far right offers a stale, recolonizing neoliberalism. Its submission to the United States is as blatant and pathetic as Flávio and Eduardo Bolsonaro’s overtures to Donald Trump. Its project amounts to something like every man for himself: greater inequality, capitalism without limits, devastation, and supremacism. Will it work? In the United States, just two years into his second term, Trump himself is reaching record levels of unpopularity and may be on the verge of losing Republican control of both the House and Senate in November. Every new beginning is difficult. Whatever the outcome of the second round, the defeats of October 4 show how profoundly the Brazilian left will have to rethink and rebuild. But just as it would be foolish to underestimate the seriousness of its mistakes, it would be equally foolish to conclude that rebuilding a political project is no longer possible. History has not ended. The times are moving faster than ever. Originally published in Portuguese by Outras Palavras. English translation by Eric Blanc; I’ve added the subtitles. More We can’t stop the far right at home or abroad without a revitalized labor movement, which is yet another reason why you should become a sustaining supporter of the Emergency Workplace Organizing Committee (EWOC) — one of US labor’s pivotal bright spots. Relatedly, Jacobin published a short piece of mine reflecting on a decade of Bernie Sanders inspiring a whole new generation of young worker organizers.

Oct 6 • 10:08 AM EDT • Politics • laborpolitics.com

How a controversial camera system is monitoring mental health patients

The Lampard Inquiry started back in September 2024 and I remember going to the first hearing in Chelmsford. Subscribe The bereaved families made placards of their loved ones, they stood outside in silence and then laid flowers to mark the moment. Now, two years on, in a process meant to last another two years, there’s been a development. Last week, we were told the chair, Baroness Lampard, pictured below, could be looking at making interim recommendations. Throughout the process, she has remarked that although this inquiry is looking at almost 2,000 people who were under the care of Essex mental health services from 2000-2023 when they died, the findings could have national implications for other trusts. ‘Records 24 hours a day in patient’s bedroom’ So why has this happened? One system that the inquiry is going to take a closer look at is a controversial monitoring system called Oxevision. It monitors some vital signs of patients remotely by using a camera placed in a room. It’s used by 40% of NHS mental health trusts. But campaigners, particularly the group Stop Oxevision, have asked for this technology to be removed from mental health wards as soon as possible. I spoke to a member, Hat Porter, today and they described to me what they thought this technology did and explained their concerns: “It records 24 hours a day and it’s located in a patient’s bedroom, which is obviously somewhere you’d usually expect to be a private place. “Our concerns are that the use of the technology has been has been kind of implemented as a substitute for proper in-person support, that it’s kind of over relied on and that there’s a lot of misunderstandings and that the presence of a camera, which has often been used without people’s consent, sometimes without even their knowledge, that that has a really big impact on privacy, dignity and human rights.” ‘Not sufficient’ I put it to them that the company behind Oxevision would dispute their claims about consent and in videos I’ve seen online from NHS trusts, they make it clear that the technology is complementary to trained staff and not a replacement. [ ](https://channel4news.substack.com/p/the-nottingham-inquiry-what-lessons) [ How the Nottingham inquiry shines a spotlight on other key mental health care failings ](https://channel4news.substack.com/p/the-nottingham-inquiry-what-lessons) Victoria Macdonald · Feb 12 [ Read full story ](https://channel4news.substack.com/p/the-nottingham-inquiry-what-lessons) A team of lawyers has been working on the inquiry and with bereaved family members who have concerns about this technology. I spoke to solicitor Priya Singh, from Hodge Jones & Allen, who made the point that questions usually asked by nurses would be missing from using devices like this. “It’s not sufficient to say, oh, the patient is moving around. Somebody must go in and say, are you okay? Are you distressed? Do you want help? Is there anything I can do? Share Channel 4 News “How are you spending your time? So I think a lot of our families cannot see the function of it when ultimately the patient should only really be observed when they’ve been prescribed to be observed, they can be observed more, but that more should really be happening face to face.” The Chair will hear evidence over the next two weeks and then a decision made after that, which could have national impact if she does decide this technology should be investigated or even removed. The Department of Health and Social Care said: “The Government is committed to ensuring that lessons are learned from the Lampard Inquiry to improve patient safety. “We are confident that the Inquiry will play an important role in identifying wider learnings for the health system following the tragic events in Essex and will contribute to improvements in patient safety.” We approached LIO Health, which runs Oxevision, for comment. Subscribe Share Channel 4 News Leave a comment

Oct 5 • 2:03 PM EDT • Health • channel4news.substack.com

Top Links 1245 Jobs in health care. Jobs for women. The US labour market is segmenting. Chernobyl’s radiation and Lenin’s love of literature.

Thank you for your support of Chartbook. Your generosity keeps this show on the road. Elmer Bischoff, Two Figures at the Seashore, 1957 The only really dynamic job-creator in the US economy is health care:

Oct 5 • 6:47 AM EDT • Health • adamtooze.substack.com

Jobs in health care. Jobs for women. The US labour market is segmenting. Chernobyl’s radiation and Lenin’s love of literature.

Thank you for opening your Chartbook email. Elmer Bischoff, Two Figures at the Seashore, 1957 The only really dynamic job-creator in the US economy is health care: The largest crunch has come in Federal government, which has shed 2.7 m jobs. Source: tchouvkov on Twitter Tech is struggling. [ Joey Politano 🏳️‍🌈@JosephPolitano The US tech sector continues bleeding jobs in official data released today—overall, employment decreased by 17k last month and is down 69k over the last year That's nearly as bad as the worst of the 2024 tech-cession, and much worse than the 2022 boom or even pre-2020 norms 12:42 PM · Oct 2, 2026 · 15.2K Views 15 Replies · 47 Reposts · 390 Likes ](https://x.com/JosephPolitano/status/2106001807847940232?s=20) The new jobs are all for women. [ Justin Wolfers@JustinWolfers I'm not sure who saw this coming, but so far nearly all the jobs created during the second Trump administration have gone to women. 1:09 PM · Oct 2, 2026 · 33K Views 70 Replies · 146 Reposts · 644 Likes ](https://x.com/JustinWolfers/status/2106008723533533601?s=20) Meanwhile, real wages are being eaten up by modest over-target inflation. [ Heather Long@byHeatherLong The financial pain is real: Wage growth fell to 3% (y/y) in September. That's the lowest in 5 years. Wage growth: 3% Inflation: ~3.4% Inflation has eaten up all wage gains for the average worker since April. Many people are having to make hard choices about what to buy and what … 1:24 PM · Oct 2, 2026 · 37K Views 24 Replies · 275 Reposts · 533 Likes ](https://x.com/byHeatherLong/status/2106012367712620728?s=20) HEY READERS, THANK YOU for opening the Chartbook email. I hope it brightens your day. I enjoy putting out the newsletter, but tbh, what keeps this flow going is the generosity of those readers who clicked the subscription button. If you are persuaded to click, please consider the annual subscription of $60. It is both better value for you and a much better deal for me, as it involves only one credit card charge. Why feed the payments companies if we don’t have to. Subscribe Elmer Bischoff, Bathers, 1960 Americans are disillusioned with higher ed. For contributing subscribers only. Subscribe Where the Chernobyl radiation went. h/t Simon Kuestenmacher aka simongerman600 How Lenin’s love of literature shaped the Russian Revolution - Tariq Ali This, then, was the intellectual atmosphere in which Lenin came of age. His father, a highly cultured conservative, was the chief inspector of schools in his region and much respected as an educationalist. At home, Shakespeare, Goethe and Pushkin, among others, were read aloud on Sunday afternoons. It was impossible for the Ulyanov family – “Lenin” was a pseudonym adopted to outwit the tsarist secret police – to escape high culture. At high school, Lenin fell in love with Latin. His headteacher had high hopes that he might become a philologist and Latin scholar. History willed otherwise, but Lenin’s passion for Latin, and taste for the classics, never left him. He read Virgil, Ovid, Horace and Juvenal in the original, as well as Roman senatorial orations. He devoured Goethe during his two decades in exile, reading and rereading Faust many times. Lenin put his knowledge of the classics to good use in the time leading up to the October revolution of 1917. In April of that year, he broke with Russian social-democratic orthodoxy and, in a set of radical theses, called for a socialist revolution in Russia. A number of his own close comrades denounced him. In a sharp riposte, Lenin quoted Mephistopheles from Goethe’s masterwork: “Theory, my friend, is grey, but green is the eternal tree of life.” Source: The Guardian Elmer Bischoff, The River, 1953 If you’ve scrolled this far, you know you want to click: Subscribe

Oct 5 • 6:47 AM EDT • Health • adamtooze.substack.com

How Americans’ Financial Health Is Faring In The “K-Shaped” Economy

Hey all, Jason here. Money20/20 is still two weeks away, but I’ve already started packing (not procrastinating for once!). My calendar is already filling up with various sessions I want to catch, meetings, and of course happy hours, dinners, and other side events. If you’ll be in Vegas and want to catch up, let me know by replying to this email, and we can try to find a time amidst the chaos of the Venetian. A big if not totally unexpected piece of news dropped on Friday: the Independent Community Bankers of America, a trade group that represents smaller U.S. banks, filed a lawsuit against the OCC and Comptroller Jonathan Gould, arguing that the regulator’s move to grant trust bank charters to firms seeking to use them to conduct substantial non-fiduciary activities exceeds the authorities granted to the OCC by Congress. I haven’t had time to fully digest the legal filing or speak to folks in my network about it, but you can expect to see coverage and analysis on it in next week’s newsletter. Subscribe or Support by Upgrading The NerdCon agenda just dropped. It’s stacked. Partner content: Nubank built an AI-first bank. Chime built its own banking core. Figure and Valon are rebuilding the mortgage stack. At NerdCon, you’ll hear from the people behind those bets: what they chose, what they learned, and what they’re still figuring out. The agenda is live, with leaders from Nubank, Chime, OpenAI, Remitly, Mercury, Figure, Valon and more. Follow the mainstage conversations, bring the problem your team is wrestling with to a hands-on workshop, or pull up a chair at a roundtable. Pick your quests. Meet us in San Diego, November 18–20. Fintech Business Weekly readers save 20% with code FBW20. Explore the Agenda Things To Know & Other Good Reads Federal Reserve Board finalizes changes to enhance the transparency and public accountability of its stress test and reduce volatility in its stress test-related capital requirements (Federal Reserve Board of Governors) FDIC Announces Conclusion of Independent Monitorship (FDIC) Modernizing Financial Regulation: Initial Observations from eSLR (Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman) The Data Version of Godzilla versus Kong: FRED Takes on AI (Fed Governor Christopher Waller) Financing the AI buildout (Brookings) Q3’26: Rules for Banks but Not for Crypto (Fintech Takes Banking) The Inevitability of Local Stablecoins (Lombard Notes) Delusions of AI Governance: The Human-in-the-Loop Comfort Blanket (Fintech Snark Tank) Stripe agrees to acquire Parafin to expand revenue opportunities for platforms and help small businesses grow (Stripe) Listen: Fighting Fraud in the Age of AI, with SEON’s Tamas Kadar (Fintech Business Weekly) How Americans’ Financial Health Is Faring In The “K-Shaped” Economy If there is one overarching theme across the economy and politics in the U.S. at the moment, it’s “affordability.” The term is vague enough to encompass a panoply of factors shaping Americans’ day-to-day lives: rising costs for the hallmarks of being “middle class,” including healthcare, housing, childcare, and education, inflation and rising interest rates, and a job market with the specter of AI hovering over it. At the same time, policy shifts under the Trump administration have resulted in reduced subsidies to those who get health insurance under the Affordable Care Act and new restrictions on qualifying for Medicaid and SNAP, the impacts of which have yet to be fully felt. These factors are contributing to declining consumer confidence and general dissatisfaction with the economy, despite continuing GDP growth and stock market records. This divergence is encapsulated in the idea of the “K-shaped” economy, in which a small proportion of Americans have seen their wealth balloon, while the majority of American households struggle to preserve the lifestyle they have. Perhaps the greatest determinant of which branch of the “K” a household is on is whether their wealth and income are primarily derived from employment vs. from assets. Nearly two decades of low interest rates and, more recently, elevated rates of inflation have benefited asset owners, while those whose income is primarily or solely derived from labor have largely seen real purchasing power stagnate or decline. This is reflected in recent Bureau of Labor Statistics data showing that labor share of U.S. GDP — the fraction of economic output that accrues to workers as compensation in exchange for their labor — dropped to just 52.8% in Q2 2026, the lowest since the BLS began keeping records. In 1947, approximately 2/3rds of economic output accrued to workers; even as recently as 2001, labor’s share of GDP was 64.1%. Against this backdrop, we’ve seen the rise of more credit and credit-like products: cash advance apps, “no-fee” overdraft, earned wage access, and buy now pay later, which are often used as small-dollar short-term borrowing mechanisms to meet immediate consumption needs or pay other bills (eg utilities, cell phone, other debt payments). With the markers of a middle class existence and, increasingly, basic financial stability seemingly out of reach for many, it should be no surprise there’s been an increase in “financial nihilism,” something industry peers like Alex Johnson and Frank Rotman have discussed and analyzed the roots of. The explosion of gambling and gambling-adjacent products and services — often marketed under the guise of being an “investment” — is inextricably intertwined with the rise of financial nihilism. Crypto, sports betting, and, more recently, prediction markets offer an escape or even hope of sorts, like a contemporary, digital version of a scratch-off lottery ticket, while leaving the overwhelming number of people who use such products worse off. Share of Households That Are Financially “Vulnerable” Ticks Up The Financial Health Network’s 2026 Financial Health Pulse® report adds context on how American households are faring. (I linked to this report in last week’s newsletter, but wanted to take time to further unpack the data in the report this week.) The Financial Health Network publishes the report annually, providing insight into how Americans’ financial circumstances are changing over time. The 2026 report is derived from a survey fielded in April and May 2026. The report leverages survey responses to assess indicators of financial health across spending, saving, borrowing, and planning/protecting and to determine a zero to 100 “FinHealth” score. Those with scores between 0 and 39 are considered “Financially Vulnerable,” consumers with scores ranging between 40 and 79 are defined as “Financially Coping,” and those with scores of 80 to 100 are “Financially Healthy.” The report found that moderate improvements in 2025 were reversed, with the share of respondents considered financially “vulnerable” rebounding to 17%. The longitudinal data reflect the impact of pandemic-era programs, like expanded unemployment, cash stimulus payments, and pauses of federal student loan payments. The positive impacts of those programs, as reflected in the Financial Health Pulse reports, had largely disappeared by 2023. While pandemic-era inflation — to be fair, in part caused by the various support and stimulus measures — had come down from as high as 9% in 2022, it has rebounded since the start of Trump’s second term, with tariffs and energy market disruptions owing to the war in Iran pushing prices back up. Specific indicators in the survey that deteriorated from 2025 to 2026 include the share of respondents spending less than their income over the past 12 months, the share paying all bills on time over the past 12 months, the share that have a manageable amount or no debt, the share that are “moderately” or “very” confident their insurance is adequate to cover them in an emergency, and the share that “somewhat” or “strongly” agree that their household plans ahead financially. Unsurprisingly, lower- and moderate-income households are more likely to struggle to pay their bills on time and have any funds leftover to save. The share of low-income households whose income exceeded their spending dropped from 35% in 2025 to 31% in 2026, while the share of upper-income households whose income exceeded expenses remained unchanged at 63%. Households with student loans or revolving credit card debt reported having “a bit more” or “far more” debt than was manageable at rates far higher than those not carrying these types of debts. The share of those with student loan debt indicating their debt load was too high to manage increased from 50% in 2025 to 55% in 2026, while the share of those with revolving credit card debt saying the same ticked up from 51% in 2025 to 54% in 2026. Households that had student loans were markedly more likely to be financially “coping” or “vulnerable” vs. those without student loans. In 2026, 27% of households with student loans were considered financially vulnerable, a jump of 6% points vs. 2025. Households without student loans saw just a 1% point increase (not statistically significant) in those considered financially vulnerable. Households’ perception of the affordability of categories of goods and services paints a stark picture, with less than one-fourth considering higher education affordable, about a third deeming childcare affordable, and less than half viewing healthcare as affordable. Fintech Business Weekly is made possible by the generous support of paying subscribers — bringing you independent analysis of banking, fintech, and crypto without fear or favor. You can support my work by becoming a paying subscriber if you aren’t already. Paying subscribers enjoy: access to the entire archive of nearly six years of newsletters extended versions of the weekly newsletter, with additional content and analysis and (for founding member tier) quarterly personal 1:1 fintech Q&A / strategy calls with me, tapping into my unparalleled knowledge of the intersection of banking and fintech and experience working in the sector, including helping to launch Goldman Sachs’ retail bank Marcus Support Fintech Business Weekly You can also support Fintech Business Weekly by sponsoring a newsletter or podcast, putting you in front of 93,000+ of the most influential decision makers in banking, fintech, and crypto. Learn more about sponsor opportunities or request a media kit by dropping me an email. Democratic Senate Report Highlights How Iran Uses Tether to Evade U.S. Sanctions Iran uses stablecoins, specifically Tether, to evade sanctions, fund regional proxies, and to purchase military drones, a report released last week by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations says. The report was authored by committee ranking member Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and the minority staff. Crypto and stablecoin proponents will often push back on criticism that criminals make use of these assets by arguing that, on an absolute dollar basis, far more illicit funds flow through traditional banking systems and payment rails than via crypto and stablecoins. And while that is likely true, it elides the reality presented in news story after news story: whether state actors — Russia, Iran, North Korea — or criminal groups, those looking to engage in illicit transactions increasingly favor stablecoins and, specifically, Tether (USDT). The report from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released last week adds context to how Iran uses Tether has a lynchpin in its shadow banking system. The report analyzed 846 wallets that have been sanctioned or targeted for seizure, finding that 84% of them transacted exclusively or primarily in Tether. The ability to create near limitless, anonymous wallets and to move funds effectively instantaneously and irreversibly have made crypto a favored financial mechanism for bad actors. Stablecoins solved key drawbacks of bitcoin, namely, the original cryptocurrency’s highly volatile value in dollars. And while Tether (the company) has the technical ability to “freeze” or destroy funds, the company is often limited and reactive in its approach to doing so, the Senate report argues. Tether, which is nominally based in crypto-friendly El Salvador, “has stated that its compliance with OFAC sanctions is ‘voluntary’ and that it follows ‘OFAC guidelines,’” the Senate report says. Owing to these favorable attributes, Tether “became a primary cryptocurrency for Iran, Hamas, Hizballah, and the Houthis beginning in 2023 and has expanded in scale since,” according to the report. Tether’s role in Iran’s shadow banking system, the report says, is enhanced by crypto exchanges like Bybit, Kyrrex, OKX, Gate, and Binance, and through “over the counter” exchanges and hawala networks. The consequences of these financial flows aren’t hypothetical. The Senate report links Tether as a funds transfer mechanism to Iranian proxies in the region, including Hizballah, the Houthis, and Hamas. Tether has also been used to make payments to secure components necessary to manufacture drones, the report says. The report concludes by arguing that “[s]tablecoin issuers with a significant nexus to the United States, particularly those that offer dollar-denominated stablecoins, should be subject to American sanctions law rather than being allowed to hide behind foreign jurisdictions.” Stablecoin issuers like Tether must be held accountable for repeated failures to prevent illicit finance and sanctions violations by law enforcement, the Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and OFAC, the report argues. [Paying Subscriber Exclusive] OUSD Goes Live, Make Your Own Neobank, U.S. Sanctions Russia’s A7 Network As “Transnational Criminal Organization” OpenUSD, the stablecoin issued by the Open Standard consortium that includes Stripe, Visa, Mastercard, core providers, crypto firms, and numerous banks, went live last week. Social commerce platform Whop raised eyebrows in fintech by offering creators on its platform the ability to launch their own neobanks, which the company describes as “great businesses that are easy to run,” in just 15 minutes. And OFAC and FinCEN target Russia’s “shadow banking” A7 Network — more on these stories after the paywall.

Oct 4 • 8:59 AM EDT • Health • fintechbusinessweekly.substack.com

Studying Science in an Anti-Scientific Time

This Chronicle Review Deep Cut was first published in 2025. By Julianne Werlin Thanks for reading The Chronicle Review! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Subscribe The last two decades have not been kind to science studies. Already bruised and battered by the “science wars” of the 1990s, by the 2000s sociologists of science — who had long argued that science had to be understood in its human context — were encountering the funhouse-mirror version of their own views in right-wing critiques of climate scientists. It was enough to give some prominent scholars pause. “Was I wrong to participate in the invention of this field known as science studies?” asked Bruno Latour, the most famous sociologist of science in the world, in 2003. “Should we apologize for having been wrong all along? Or should we rather bring the sword of criticism to criticism itself and do a bit of soul-searching here: What were we really after when we were so intent on showing the social construction of scientific facts?” In response, Latour proposed a change of method and attitude. Science studies, now chastened and contrite, would no longer seek to strip facts of their authority, but to enrich and enhance them. What this meant in practice was never fully clear. But his diagnosis of problems resonated, even if his solutions did not. Latour’s exercise in public hand-wringing signaled a shift in mood. By 2016, with the first election of Donald Trump, the idea that skepticism of science was a right-wing position, not a left-wing one, had become a commonplace, discussed eagerly in The New York Times. For liberals, vaccine denial during the Covid era and Trump’s second-term attacks on the funding of scientific research, covered extensively in these pages, added a new urgency to the defense of science on both practical and principled grounds. There was little appetite for a sociology or philosophy of science that emphasized the messiness and missteps of the scientific process rather than its integrity and triumphs. The distinguished historian of science Peter Dear’s new book, The World as We Know It: From Natural Philosophy to Modern Science (Princeton University Press, 2025), which seeks to tell the story of 18th- and 19th-century science for a general public, may seem comfortably remote from these bitter contests. In its 16 short chapters, Dear draws swift, sure sketches of major discoveries from Newton to Einstein, ably guiding the reader through debates on stellar nebulae, animal taxonomy, atomic chemistry, evolution, and other flashpoints in the history of science. But though a work of history, Dear’s book must still negotiate our polarized present. In a blurb on its back cover, the historian of biology Lynn K. Nyhart alludes to the “present moment, when scientific knowledge is being swamped by misinformation and its institutions are under siege.” Dear himself, in his conclusion, refers to the “yard signs” and “bumper stickers” that proclaim “Science Is Real.” One antidote to both anti-science propaganda and to reductive slogans in science’s defense is a robust history and philosophy of science: exactly what Dear’s scholarship has long offered. But his new book illustrates how difficult such work has become. Dear, an emeritus professor of history at Cornell University, is best known as a creative and philosophically minded historian of the Scientific Revolution. His edited volume The Literary Structure of Scientific Argument (1991) analyzed the rhetoric of Galileo’s thought experiments to brilliant effect. Discipline and Experience: The Mathematical Way in the Scientific Revolution (1995) was a major contribution to the analysis of scientific experiments in early modern Europe and beyond, while Revolutionizing the Sciences: European Knowledge in Transition, 1500-1700 (2001), now in its third edition, remains one of the best overviews of the profound epistemological upheavals of 16th- and 17th-century science. But Dear has also ventured into later periods. Nearly two decades ago, in The Intelligibility of Nature: How Science Makes Sense of the World (2006), he turned to the 18th and 19th centuries to sketch a history and theory of scientific knowledge. Aimed at a generalist audience, Dear’s simple prose belied serious philosophical ambitions. Science, Dear argued, has two aspects: “natural philosophy,” the quest to understand the true nature of the universe, and “instrumentality,” the applied skills and technologies that allow us to manipulate the world for human advantage. Both strands are ancient, but the innovation of the phenomenon we call “science” was to yoke them together. As Francis Bacon wrote, “Human knowledge and human power meet in one; for where the cause is not known, the effect cannot be produced,” an insight typically abridged to “knowledge is power.” Or, in Bertrand Russell’s characteristically blunt phrase, science has two functions, “1. to enable us to know things, and 2., to enable us to do things.” So far, so conventional. But Dear took issue with this familiar story in one respect. Bacon’s formula implied that theory and practice could be fused in a single method. In fact, Dear argued, the quest to understand nature and the desire to manipulate it were coupled only loosely. They could come together, but they could also pull apart. Focusing on natural philosophy, the “knowing” half of the scientific circle, he used a series of case studies from cosmology, taxonomy, chemistry, electromagnetism, and quantum theory to show how theories changed over time, in dialogue with practice, but never reducible to it. Take the case of matter, the basic substrate of the physical world. In the 18th and 19th centuries, scientists not only disagreed about what it was, but also about how well it could be known. In 1789, the chemist Antoine Lavoisier dismissed speculation about the atomic composition of chemicals as “discussions entirely of a metaphysical nature,” as he sought to orient chemistry away from philosophical abstraction and toward laboratory results. But in the 19th century, atoms returned with a vengeance in the atomic chemistry of John Dalton, who wanted to explain the underlying structure of nature. It was not just that Dalton and Lavoisier had a different set of experimental results, or even a different theory, Dear showed. What counted as an explanation had changed. In arguing that scientific theories depended on their intelligibility to human beings with complex arrays of beliefs and commitments, Dear was in sympathy with science studies. Key figures such as the sociologist Steven Shapin emphasized the importance of psychological mechanisms like trust in the formation and acceptance of scientific ideas. But in focusing on the scientific pursuit of knowledge, not its politics or economics, Dear resisted the more cynical perspective of some of his colleagues. The Intelligibility of Nature strikes a very different note than Shapin’s collection of a few years later, Never Pure: Historical Studies of Science as If It Was Produced by People With Bodies, Situated in Time, Space, Culture, and Society, and Struggling for Credibility and Authority (2010), to name just one example. Walking a very fine line, Dear depicted science as driven at once by complex social dynamics and by the intellectual power of real discoveries. It was a testament not only to his own acumen but also to the vitality of the field that he was able to do so. Nearly two decades later, The World as We Know It returns to the questions broached in The Intelligibility of Nature. Like Dear’s earlier study, it begins with the Newtonian cosmos and ends with debates between Einstein and Bohr on quantum physics. Beyond its terminal figures, many of the same characters appear in both studies, including the naturalists John Ray and the Comte de Buffon; the chemists Étienne François Geoffroy, Antoine Lavoisier, and John Dalton; as well as Charles Darwin and Michael Faraday, among others. Its subject is nearly identical: As in The Intelligibility of Nature, The World as We Know It considers natural philosophy as opposed to instrumentality, here defined as the “desire to create a picture of what the world is really like — the world as God knows it — rather than simply having instrumental or operational control over it.” The two books also overlap in insights — and sometimes even in language. The reader who has learned in The Intelligibility of Nature that Buffon’s method of classifying animals “reflected his belief in the importance of the senses and empiricism in learning about nature (a doctrine associated with Newton and the philosopher John Locke)” will experience a sense of déjà vu on reading, in The World as We Know It, that the classification “reflects Buffon’s commitment to the epistemological stance of Newton and his philosophical underlaborer John Locke, who stressed the role of the senses in creating natural knowledge.” Later in the passage, we read that, “because of its stress on understanding the ways of life of animals in their environments, Buffon’s approach could almost be labeled (anachronistically) as ‘ecological.’” And again, “an anachronistic way of putting it would be to say that Buffon recommends an ecological mode of understanding.” Likewise, in The Intelligibility of Nature we read of Dalton that he was initially drawn to meteorology, and that: He did a bit of experimental work on these things, especially having to do with the water-holding capacity of gases, but his real interest lay in understanding what, at an underlying natural-philosophical level, was really going on physically.” Whereas, in The World as We Know It: He did experimental work on these things, especially concerning the water-holding capacity of gases — although not at a very refined level quantitatively — but he was continually trying to develop a theoretical conception of what was happening physically. The final full chapter of each book closes on the same resigned note. Intelligibility: These days, most serious work on the natural philosophical underpinnings and implications of quantum mechanics is performed not by physicists but by philosophers of science. Among scientific practitioners themselves, Bohr’s attempt to use instrumentality as sufficient grounds for a respectable science has met with a high degree of success. And again, in The World as We Know It: Bohr’s and Einstein’s concerns are now questions that are mostly discussed by philosophers of science rather than by physicists themselves. The marginalization of these sorts of questions amounts to the demise of natural philosophy, at least in physics, in the 20th century. Quantum mechanics “works,” and that’s good enough for most scientists who encounter it. Examples could be multiplied. When handling the same subject matter, some echoes are inevitable. Scholars should not feel that because they have written “Isaac Newton died in 1727” in one book, in the next they must describe him as perishing, expiring, or meeting his maker. But the repetitions of language and arguments (not to mention six reproduced images) threaded throughout The World as We Know It are more extensive than that. They should have been caught by Princeton University Press or its reviewers, and revised. Because the two books have so much in common, it is easy to see where they diverge. The World as We Know It is a less theoretical work than its predecessor. The sociology of knowledge that organized The Intelligibility of Nature has been reduced in scale and folded into readings and examples. The taut interplay between history and theory, which gave the earlier study so much interest, is there, but it is subtle. In the earlier book, the case studies demonstrated theoretical claims about the character and development of science. In the later work, each narrative of discovery is an end in itself. Insights emerge from the history, but they do not control the organization of the study. With the theory muted, it can be hard to understand the logic uniting Dear’s sprawling history of more than two centuries of scientific knowledge. The 16 brisk chapters cover an enormous amount of material. But the closer the volume edges to comprehensiveness, the more obvious the missing elements become. A chapter on “Institutions and Pedagogy,” describing the birth of the research university, illustrates the problem. Inserted roughly halfway through the book, the unnumbered chapter is designed as an “entr’acte,” in acknowledgement that it does not fit the study’s organization around scientific discoveries. Yet as Dear is well aware, no general history of the development of modern science can bracket its 19th-century institutionalization and professionalization. It was the 19th-century university, after all, that gave us the “scientist,” a term coined by the Cambridge philosopher William Whewell. Dear’s history of scientific discoveries implies a wider social and institutional history, but it remains largely subterranean, only occasionally extruded under the pressure of the narrative. It must be said that the balance is not all on the side of the earlier study. There are some advantages to the more historical, less theoretical organization of The World as We Know It. Dear’s accounts of paradigm shifts are remarkably lucid, no small accomplishment given that they span fields and centuries. He makes excellent use of the wealth of new scholarship on Darwin and his influences, to which he has himself contributed. It is satisfying to see puzzle pieces from Buffon’s natural history, Georges Cuvier’s animal taxonomy, Thomas Robert Malthus’s demography, and Charles Lyell’s geology recombined seamlessly in the Darwinian jigsaw. Likewise, Dear’s discussion of stellar nebulae, divided between chapters two and 15, shows vividly how Newton, Kant, Herschel, and Hubble reimagined insights and observations as they sought to discover whether the diffuse light that filtered through early telescopes was a glowing, gaseous substance or discrete but distant stars. Yet despite such pleasures, the book remains a more modest work than The Intelligibility of Nature. Dear has clearly not changed his views about the history of science. But in the two decades that have elapsed, the discipline and the world around it have changed, making it harder to write a sociologically and philosophically ambitious history of science for the general reader. That is a shame, because in the age of Silicon Valley and biotechnology, both the reciprocity and the tensions Dear identified between the epistemological and instrumental ambitions of science are more evident than ever. In recent years, some of the most exciting new books on the history of science in early modernity have focused precisely on this pressure point. Important studies such as Pamela H. Smith’s From Lived Experience to the Written Word (2022), James Poskett’s Horizons: The Global Origins of Modern Science (2022), and Vera Keller’s The Interlopers: Early Stuart Projects and the Undisciplining of Knowledge (2023) all shed new light on how early modern science negotiated the relationship between its instrumental and epistemological ambitions, or in Russell’s phrase, knowing and doing. There is every opportunity for a philosophically informed approach to draw new insights from this wealth of material. Dear, unfortunately, has not done so in The World as We Know It. But for future scholars of the history of science, his body of work over nearly four decades may provide just the model. Julianne Werlin is an associate professor of English at Duke University. Thanks for reading The Chronicle Review! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Subscribe

Oct 2 • 2:52 PM EDT • Science • chronicleofhighereducation.substack.com

Bishop’s computer science chair says AI is eliminating ‘grunt work’ and reshaping digital jobs

Dr. Russell Butler, chair of Bishop’s University’s Department of Computer Science, says artificial intelligence is increasingly taking over routine digital “grunt work,” changing the skills students and workers may need in the years ahead. Photo courtesy of Bishop’s University. Click here to read our platform! Get local news like this every morning. Subscribe free below. Subscribe Pulse Newsroom Artificial intelligence is already taking over some of the routine digital work once performed by entry-level employees, according to Bishop’s University Computer Science chair Dr. Russell Butler — a shift he believes will make expertise, judgement and the ability to evaluate AI-generated work increasingly important. Butler described the change as automation reaching what he calls the “bottom of the cognitive pyramid” during an interview with The Pulse about AI, university education and the future of digital work. His argument is not that humans are disappearing from the workplace. Instead, he sees their role changing as AI becomes capable of handling more of the repetitive tasks involved in computer-based work. “Everything’s converging on just AI basically doing all the grunt work,” Butler said. The bottom of the cognitive pyramid Butler is from Lennoxville, completed his undergraduate studies at Bishop’s and later earned his PhD at the Université de Sherbrooke. He joined Bishop’s in 2019 and now chairs its Department of Computer Science. He uses AI in research, teaching and other creative work, and said the technology is increasingly capable of handling routine digital tasks that once required substantial human time. “You’ve got the grunt work, like moving things around in Excel, doing basic programming tasks,” Butler said. “That’s like the bottom grunt work that the entry-level worker would have done two or three years ago.” Butler went further, saying in his view that much of this type of work has already been absorbed by AI tools. He connected that change to a shift he sees taking place in computer science, where entry-level roles have declined while experienced workers can use AI to increase what they can produce. “A senior developer now has access to essentially an unlimited amount of junior developers on demand,” Butler said. He was describing AI systems metaphorically, not literal employees. His point was that one experienced developer can now ask AI tools to produce code or other technical work that might previously have been assigned to more junior workers. That raises a broader question for universities and employers. If some of the simpler work traditionally given to newcomers can now be done by machines, how do people gain the experience needed to become senior workers themselves? Students doing work that once required years of programming Butler said he is already seeing the change inside his classroom. He created a Bishop’s course called CS208, Coding in Plain English, to show students — including those without traditional programming backgrounds — what they can accomplish using AI. Some come from disciplines such as psychology or neuroscience with no previous programming experience. “What I’m finding is that students who have zero programming experience, they come in from another discipline like psychology or neuroscience or something, they are now able to get up and running with real data sets,” Butler said. Butler’s own doctoral work involved neuroimaging, and he said he has assigned students work he considers comparable to the kinds of analysis he performed during his PhD. He described giving students a real dataset, an expected result and instructions to use AI to complete the analysis. Butler said those students have been able to carry out work at a level he associates with tasks he once performed after years of programming experience. That does not mean a student using AI instantly acquires the same knowledge as an experienced computer scientist. But Butler sees it as evidence that AI can dramatically lower the technical barrier between having a problem to solve and producing a working result. The role of the person using the system then changes. They need to know what to ask for, understand enough about the subject to judge the answer and take responsibility for what is ultimately produced. What about AI hallucinations? One persistent concern surrounding generative AI is hallucination — when a system produces information that sounds convincing but is false or unsupported. Butler said that problem has improved substantially in newer systems and is not as severe as it was with earlier models. He pointed in particular to newer AI systems’ ability to search the web, consult scientific databases and return source links rather than simply generating a citation from their internal model. Butler nevertheless said users should verify what AI produces. “You should verify,” he said while discussing citations generated with AI. His position is that hallucinations have become less common in the systems he uses, not that incorrect AI output is impossible. Human checking remains part of the process. Hours of work compressed Butler offered another example from his administrative work at Bishop’s. The university has been comparing CEGEP courses with first-year Bishop’s courses to determine where students may qualify for advanced standing. Traditionally, Butler said, that means reviewing two sets of course descriptions and manually matching one institution’s courses with another’s. As department chair, that could require hours of reading and comparison. He said AI can now be given both sets of material and asked to generate an initial mapping automatically. “It saves me hours and hours of work,” Butler said. Butler said the AI-generated mapping can also produce a better result than he would produce himself. He sees similar opportunities in businesses. A company may receive specifications, drawings, emails or other digital material from customers and then have employees convert that information into an internal format before anything can be manufactured or delivered. AI can increasingly perform parts of that intermediate processing. In Butler’s view, the employee does not necessarily disappear. Instead, the job becomes more about checking the result. “The human is still there,” he said. Judgement could become more valuable That change is central to Butler’s view of where digital work may be headed. If AI can produce a first draft, write basic code, compare documents or process large amounts of information, he argues that knowledge and judgement become increasingly important. “The real scarce resource going forward is going to be domain knowledge, expertise, and… credentials, authority, the ability to work with other people,” Butler said. He is therefore encouraging students not only to learn AI tools but also to broaden their education. He mentioned acting, fine art and photography as examples of courses that can help develop what he described as taste and intuition — the ability to recognize what is good, what is not and what should be changed. “And that’s the skill that they need now because the grunt work has been automated and now it’s about evaluating what the AI produces and telling it how to improve or expand the output,” Butler said. That does not remove the need for technical knowledge. Butler’s argument is that the emphasis may shift away from manually completing every step of a task and toward directing, checking and improving work produced with AI assistance. He also stressed that humans remain responsible for final decisions. “At the end of the day, the human has to make the final call,” Butler said, pointing to the question of accountability. Physical work may be different Butler draws a distinction between digital work and jobs requiring people to manipulate the physical world. He expects AI to continue advancing quickly in tasks performed almost entirely on computers. He is more cautious about claims that humanoid robots will soon be able to replace workers such as plumbers or electricians. Butler said those trades would not be replaced “anytime soon” in his view and described some current robotics demonstrations as overhyped. He described the situation as counterintuitive. “It’s almost like we solved the highest level first,” he said, contrasting advances in digital AI with the harder problem of building robots capable of operating reliably in the physical world. Butler’s argument is that some digital occupations could face automation sooner than trades requiring complex physical work. The wider AI shift in the Townships Butler’s comments come as local institutions are increasingly grappling with how AI should be used. The federal government recently announced up to $162 million over five years for 10,000 AI-related placements through Mitacs. The Université de Sherbrooke told The Pulse that the number of its collaborative research and innovation projects supported through Mitacs has approximately doubled since 2018-19, while the number of placements has approximately tripled. UdeS also said it already has projects involving both AI adoption and the application of AI to other fields. At Bishop’s, Butler said part of his role involves building the Computer Science department’s local presence, connecting students with regional partners and strengthening relationships with the Sherbrooke technology ecosystem. Those developments put universities in a difficult position. They have to prepare students to use the tools employers increasingly have available while also making sure graduates understand enough to recognize when those tools are wrong, incomplete or being applied to the wrong problem. The risk of losing human skills Butler does not see AI as risk-free. Later in the interview, he raised a separate concern: as AI becomes better at reading, writing, programming and other cognitive tasks, people could lose some of the underlying skills that historically helped produce new ideas. “The other danger is that we’re going to lose the human skills,” Butler said. He specifically mentioned reading and writing and argued that people could lose some of the lower-level understanding that contributes to breakthroughs. Butler said AI systems are based on existing human knowledge and argued that they become much more powerful when paired with a capable person. That tension runs through his view of the technology. AI can remove hours of routine work. It can allow beginners to perform tasks that once required substantial technical training. It can give experienced workers significant leverage. But the more capable the technology becomes, the more important it may be for people to develop the judgement needed to decide what should be done in the first place. For Butler, that is where education may have to change. Students still need to understand their field. They still need to know when something is wrong. And they still need to be able to make the final decision. But if AI increasingly handles the bottom of the cognitive pyramid, the value of a worker may depend less on how quickly they can perform the grunt work and more on whether they understand what the work is supposed to accomplish. Don’t miss the next story that affects your community. Join thousands of readers getting The Pulse every morning—plus breaking news alerts when it matters most. If you value this kind of local journalism, consider supporting it. Subscribe, share and like! Subscribe Share

Oct 2 • 1:57 PM EDT • Science • publisherpt.substack.com

Ten bucks says you’ll love this community science project

Today marks the first day of Rut Watch 2026 With another season of Deer Spy in the books thanks to community scientists like you, biologists are now on a mission to pinpoint the peak of the white-tailed deer breeding season in Maine. Every observation of deer breeding behavior and sign helps define the timing of the rut, and this project uses the power of community science to collect deer data all fall long. Hunters, hikers, and wildlife watchers - Rut Watch pairs well with any outdoor adventure you have planned this season. It’s a perfect excuse to slow down and connect with nature as you look for clues. So get outside, rack up that deer data and submit rut reports from now through December 1. The online form is science made simple: Location Date and time Breeding behavior observed Submit a Rut Report What to watch for Active Breeding The most obvious breeding behavior to observe is a buck mounting a doe, but that is a rare sight as it only lasts a moment. You are more likely to witness a buck “tending” a doe, following closely, chasing, nuzzling, or pawing at her rump until she is receptive. Sparring After bucks shed their velvet, sparring helps sort out who is who in the dominance hierarchy. Early season matches are often less intense than later season matches between similar sized bucks. Most sparring is complete by the time breeding begins. Rubs Don’t just look for deer, pay attention to the trees. Rubs are marks made by bucks when they rub their antlers on trees, removing bark and leaving their scent calling card in the process. Scrapes Look to the forest floor for this sign of breeding season behavior. Scrapes consist of two parts - a licking branch, and a patch of cleared earth. Bucks break a low branch around head height, then paw at the leaves below to expose the dirt. Covered in scent, a scrape tells does and other bucks, “I’m here!” Learn More More information What’s next for deer community science: Northern Maine Wintering Deer Survey Other active community science projects: Fish Tag Reporting Maine Golden Eagle Study Maine Amphibian & Reptile Atlas Project Maine Deer Management: Maine’s Big Game Management Plan Game Species Conservation & Management Report The Benefits of Hunting: Supporting Wildlife, Conservation, and Community Subscribe Share Leave a comment

Oct 1 • 4:33 PM EDT • Science • barharborstory.substack.com

How Washington Funded the Politicization of Science

Over the last half-decade, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on projects designed to influence academic policies, both in the sciences and other disciplines. The aim was to foster a progressive conception of social justice in these fields. In pursuit of this end, the foundation earmarked nearly a million dollars for a project titled “Creating Inclusive Scientific Societies through Policies and Practices,” over a million for a project on “Faculty Online Learning Communities for Gender Equity,” and over $2 million to foster “racial equity focused departmental change.” Through a public records request, I’ve obtained the proposals and progress reports for dozens of NSF grants designed to promote social justice. Although funding for these grants was eventually halted by the Trump administration, the projects illustrate an important facet of recent higher-education policy. Many of the university policies that promised “social transformation” didn’t arise in a vacuum. They were actively encouraged by outside funders—often by the federal government itself. Subscribe Accreditation—the peer-review process which enables universities to receive federal grants and student loans—has recently become a policy battleground, with accreditors wielding significant power over both universities and academic disciplines. In 2020, when Oregon Health and Science University’s medical school issued an extensive diversity action plan—which promised “consequences” for employees who failed to support “DEI, anti-racism and social justice”—it specifically pointed to the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME), the medical-school accrediting body, to justify the overhaul. The NSF actively promoted DEI-focused accreditation policies. The proposal for a $1.2 million program on promoting “community engagement” in STEM, which I obtained through a records request, notes that the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology was exploring changes to its criteria “that would incorporate JEDI [justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion].” The proposal promised to “support broader JEDI efforts in the general criteria for engineering.” Another grant funded a conference designed to “identify and share best practices and strategies to integrate IDEA principles in accreditation criteria”—referring to an acronym that stands for “inclusion, diversity, equity, and accessibility.” Scholarly societies have become another flashpoint in debates over higher education. Critics argue that many of these societies, which have the power to shape entire disciplines, have become increasingly politicized. Again, through its giving, the NSF played a role in promoting this politicization. In one million-dollar grant that received funding in 2024, a group of psychologists proposed a series of social-justice reforms to the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues. The proposal, which I obtained via a records request, asserts that “[r]edistributing resources (such as moving different people into leadership roles) is not enough” and that the society’s “governance structures do not yet reflect its stated values of diversity, equity, and inclusion.” Its solution: review and rework the society’s criteria for leadership development, academic awards, conferences, and publications. Adjusting review criteria informed by “intersectionality” designed to fight “epistemic exclusion” is an easy way to introduce de facto ideological litmus tests into the peer-review process. For many of the grants I obtained, such litmus tests seem to be the point. “Academic departments are racialized social systems that produce and sustain the byproducts of systemic racism,” a proposal for a $2.7 million project funded in 2024 asserts, promising to develop “departmentally-focused change efforts that cultivate values, assumptions, and behaviors that advance racial equity.” The University of Illinois Urbana Champaign’s million-dollar “I-ADVANCE” project, which effectively created a small DEI bureaucracy on campus, promised to Embed 28 ADVANCE faculty fellows in STEM departments” to amplify its equity goals. Another $1.2 million project promised to create “faculty online learning communities,” made up of scientists at universities around the country, that would eventually build department-level diversity action plans. “Ultimately,” the proposal asserts, perhaps more perceptively than its authors realized, “both organizational change and intersectionality frameworks deal with power.” Indeed, such grants confer a great deal of power to administrators and scholar-activists, who can even use the mere availability of funding as a tool to advance their causes. That history is worth remembering amid today’s debate over federal involvement in higher education: Washington has been shaping university priorities for years, including by financing efforts to instill progressive ideas about race, gender, and equity into academic institutions—and many of the policies those grants encouraged remain embedded within universities long after the federal money has stopped flowing. John D. Sailer is the director of higher education policy and a senior fellow at Manhattan Institute. Share

Oct 1 • 10:31 AM EDT • Science • cityjournal.substack.com

Global Health & WASH: October 2026 Funding Opportunities (26 new opportunities)

41 opportunities on the Global Health & WASH page this cycle, 26 of them new. The health money on this page is mostly research money, and much of it is aimed at people early in their careers. Funder after funder, from the TANGO2 Research Foundation’s Research Pathways grants to the South African Medical Research Council’s Early Investigators Programme to the National Ataxia Foundation and Alex’s Lemonade Stand Foundation, is funding early-career investigators and the institutions that host them, with a clear tilt toward researchers based in or from the Global South, from AMBSO in Uganda to Kenya’s CONNECT-VAX network to Ersilia’s AI Incubator for African drug discovery. The money is organized by disease as much as by need: narrow foundations, the Parkinson’s Foundation, NTAP for neurofibromatosis, the RUNX1 Research Program for an inherited blood disorder, each run their own grant, so the question for an applicant is less which health problem you work on than which foundation owns your disease. The largest European cheques go to consortia only, with the European Innovation Council putting up to EUR €4 million behind a single healthy-ageing project and UNITE up to EUR €1 million behind each cross-border digital health team. Water sits apart, almost entirely in applied utility research: the Water Research Foundation’s cluster of USD $250,000 to $500,000 projects, each built around a utility problem from sewer laterals to reuse treatment. And the biggest single pot is public: HRSA is renewing community health center service areas with awards of up to USD $10 million each. This post is for paid subscribers. This helps support the time and effort it takes to curate and organize these opportunities. Subscribe To keep this accessible to everyone who needs it, we’re happy to offer pay what you can rates. You can find more details here. Open Opportunities 2027 Building the Field of Health Advocacy Grant, Georgia Health Initiative. *New!* *Closing soon!* Georgia Health Initiative, a nonprofit private foundation focused on health equity, is opening its 2027 Building the Field of Health Advocacy Grant to strengthen the organizations that push for healthier systems across the state. The Initiative treats advocacy as infrastructure, backing one-year projects that range from urgent responses to shifting federal policy to longer arc campaigns on housing, behavioral health, care access, and food security. It wants coalitions that elevate community voice, apply an equity lens, and arrive ready to deploy concrete strategies, and it deliberately seeks variety in issues, communities, and organizational size. The optional webinar and required lobbying training signal a funder investing in a durable field, not one grant cycle. The strongest fits are Georgia nonprofits and public agencies ready to turn advocacy readiness into systems change. Geographies: United States. Who can apply: Tax-exempt 501(c)(3) public charities, state or local government agencies, or coalitions/collaboratives using a 501(c)(3) fiscal sponsor, that work in Georgia on behalf of Georgians and align with the mission, vision, and values of Georgia Health Initiative. Only one application per organization, though an organization may be listed as a partner or subcontractor on multiple applications. Funding amount: Organizations can apply for up to USD $80,000 per project; the Initiative anticipates investing a total of USD $1.36 million. Targeted Sectors / SDGs: Governance, Policy & Advocacy · SDG3; SDG10. Deadline: October 2, 2026. Learn more and apply here. TDD Research Pathways Grant, TANGO2 Research Foundation. *New!* *Closing soon!* The TANGO2 Research Foundation, working with a founding gift from Tango2UK, is opening its TDD Research Pathways Grant to fund early-career investigators anywhere in the world who study TANGO2 Deficiency Disorder. The foundation is using this money to seed pilot work and to build a research community around a rare disorder that few labs currently study. It wants to back emerging scientists, clinicians, and trainees who will stay with this field, not one-off projects, which is why it requires a committed mentor and real institutional support and asks each applicant for a plan for future contributions. The design rewards promise and persistence over track record. The strongest fits are students, residents, postdoctoral fellows, and new investigators ready to commit to TANGO2 research. Geographies: Global. Who can apply: Early-career investigators worldwide, including undergraduate, graduate, and medical trainees, postdoctoral fellows, residents, and clinical or research fellows. Early-career investigators must hold a PhD, MD, or equivalent doctoral degree and be within 10 years of that degree or within 5 years of initiating rare disease research, engaged in postdoctoral research at an academic institution, teaching hospital, or nonprofit research institute. Currently enrolled trainees and transitional PhD candidates beginning a postdoctoral appointment at a nonprofit institution by July 1, 2026 are also eligible. All applicants must identify a qualified mentor with relevant TDD or rare disease research experience and demonstrate institutional support. Funding amount: Up to USD $15,000. Targeted Sectors / SDGs: Innovation, Science & Technology. Deadline: October 2, 2026. Learn more and apply here. Call for Expression of Interest (EOI): AMBSO Impact Research Initiative, Africa Medical and Behavioral Sciences Organization (AMBSO). *Closing soon!* The Africa Medical and Behavioral Sciences Organization is inviting expressions of interest for its Impact Research Initiative, which funds early-stage pilot studies and proof of concept work on priority health challenges. AMBSO is a Ugandan research organization backing bold ideas that can grow into larger studies, and its tracks span antimicrobial resistance, epidemic preparedness, artificial intelligence for diagnostics, HIV prevention, climate and health, cancer, maternal and child health, and non-communicable diseases. The small award size and direct-cost-only rule point to a funder that wants evidence rather than overhead, and that favors projects able to attract follow-on money or use AMBSO’s own research infrastructure. Eligibility runs worldwide, welcoming researchers and institutions inside and outside Africa. The strongest fits are researchers with a feasible pilot that generates policy-ready evidence. Geographies: Global. Who can apply: Open worldwide to researchers, academic institutions, and research organizations whose work aligns with generating high-impact health evidence. Independent researchers are eligible if affiliated with an academic or research institution. Doctoral students are encouraged to apply as part of a research team led by a faculty Principal Investigator. Community-based organizations and other eligible entities may apply. Projects may be implemented inside or outside Uganda. Funding amount: Up to USD $10,000 per project, with no minimum funding threshold. Targeted Sectors / SDGs: SDG3. Deadline: October 2, 2026. Learn more and apply here. Entrepreneurs for Resilience 2027 (E4R27), Swiss Re Foundation. *Closing soon!* Swiss Re Foundation is opening the tenth edition of Entrepreneurs for Resilience, which backs healthcare social enterprises expanding affordable, quality primary care for low-income communities across low- and middle-income countries. The Foundation is using catalytic, blended funding plus multi-year advisory to take risk out of scaling, helping proven models reach more people sustainably rather than stay stuck at pilot size. It looks to back brick-and-click enterprises that pair physical care with digital tools and build affordability through savings, payments, or microinsurance, ideally integrated with public health systems. Requiring earned revenue, real customer scale, and gender-inclusive teams signals that this is growth capital for commercially serious ventures, not seed money. The strongest fits are established, revenue-generating healthcare enterprises ready to scale access for underserved populations. Geographies: Global. Who can apply: For-profit and hybrid healthcare social enterprises serving low-income and underserved populations in low- and middle-income countries, using combined physical and digital (brick-and-click) healthcare delivery models. Applicants must demonstrate measurable social impact, generate at least 50% of income through earned revenue, have been established no later than December 2023, already serve at least 50,000 people with potential to scale, and have at least 30% low-income customers. Preference for gender-inclusive enterprises with at least one female founder or at least 30% women in management. Funding amount: Pilot funding of up to USD $45,000 for the 6-8 shortlisted social enterprises; up to USD $1 million in blended funding (up to USD $600,000 unconditional plus up to USD $400,000 conditional) shared among 3-4 finalists over a two-year implementation period; total programme funding approximately USD $1.3 million. Targeted Sectors / SDGs: Innovation, Science & Technology · SDG3; SDG5. Deadline: October 4, 2026. Learn more and apply here. Horizon HealthTech 2026, IIITD Innovation & Incubation Center. *Closing soon!* IIITD Innovation and Incubation Center is opening Horizon HealthTech 2026, a nine-month MedTech incubation cohort run under the aegis of BIRAC EDGE for founders building medical devices, diagnostics, surgical and interventional tools, or remote monitoring. The center is backing teams that already hold a validated proof of concept and want to reach a tested prototype, pairing each founder with a named expert and clinical validation through a hospital partner. What they seek to back is Indian health technology that can survive real clinical scrutiny and regulatory review, not slideware. The structure, with lab access, CDSCO guidance, IP support, and investor connects, signals a program built to make startups ready for follow-on capital. The strongest fits are early-stage MedTech teams with defensible IP and a working path from bench to bedside. Geographies: India. Who can apply: Early-stage teams/startups with a validated idea/proof of concept (TRL 3 onwards) working on medical devices, diagnostics, surgical/interventional technologies, or remote monitoring, holding IP or with potential to generate IP. Funding amount: No cash award amount is stated on the official program page. Benefits are in-kind: prototyping lab and equipment access, clinical/hospital validation (Max Healthcare), expert mentorship, CDSCO regulatory guidance, IP filing support, workspace, cloud credits and tools, and investor connects. Run under the aegis of BIRAC EDGE and builds a path to follow-on Government/VC/Angel funding. Targeted Sectors / SDGs: Innovation, Science & Technology · SDG3; SDG9. Deadline: October 5, 2026. Learn more and apply here. OpenAI AI and Teen Development Research Grant Program, OpenAI. *New!* *Closing soon!* OpenAI is opening its AI and Teen Development Research Grant Program to fund independent studies of how generative AI shapes the lives of young people ages 13 to 17. OpenAI wants a stronger evidence base on how teens actually use these tools and what that use does to their social and emotional development, so that product teams, policymakers, and regulators can act on findings rather than assumptions. It seeks work on emotion regulation, relationships, belonging, and the safeguards that keep teens safer, welcoming interdisciplinary teams and any methodology. That it will fund research whose conclusions may not favor AI providers, and prioritizes studies touching ChatGPT, signals a genuine appetite for credible outside scrutiny. The strongest fits are research groups grounded in adolescent development, well-being, and AI safety. Geographies: Global. Who can apply: Researchers aged 18 or older who are affiliated with a research institution or organization, and/or have significant experience relevant to child or adolescent development, well-being, human-computer interaction, AI impacts, or a closely related field. Multiple institutions may collaborate. OpenAI is seeking to fund research rather than for-profit initiatives and will not prioritize for-profit organizations. Funding amount: Individual research grants up to USD $1 million, totaling up to USD $5 million; maximum 10% of each grant for overhead or indirect costs. Targeted Sectors / SDGs: Social Inclusion & Community Wellbeing; Innovation, Science & Technology. Deadline: October 6, 2026. Learn more and apply here.

Oct 1 • 6:29 AM EDT • Health • impactfunding.substack.com

September Monthly Review: Health MCP Guy?

For all the time I spend talking about APIs and data exchange, this newsletter has had embarrassingly little interoperability of its own. It’s old-school SaaS, baby - UI or bust. Not all of that is my fault! Substack, for all its popularity, is (as mentioned before) really frustrating as my system of record. The primary user it optimizes towards is the reader, whose attention feeds the app, the Notes feed, and the recommendation network that Substack is actually selling. Health API Guy is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe They’re falling into the same trap that Medium once sprinted into, albeit at a much more glacial speed. Younger generations may not remember (or never knew) it, but Medium once lured publications like The Ringer and Signal v. Noise onto its platform, only to lose them as it rebuilt itself around a paywall and an algorithmic feed. Substack’s original pitch circa 2020 was the antidote (you own your list), but every new feed feature chips away at it. I get it: writers are generic supply in the eyes of the Substack product team. Generic supply follows demand, so the consistent pressure on the PMs is to generate demand, which leads to every product cycle going toward discovery (Notes, recommendations, the app, live video). The end result lackluster author tools (laggy and broken analytics are truly crippling) all despite the premium price point. The archive is where it crosses from authorial gripes to actual reader impact, though. Across Substack and LinkedIn, I’ve published 1,218 posts and nearly 900,000 words since 2018. Substack’s native search can see only the 464 posts that live on Substack, and even there it’s woefully inadequate at surfacing relevant content (even for the guy who wrote it)! Readers have the same problem, writ large. Ask the Archive Fixing search (for both my readers and my own use) turned out to be extremely non-trivial, unfortunately: There’s no public API for readers to access content RSS exists for new content notification, but it only carries the 20 most recent posts and cuts paid ones off at the preview The only Substack MCP is an admin tool for analytics The export exists for authors, but it’s painfully awkward and slow. So I built something to work around that: the Health API Guy MCP. It’s a private MCP server holding the full text of everything I’ve written across Substack and LinkedIn. Add it to Claude or ChatGPT as a connector and you can ask things like: It pairs keyword search (for acronyms and case names, of which we have many) with semantic search. Every post is also labeled by topic, form, and court case, so you can pull a lawsuit’s (or multiple cases’) entire docket across Substack and LinkedIn in one query: Hail, Healthapiguyhydra This is also a bit of me eating my own cooking. I’ve spent the year arguing that headless healthcare is arriving and that developers want primitives over abstractions. Last week in Hail, Benihydra, I watched Salesforce plug its platform into Claude and bet that the records underneath outlive whatever interface sits on top: Salesforce must believe that the Hydra’s immortal head is the records, permissions, and business logic (in that they will survive whatever happens to the interface). It felt a bit hypocritical to keep my own archive behind a Substack search bar. The archive is the body. Substack is one head, and now whatever tool you might use is another. Will the EHRs follow my lead? Probably not imminently, but one can hope! Why Founding Members Only The MCP is available to Founding Member subscribers. A few reasons: It costs money and time to run. Hosting, the database, Clerk usage and AI compute for search and labeling are significant operational costs (that increase with usage). Substack gives me no way to automate access. There’s no API to check whether someone is a paid subscriber, so every user is manual operations for now. It’s a beta. We’ll need to improve things and parts will break. I’d rather they break for a small group of dedicated readers who will tell me about it. The Founding tier deserved a real benefit. Until now it was mostly a generous tip. Now it comes with something. If you’re already a Founding Member, reply to this email with the address you’d like provisioned. If you’re not and want in, upgrade here. Larger teams (such as companies) can get access too: group subscriptions at the Founding tier come with the group discount. The admin for the subscription can reply with the list of addresses to provision. Get 20% off a group subscription Pricing Founding membership is now a flat $200 a year, replacing the old suggested $150 that readers could adjust. Existing Founding Members will have access grandfathered in at their previous rate. Month in Review Articles Published Make Networks Dumb Again (Sep 11): AI is making old analog networks cheaper to use and flooding them with machine traffic in the process. A plea for agent-native rails with the intelligence at the endpoints, and for Washington to drag them to ubiquity. Interoperability, Unbuttoned (Sep 29): Interoperability is a series of workflows in a trenchcoat, and this post finally takes the trenchcoat off. A color-coded map shows which provider workflows went digital, which are fragmented, and which still run on fax. Video Content Antitrust’s System of Record Problem (Sep 3): The FTC’s investigation into Epic prompted a ninety-minute webinar, now posted with chapters and a smoothed transcript. We get into why market definition, missing B2B share data, and the SSNIP test leave antitrust poorly suited to systems of record, plus why information blocking may be doing more than any pending lawsuit. The Information Exchange: Cerner Milking Edition (Sep 18): This was so fucking fun. Ryan Tucker, Ryan Brickner, Brad Thorson, and I try an Around the Horn format, complete with points, penalties, and a mute button. We debate whether Oracle Health is dead, who would actually buy Cerner (IBM enters the chat), p(Doom), and why the front desk still hands you a clipboard. Regulatory Ask Not What Your Network Can Do (Sep 23): CDC’s RFI on public health data intermediaries lists use cases already served, unevenly, by eCR, lab reporting, IZ Gateway, and syndromic surveillance. The real opportunity sits in one question about AI: a network that can handle the next emergency without another interface project. Court cases Particle v. Epic: The Naughty Schoolteacher (Sep 4): After a summer-long vigil, the answer on Epic’s early summary judgment bid is two paragraphs and a remedial assignment. Particle advances to the next grade, and market definition gets another year of discovery. The Epic Discovery Files (Sep 8): Texas’s motions to compel arrive with a 251-page appendix of requests, objections, and meet-and-confer letters with Cravath. Inside: Epic using generative AI for document review, denied interoperability requests in scope, and Noerr-Pennington raised against lobbying discovery. Epic v. Health Gorilla: “Working as Designed” (Sep 9): Epic wants nothing to do with the data breach MDL, and explaining why puts fresh discovery on the public docket. The spiciest allegation: Health Gorilla told GuardDog to scrub its law firm business from its website instead of cutting off access. Veeva v. Epic: Legal Bypass Surgery (Sep 15): Veeva asks the Wisconsin Supreme Court to skip the Court of Appeals, while law professors and three policy groups line up as amici. Meanwhile, Epic’s lawyers apologize for another round of citation errors, including a quote that never existed. Texas v. Epic: Behind the Black Bars (Sep 17): The court portal served up Epic’s unredacted filings, revealing a $5 million document review budget and the AI workflow behind it. Also inside: the 200-plus company names Texas wants searched, and one very expensive Zoom invitation. OpenEvidence v. Doximity: Consequences Will Follow (Sep 25): OpenEvidence tells the court it will not comply with a discovery order, and its own lawyers at Quinn Emanuel say they won’t defend the choice. Add years of Slack reported unrecoverable, and Rule 37 sanctions come into view. Health Tech Keeps Choosing Violence (Sep 28): Doximity moves to end OpenEvidence’s case, Epic asks Texas to show its work, and a sleepy Audacious Inquiry patent fight sprouts antitrust and information blocking counterclaims. The main event is a long-sealed Cognizant v. Infosys ruling that hints where system of record antitrust claims can survive. EHRs One Verb for Oracle Health (Sep 14): Oracle’s earnings call quantifies every data center to the decimal point, while Oracle Health gets a single verb: “accelerate.” Panning the few healthcare mentions turns up an agentic care management system, a research-to-care ledger play, and the question of whether healthcare gets Larry’s patience. Epic’s Forretress Under Siege (Sep 30): Judy Faulkner tells a panel Epic paused hundreds of projects to harden its software and calls it a “shame,” while a spokesperson insists the roadmap hasn’t changed. Project Glasswing, a Pokémon-branded QAN sprint, and a trove of Jodel grievances reconcile the two Epics and preview the Jevons paradox coming for all software. Industry Analysis Scanning for a Network (Sep 1): Scan.com raises $220M to build the imaging network labs never got, speedrunning Zocdoc’s consumer-to-B2B pivot. Its wedge to network density may be the most American one available: personal injury litigation. The Front Desk Wants the Damn Whole Building (Sep 16): Hello Patient buys Converse Health, pushing its AI front desk into referrals, chart work, and prior auth. The copilot categories keep blurring, and your distribution partner is still your final boss. Cross-industry Comparisons A Different Patchwork Quilt (Sep 10): Healthcare loves to envy open banking, but the US version has no mandate, a toll booth at Chase, and data quality problems of its own. The grass isn’t greener; it’s another American patchwork quilt, and perhaps a worse one. Hail, Benihydra (Sep 21): Salesforce brings its platform into Claude, Slack, and its own agent, inviting the interfaces that might replace it. Cut off one head and more grow back, so long as the records underneath stay put. Living on A Trade Secret Prayer (Sep 22): Six credit unions are suing Fiserv, the Epic of core banking, by claiming their own member records as trade secrets. Banking has no Cures Act, so its lawyers reach for legal alchemy that healthcare has already tried. Other News None this month External Media Nabla Accelerate NYC: I kicked off fall conference season at Nabla’s Accelerate event in New York, where Delphine Groll opened by asking the room to picture the company it wants to become and the one it doesn’t. I liked her framework of bureaucracy, fear, and ego as the blockers. I also love vendor conferences/events in general - different vibe than industry biggies. Healthcare 101 with Nikhil Krishnan: I briefly guest lectured Out-Of-Pocket’s Healthcare 101 class. Appreciated Nikhil’s takeaways cover whether AI doctors can query HIEs, why healthcare’s data-liberation rules beat most industries’, and the hi-res graphic is in the comments. HCN: Epic Probed by the FTC: I joined the HCN guys to talk through the FTC’s investigation into Epic. Cedric’s new hairdo was an unexpected plot twist. The episode also covers MFN drug pricing, healthcare M&A and Eli Lilly’s acquisition streak. Fall Conferences: At eHealth Exchange’s Annual Meeting in Austin on Oct 27, I’ll moderate a panel on the tensions between AI, HIEs, and timely patient access with Jean Ross (Primary Record), Therasa Bell (Kno2), Byron Crowe (Doctronic), and Michael Marchant (Freenome). Here’s the rest of my schedule if you want to meet up: CommonWell (Redwood Shores, CA): Oct 13-14 Will be participating in a fun Jeopardy event Open@Epic (Madison, WI): Oct 20-23 Will be enjoying Verona, Willy Street, and other local adventures eHealth Exchange and Sequoia Project (Austin, TX): Oct 27-29 Yeehaw HLTH (Vegas): Nov 15-18 Groundhog Day, Venetian Edition RSNA (Chicago): Nov 30-Dec 2 See me at “Governing AI in Breast Imaging: What Health Systems Are Actually Doing” Digital Health Counsel 2026 AI Summit (Seattle): December 2-3 Will likely be speaking to a bunch of lawyers about information blocking Posts I Liked ChatGPT’s Epic integration: game changer or nothing burger?: Joshua Liu, MD offers five thoughts on OpenAI’s Epic launch, starting from the point that it rides the same open APIs available to anyone. He argues read-only access leaves ordering to Art and the ambient startups, and asks why HCA is piloting it alongside Commure. He’s sorta a must-follow at this point - consistently excellent, thought-provoking takes. Epic, Lilly, and the Discovery pass: Seth Chaney reads Epic’s first major Discovery deal (with Eli Lilly), as well as its revised developer terms on commercial displays, as the pipe finally opening between EHRs and pharma. Life sciences and health continue to collide. Scott Rossignol on EHR payer platforms and ePA fees: Scott argues the top ambulatory EHR vendors are turning the prior auth mandate into a per-member-per-year toll on payers, for an API whose operating cost has nothing to do with covered lives. His fix is two lines of regulatory text: put the CRD/DTR/PAS certification criteria in the Base EHR definition, and bring payer-facing ePA connectivity under § 170.404’s cost-based fee rules. It’s a good solution. Health API Guy is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe

Oct 1 • 4:36 AM EDT • Health • healthapiguy.substack.com

Looking at the Ugly Side of the Paramount-Skydance Merger...And How I’d Fix It

A Message from Our Sponsor Certified Fresh with 100% on Rotten Tomatoes, FX’s Adults is an ensemble comedy series about a group of twenty-somethings in New York leaning on each other to navigate love, work, friendship and family. Don’t sleep on “The Sitcom of the Moment” - Awards Buzz All Episodes now streaming on Hulu on Disney+. Watch The Teaser Trailer... (Welcome to the Entertainment Strategy Guy, a newsletter on the entertainment industr(Welcome to the “Most Important Story of the Week”, my bi-weekly strategy column analyzing the most important (but often not buzziest) news story of the last two weeks. I’m the Entertainment Strategy Guy, a former streaming executive who now analyzes business strategy in the entertainment industry. Please subscribe.) Before we dive in, I wanted to congratulate Broadcast Now for being the first to report that Netflix’s How to Get to Heaven from Belfast has been cancelled. (I saw this in a write-up by Kasey Moore of Whats-On-Netflix.) More importantly, I wanted to note that, as of yesterday, none of the other trades had reported the news yet. I have half a guess that eventually one of them will report this. Anyways, it’s time to take a break from my deluge of streaming ratings reports to continue my analysis of the Paramount Skydance Warner Bros. Discovery (PSWbD) saga. As I noted last week, a lot of times when folks use the (sometimes cliched) “the good, the bad and the ugly” framing for an article, “the ugly” section is just more bad. Or very, very bad. In this case, yeah, I do think it’s ugly. In more than one way. Unfortunately, we’re only going to have time to tackle one of those ways today: the ugly pile of debt to finance this deal. (In a future article, I may cover the entire process for how it went down, which was very, very ugly.) Last issue, I explained why I liked this deal in a vacuum. Unfortunately, “vacuums” don’t exist outside of space. Let’s dive in. Subscribe Most Important Story of the Week - The Ugliness of the Paramount/Warner Bros. Merger More than one person sent me a note speculating that the big problem with Paramount Skydance buying Warner Bros. Discovery is the “Warner Bros.” portion of the deal. In fact, that’s a take I read a lot about Warner Bros., ever since they caught Netflix’s, and then Paramount-Skydance’s, eye. In short, multiple companies (Time, AOL, AT&T, Discovery) have bought and then regretted buying Warner Bros. Since it’s nearing Halloween, you could almost say it’s like the folks think WB is cursed! It’s a haunted studio—like the town of Derry in movie studio form—and whoever takes possession of it will fall into misery! Yet...I just don’t like that story, because it doesn’t explain the “why” behind why those deals fell through. Especially when Warner Bros. has continued to succeed as a TV and film studio in the intervening two decades. Lord of the Rings? Harry Potter? Game of Thrones? Everything HBO? Considering it never fully owned a broadcast TV channel, this media company has done pretty well. So what went wrong? Well, in recent years, companies bought Warner Bros. instead of the other, smarter option. Explaining POCD (And Applying It to Mergers & Acquisitions) As I explained last issue, one of my favorite frameworks is the POCD tool for evaluating venture capital investments: People Opportunity Context Deal The bar to invest as a VC is high. (Or I might say “was” since cheap interest rates made life easier last decade.) You review a thousand prospectuses, get pitched by a hundred, and invest in the ten best, with the hopes that one of those ten would pay for the rest. That means every element of a deal needed to pay off: you needed the right people running the companies, who could capitalize on the right opportunity, in the context of an industry that was ripe for disruption. If you could then not overpay, you could make some money in a smart deal. The analogy isn’t perfect here, but close enough. For a merger or acquisition to work, you need the combined company (which is the opportunity) to make more than the price you need to pay (which is the deal). Note: the people and context still matter, but with M&A, it’s a little more straightforward: does the opportunity exceed the cost? And usually with Warner Bros., it hasn’t. If you want to find out the single biggest mistake made by the Warner Bros. suitors over the last few years (and my simple fix) become a paid subscriber. I’ll also touch on who I think Paramount-Skydance could (shockingly) consider buying next, TBD, and more. Sign up here.

Sep 30 • 6:41 PM EDT • Entertainment • entertainment.substack.com

When “DEI” research is cut, what happens to community health?

“I’m just going to run to the grocery store!” How many times have we said this without thinking about it? For most of us, it's usually an easy walk or a short drive to get the cheese we forgot. In reality, though, 13% of the U.S. population (about 39 million people) live in “food deserts,” which means living more than a mile from a grocery store in urban areas and more than 10 miles in rural areas. This was the case for people in Pittsburgh’s Hill District, where a quick run to buy food wasn’t an option. In the 1930s, federal maps marked the Hill as "hazardous" for lending, a practice known as redlining that steered investment away from Black neighborhoods. Decades of disinvestment followed, and residents went about 30 years without a nearby grocery store. This made it hard to keep healthy eating habits and contributed to chronic disease. When a grocery store finally opened in the area in 2013, researchers saw the opportunity and launched the PHRESH study, which initially compared the health of participants from the Hill district to those in the Homewood district. Over time, the study expanded to other factors such as brain health and Alzheimer's risk. Residents like Roderick Blair overcame initial hesitation to share their health data, trusting it would benefit their neighborhood. Then, in August 2026, the NIH abruptly canceled the study’s grant, citing that it was “subjective” and fell outside their scientific scope—an effect of the administration’s interpretation of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). Research like PHRESH can help determine what changes in a neighborhood actually improve health, so cutting it has left that question unanswered. Other canceled studies have examined health issues like maternal health, preterm birth rates, or sickle cell disease. Courts have reversed some of these grant cancellations, but not all of them. If we really want America to be healthier, research into why some communities get sicker than others is absolutely critical. The law that created the federal minority health research institute passed with bipartisan support in 2000. But these days, as evidenced by grant cancellations, the political shift in attitudes toward DEI means we often lose access to the health information we need to help all communities thrive. DEI vs. health equity vs. equality and the overlap (or lack thereof) The letters “DEI” evoke very different reactions depending on who you are in the U.S. DEI programs can address gender, disability, age, and other factors, but the fiercest debate centers on race. For some people, hearing DEI brings to mind policies that may have cost them a job or a college seat because they are white. Others see DEI as a matter of justice: a way to expand representation and opportunity for groups that have been historically marginalized. Both perspectives are rooted in lived experience, and both center on the same question: whether hiring and admissions practices are fair. Hiring and admission practices, though related, are not the same as health equity. Health equity is “the attainment of the highest level of health for all people.” It’s the recognition that some groups of people consistently experience worse health outcomes than others. For instance, black mothers die from pregnancy-related complications at three times the rate of white mothers, and rural Americans are more likely to die from issues such as heart disease and cancer. Equity is also often conflated with “equality,” which leads to misunderstanding of how to actually best support communities. Equality ignores the fact that we aren’t all starting life with the same resources or circumstances, whereas equity is about helping people get what they specifically need based on their situation so they have the chance to achieve the same outcome as anyone else. For example, if every household in Pittsburgh got a $30 grocery gift card, that would be equal. But during the decades the Hill District went without a grocery store, that card wouldn’t have helped much. Equity means making sure everyone can actually access a store in the first place. DEI policies can overlap with health equity in many ways. For example, they may help expand access to quality education and stable, well-paying jobs, which in turn can provide health insurance, safer housing, and improved finances—all of which can reduce health disparities. But to make that happen, we first need data to identify disparities in communities and to develop solutions that effectively address them. What we lose when the research stops Community data is important to health equity because: You can’t fix what you don’t see: Data show which communities are most affected by health factors such as infection, heart disease, and cancer. If we don’t know what is happening and where, then we can’t develop interventions to help. Poor health costs everyone: Chronic disease is expensive—both to the individual person and to the overall economy. Understanding what groups of people are most at risk allows us to develop interventions that can save everyone money. Disparities exist for many communities: Health equity includes disparities that exist due to a whole host of factors, such as family background, race and ethnicity, rural vs. suburban residence, gender and sexual orientation, veteran status, disability, and lower income. This means many Americans can benefit from research into differences in health outcomes and how to improve them. Trust is easy to lose: Some participants in the PHRESH study were initially vocal about their concerns about participating. But that trust was earned because the researchers kept their promises and centered their work on the community. When projects are canceled mid-cycle, researchers have no choice but to leave behind communities they had promised to help. This hurts trust in the long run. It’s also a very inefficient use of resources, and it will take significant time and effort to redo the work when the government realizes this work is important again. How should we talk about health equity? This is hard because the words “equity” and “DEI” are currently very politically charged. So whether you’re a public health professional, teacher, or friend, how we talk about this topic matters. The right framing can help people who might otherwise be skeptical see why health equity research is important and deserves funding. Here are some suggestions to help your conversations: Choose your words strategically: Who are you trying to reach with your message? Are they likely to be resistant to terms like “diversity” and “equity”? If so, find alternative words to use to still get the message across. It is frustrating to be in that position, but the goal of improving health is too important not to try to make inroads. Sometimes simply reframing can help the message reach those who need to hear it. Focus on the problem: The terms “health equity” and “DEI” are abstract. Make it more specific. For example, discuss differences in maternal death or ways to improve health outcomes in rural communities. These still have equity at their core but will likely be better understood by those you’re talking with. Focus on systems: Disparities exist, but if they are communicated poorly, people can mistakenly think the issue is the individual’s fault. Disparities are largely driven by failures of the system—such as lack of access to health care and a long legacy of racism. When discussing the disparities, frame them around these systemic issues to ensure blame isn’t placed on the individuals impacted. Tell stories: Personalize these policies by using stories from those impacted that connect to the data you’re trying to convey. This helps make the policies and outcomes more concrete and meaningful. Bottom line Some communities end up sicker than others. That’s just the facts. We can argue about the best way to do that research, but canceling it simply because it may be linked to DEI doesn’t make anyone healthier. It just leaves communities like the Hill district behind. And in the end, it causes us all to move backward in our efforts to improve health in this country. Love, EM Big thanks to MacKenzie Isaac & Legairre Radden, who reviewed this piece and generously shared their expertise and lived experience to help improve it. Dr. Liz Marnik, PhD, is Executive Director of The Evidence Collective and a science communicator and immunologist working at the intersection of public trust, science, and public health. To discuss communication training on topics like health equity and storytelling, email Liz at liz@yle.health or learn more on our website. Your Local Epidemiologist (YLE) comprises a team of experts, ranging from physicians to immunologists to epidemiologists to nutritionists, working together with one goal: to “translate” ever-evolving public health science so that people are well-equipped to make evidence-based decisions. The YLE suite of newsletters reaches over 475,000 people across more than 132 countries. This newsletter is free to everyone, thanks to the generous support of fellow YLE community members. To support the effort, subscribe or upgrade below: Your Local Epidemiologist is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe

Sep 30 • 5:05 AM EDT • Health • yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com

Politics Chat, September 29, 2026

A newsletter about the history behind today's politics.

Sep 30 • 12:18 AM EDT • Politics • heathercoxrichardson.substack.com

The Beclowning of Scott Bessent

One iron law of current politics is that nobody who associates themselves with Donald Trump emerges with a shred of credibility. For some, that’s not a big loss — it’s not as if anyone respected Pete Hegseth even before he decided that the key to military success in an age of drones and AI was more testosterone. For others, however, the costs are real. I’m old enough to remember when Marco Rubio was widely considered a reasonable, thoughtful politician. Right now, however, my candidate for the biggest loser is Scott Bessent, the Secretary of the Treasury. Bessent started out with significant reputation to lose: When Trump selected him, this was the headline in the Financial Times: Jason Furman, Barack Obama’s chief economist, described him as a “credible Treasury secretary who has a real understanding of the global economy”. But Bessent has now transformed himself into the Baghdad Bob of bonds. Three weeks ago, after intervening (for reasons that remain somewhat unclear) to support the Japanese yen, Bessent boasted about his ability to move markets and dared investors to bet against his, declaring “I am the house now.” He then tried to push long-term interest rates down, buying 30-year U.S. Treasuries in a move some have compared to paying down part of your mortgage by running up your credit card balance. Here’s how that’s going so far: To get some perspective on how high interest rates have gone, here’s a longer-term perspective: We haven’t seen interest rates this high since the fading days of the dotcom bubble. Why are interest rates hitting new records? The backdrop, as I argued in last Sunday’s primer, is the huge AI-driven investment boom; more on that next week. But the immediate cause of the latest interest rate spike was Trump’s rejection of an Iranian proposal to end the war. This rejection sent crude oil prices, which for a while had fallen considerably, shooting back up: It’s notable, by the way, that oil prices remain high even though a significant amount of oil is now being shuttled through the Strait of Hormuz by night, on smaller vessels. That’s an interesting story, which has a lot to do with the fact that oil from the Hormuz shuttle runs must be transferred to larger vessels before being shipped to markets in Europe and Asia; around 15 percent of the world’s large crude carriers are now parked off the coast of Oman, waiting to be tanked up. This is creating a shipping crunch: But that’s a topic for another day. For now, the point is that with oil still high and refined products, especially diesel, still close to record levels, inflation will remain elevated. And this in turn means that the Federal Reserve will keep short-term interest rates high, an expectation that is feeding into longer-term rates. Hence Bessent’s bond-market humiliation. The truth is that Bessent might not have been able to get interest rates down even in the best of circumstances. But he certainly won’t get anywhere as long as Trump keeps believing that he can somehow convert his Iran debacle into a triumphant victory. And Trump will keep believing that as long as he is surrounded by sycophants who tell him what he wants to hear. Sycophants like, for example, Scott Bessent, who is predicting the imminent collapse of the Iranian economy, possibly within two weeks. Bessent is right to say that the embargo on Iranian oil exports is placing the country under great economic strain. But his implicit prediction that this will quickly produce a deal that Trump can call victory looks no more plausible than his boasts about the bond market. The big question now is, why would anyone with a reputation to lose work for Donald Trump? As the beclowning of Bessent shows, joining the Trump team won’t just damage your reputation; it will utterly destroy it.

Sep 29 • 7:10 AM EDT • Politics • paulkrugman.substack.com

Lesbian Bar Project Co-Founder: Purity Politics Could Destroy Our Remaining Spaces

Subscribe As a professional lesbian and Massachusetts native, I’ve recently been asked by a lot of folks what I think about the saga unfolding at Last Ditch. The now-viral story, first reported by The Boston Globe, centers on a Western Massachusetts lesbian bar that lifted its mask requirement for one night a week to help drum up business. The decision ignited an intra-queer controversy that has been feasted on by media outlets across the political spectrum—from the New York Post to LGBTQ Nation—and is even reportedly being eyed for a Hollywood adaptation. Apparently nothing is more entertaining than a bunch of lesbians and queers fighting with each other over KN-95s. What has been lost in all of the chatter and media coverage is the very real possibility that Last Ditch, which just opened in April 2025, will have to close its doors. The venue’s one remaining founder, Jackie Matellian, revealed in a community Zoom meeting that she’s working four jobs, is now solely responsible for the bar’s $50,000 business loan and is struggling to keep up with the bills. So as we laugh about the controversy’s similarity to a “Portlandia” skit and how one of the bar’s founders left to enroll in clown school, we forget that yet another lesbian bar is facing an existential crisis—and this time the call is coming from inside the house. In 2020, my friend Elina Street and I created The Lesbian Bar Project, an Emmy-, Webby- and GLAAD Media Award-winning docuseries and initiative that tells the stories of lesbian queer bars around the world. We were moved to act because at the time there were only an estimated 16 lesbian bars in the United States, and the pandemic threatened to bring that number down even further. There are now more sapphic bars than there were just before the pandemic—about 36 of them in total—but this is down from approximately 200 in 1980. Maybe that doesn’t mean much to you, but for the millions of sapphics living in the U.S., this number is calamitous. As the world laughs at lesbians and sapphics, I want to take a second and tell you what I feel when I walk into one of these bars, which are all unique and irreplaceable in their own way: I feel seen. Sometimes I think Cubbyhole in New York City’s West Village neighborhood knew I was gay before I did. When I walked in there for the first time, before I was even out, I was transfixed by the colorful array of tchotchkes hanging from the ceiling and how the women standing next to me were completely unafraid to express their desire for one another. I knew the minute I was ready to come out, I had a home. I also felt the joy of a new couple falling in love at Seattle’s Wildrose, the quiet confidence of a short king lining up her shot at the pool table at Ginger’s in Brooklyn and the kick of cayenne pepper in Julie Mabry’s crawfish at Houston’s Pearl Bar. Subscribe Lesbian bars don’t just serve lesbians; they serve queer folks across the spectrum, including bisexual, pansexual and trans people. As Elina and I traveled across the U.S. and Europe and to parts of Latin America to document the bar owners, staff and patrons that make up the ecosystems of these spaces, we also became uniquely acquainted with the factors that threaten their existence: gentrification, wage gaps, sexism, environmental disasters, gun violence, rising insurance premiums and political administrations working to annihilate queer people and their families. Lesbian bar owners, like all leaders and entrepreneurs, are imperfect. There have been significant issues over the years at lesbian bars: employee harassment, racism, lack of accessibility, sexual assault and transphobia. All bar owners should be held accountable and should listen to their communities to evolve into safer and more equitable spaces. I also acknowledge my privilege: I am able-bodied, white, cis and from a family system that loves me for who I am. Not everyone has that. Queer people, especially trans and bisexual people, are suffering from disproportionately high levels of depression, and our mental health system isn’t equipped to support them. Immunocompromised people and long COVID are real, and many of my friends are suffering to this day. The people with the least safety net are often the ones for whom a bar closing costs the most. And yet, as we’re seeing with Last Ditch, the queer community often lashes out at each other. It’s also the mainstream media taking the internal conflict and making a mockery out of it, distracting from the real possibility that this bar could close due to financial pressures. A bar that many people loved and needed is facing extinction. Perhaps it’s safer to dissent with one another than with the larger forces trying to eradicate us, but in doing so, we risk destroying the few spaces we have left. Due to the constraints of purity politics—some in good faith, some not so much—lesbian bar owners, almost all of whom are queer women themselves, are forced to be everything for everyone, similarly to how women are forced to be everything for everyone. By asking these bars to uphold impossible standards—standards very few other third spaces are asked to consider—we all end up losing. I want to move as a community toward dialogue, compassionate dissent and collaboration to make our spaces better with the goal of keeping them OPEN and thriving, rather than destroying them from the inside with expectations that are arguably unattainable. Subscribe While I have your attention—for this fleeting second of the news cycle—may I urge us to spearhead a way to keep these small businesses afloat without attacking our own community along the way? Bar owners are left with an impasse: They want to be community-centered, but they also have to make money to keep their doors open. Sometimes they might make business decisions that don’t work for everyone—and that’s partly because different patrons have different priorities and want different things—but these owners deserve the opportunity for productive dialogue**.** We have to work with them and with each other to keep our spaces open, to keep them growing. Lesbian bars raised me into the queer woman I am today. One thing I think about as I reflect on the six years of work we’ve done to document these spaces is that shared, unspoken language I have with a stranger the moment we both walk into one of these bars: the nod, the ease, the not having to explain ourselves. I don’t want to lose that, and neither should you. If objective, nonpartisan, rigorous, LGBTQ-focused journalism is important to you, please consider making a tax-deductible donation through our 501(c)(3) fiscal sponsor, Resource Impact, by clicking this button: Donate

Sep 29 • 7:01 AM EDT • Politics • unclosetedmedia.com

Primetime Review: That’s Entertainment?

If you decide to see Lance Oppenheim’s Primetime, it’s important to remember the title as you watch. Yes, this is a biopic of sorts about Chris Hansen and his work on To Catch a Predator, but it is more accurately about the quest for fame and using people’s trauma to attract ratings. True crime entertainment continues to have a prominent place in many people’s television habits, and this film asks us to examine what that means both for those whose stories have become our viewing pleasure and those of us watching. Primetime starts as Chris Hansen (Robert Pattinson) is told that his show, To Catch a Predator, is moving to a 9 PM spot opposite LOST. Chris and his producer, Andie (Merritt Wever), see this as an opportunity to make the program even more sensational, looking for bigger, more horrific predators. As part of their plan, they hire a young actor, Dan Plum (Skyler Gisondo), to play “Decoy Dan,” the person who greets the would-be predators who were catfished by Xavier Von Erck (Matthew Maher). Oppenheim, along with writers Ajon Singh and Luke Dittrich, is less concerned with an accurate retelling of the show as much as they are interested in interrogating the why of it all. That decision sometimes leaves Primetime feeling less like a biopic and more like a satirical look at the nature of programming like this. Visually, the movie is impressive. Oppenheim uses light and color effectively to cast Hansen as both villain and savior. Pattinson plays Hansen in an almost comical manner, as we see him wake his two young sons to watch a clip of the show, just to brag that he was moving into a prime spot on television. Even Andie struggles to accept a “nice” job when there is so much more fame to be found producing salacious true-crime content. Wever does an excellent job showing how the hunger for fame is not just in front of the camera, but in every aspect of the production. The heart of the movie, and the standout performance, belongs to Gisondo as Dan Plum. He is someone who just wants to get enough hours to be admitted into the Screen Actors Guild, and stumbles into this job without really knowing what it is. Throughout the film, we watch him suffer one trauma after another, ending with him witnessing the suicide of a District Attorney who is about to become the next unwitting star of Hansen’s show. If there is a sympathetic character in Primetime, it is Decoy Dan, and Gisondo plays him brilliantly. If you’re a fan of programming like To Catch a Predator, then Primetime will probably make you feel uncomfortable, and I think it’s worth sitting with that feeling and examining why we turn on shows that display the worst of humanity while we judge from our couches. Yes, it is correct to want to see people who would hurt children brought to justice, but perhaps it shouldn’t be something that we watch as entertainment. Rating: 3.5/5 This review originally appeared in The Dominion Post on September 25, 2026. MacGuffin or Meaning: Film & TV Reviews and Reflections is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe

Sep 29 • 5:37 AM EDT • Entertainment • alisechaffins.substack.com