SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " Share This " 18 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Missouri business Precison Mazes outlines this year's memorable creations (LISTEN)
Precision Mazes has wrapped up another incredible season, turning agriculture’s fields into works of art that you can literally get lost in. Cameron Conner talks with owner Rob Stouffer about this year’s favorites and what is in store for 2027. Share this:
Bobby Kotick’s lawyers sent me a bad email (and later apologized)
The message I had received was unsettling—for a moment. Then it was just really confusing. Back on January 20 of this year, at 5:15pm ET, I received an email with the subject line “Legal Correspondence re Bobby Kotick.” It was from the law firm Clare Locke, a firm I’d heard had been emailing reporters in recent years about their coverage of Kotick, the former, longtime CEO of Activision Blizzard. The letter was threatening. A lawyer from the firm introduced themselves as “defamation counsel to Bobby Kotick.” They issued a “demand” that I “correct” a Game File article I’d published a week prior. The article that had irked them had been a scoop of sorts. I’d written about a a 2022 lawsuit brought by a Swedish pension fund, AP7, over Microsoft’s purchase of Activision Blizzard. The suit wasn’t news, but I was first to review and report about Kotick’s extensive pushback to the fund’s claims. The pension fund’s core contention was that the sale had been rushed by Kotick to avoid the consequences of sexual misconduct scandals swirling around the company in 2021. (He’d not been accused of misconduct himself in those suits, to be clear.) As I wrote at the time, Kotick had denied the allegations of the rushed sale. Beyond that, Kotick used a December 2025 reply to the Swedish fund’s lawsuit to assign blame for those workplace scandals, the bad press and even for the AP7 lawsuit. I’d found Kotick’s arguments novel and newsworthy. Across nearly 3,000 words, I explained Kotick’s take: that a Swedish gaming company was behind the Swedish fund’s lawsuit (the Embracer group; they denied it); that the Microsoft-Activision deal was not rushed and was secured at what Kotick felt history had proven to be an optimal price for shareholders; that he believed a conspiracy of people at unions government agencies, PR firms and the media had spun up claims of widespread workplace misconduct at Activision Blizzard in 2021. The article gave context for all of this, letting readers assess the claims and weigh their credibility. As I’d later write to Kotick’s lawyers: I would be surprised if you could point to any news article about Bobby Kotick in the last five years that has spent more of its wordcount articulating his point of view. He is welcome to do an interview with Game File any time. Nonetheless, there they were in my inbox that Tuesday evening: Clare Locke, the law firm that secured a $787.5 million settlement from Fox News over false statements about voting machines. They were emailing me, threatening that failure to comply with their demand could support a claim of “actual malice,” a legal standard for libel. Unless… Unless, they said, I added a key paragraph to my article. This was a paragraph that I already knew Kotick’s lawyers had been emailing reporters about for at least a year, and it was a paragraph that was already in my article. The paragraph they wanted is from a 2023 settlement that California’s Civil Rights Department struck with Activision Blizzard. The settlement had closed a two-year-old lawsuit over alleged sexual discrimination at the game maker. The paragraph basically said that claims of systemic or widespread sexual harassment—or of execs like Kotick tolerating such behavior—had never been proven. I’d already seen proof that Kotick’s lawyers had pushed for the settlement’s language to be added to reports about 2021 sexual discrimination and misconduct lawsuits brought against Activision Blizzard by California and, separately, by the U.S. federal government (both suits were since settled). I knew that Kotick and his lawyers felt that the California settlement language should be mentioned in the same breath as references to an article he hated and denied, a November 2021 Wall Street Journal article claiming Kotick knew “for years” of sexual misconduct at Activision Blizzard. So, in the Game File article that Clare Locke emailed me about, in the interest of ensuring I was being fair and balanced regarding the person I was covering, I had already included the following excerpt from the California settlement [emphasis added in bold]: (Kotick has repeatedly pushed back against that November article in the Wall Street Journal, citing among other things, language from a court-approved consent decree as part of Activision’s 2023 $54 million settlement over the California suit. It states: “no court or any independent investigation has substantiated any allegations that: there has been systemic or widespread sexual harassment at Activision Blizzard [or] that Activision Blizzard senior executives ignored, condoned, or tolerated a culture of systemic harassment, retaliation, or discrimination.”) On the evening of January 20, I was incredulous. How do you write a four page legal threat about a week-old article and miss this? While scrambling to also make my kids dinner, I wrote a lengthy reply to Clare Locke’s lawyers, basically asking them to cool it with the threats and to start making sense. In part, I wrote: I hope you can understand why I am having trouble understanding what you’re asking for, when the statement you’re demanding to see in Game File’s article already appears in Game File’s article. Actual malice, as you know, refers to a reckless disregard for the truth. I’m not sure what your argument is when my article already states your client’s position. Here is where I should remind you, the reader, that I am an independent journalist. I publish on Substack, and have availed myself of the Substack Defender program that provides writers on the platform with legal support. But I’m no Wall Street Journal or New York Times, nor even IGN or GameSpot when it comes to such things as, well, having a legal department. There are more fun things for me to do as an independent journalist than writing back to a powerful law firm representing a very rich person. On the evening of January 20th, I was just trying to cook some pasta, broccoli and chicken nuggets for hungry twins. Nevertheless, I wrote back to them. Two hours later, I got a reply. Summarizing: A lawyer for Clare Locke said they’d “reviewed an incomplete version” of my article and they “apologize for the confusion.” (My guess: Someone didn’t read past the piece’s paywall, even though they’d had a full week to scrounge up the funds to do so. What I’d published above the paywall was balanced, as was what came after.)1 That was almost that, but something about the situation bothered me. The letter had been marked “confidential.” I hadn’t agreed to that, and I disliked the idea that powerful people on the beat that I cover would act like they could unilaterally control what I might tell my readers about. On the morning of the 21st, having already gotten the powerful law firm to back off, I oh-so-wisely re-approached them with just one more thing. I thanked them for clearing things up the night before but noted that I’d never agreed to keep their letter confidential. I’m all for agreeing with a source to keep things off the record, but that’s the thing. We have to agree. You can’t just declare it. I’m not bound by that. I wrote to Clare Locke’s lawyer and said, in part: I trust the matter is resolved. It was disappointing to have to spend less time with my kids last night in order to address your legal letter. Family time’s precious. I will add, for clarity’s sake, that, while your letter stipulated that it was confidential, I did not agree to those terms. In the future, should you wish to communicate with me confidentially, I am happy to agree to classifying our communication as “off the record” prior to the actual communication—as is standard with any professional journalist. The firm’s lawyer replied, not directly addressing the confidentiality issue but asserting that the matter was resolved. Why I didn’t write about this until now In May, I told this story on an episode of Simon Parkin’s podcast My Perfect Console, but I held off on sharing it directly with Game File readers. I held off to avoid stepping on the toes of another reporter, the journalist Mikhail Klimentov. He’d interviewed me in the spring of 2025 about an investigation he was working on regarding Bobby Kotick lawyers pressing the media to add the California settlement language to stories referencing the 2021 lawsuits. And about how some outlets had changed their stories and how some simply deleted them. Initially, I was a third-party source for Klimentov’s reporting, providing on-the-record context about the state of the games media. I’d heard about the letters but hadn’t put the time into pursuing the story. I thought it was interesting, and I was glad he was covering it. When the outlet that Klimentov was going to run his reporting in dropped the story, I began talking to him about potentially publishing his reporting on Game File. This was tentative. Then, in January, when I got my own Clare Locke letter, I told Klimentov that I didn’t think it would make sense for me to publish him, not with me now being part of the story. I had my own version of this situation to tell. But I wished him well and said I’d refrain from telling my tale until he could get his reporting out there. Last Friday, Klimentov finally ran his investigation, in a nearly 48-minute video report for People Make Games. It covers various Clare Locke letters, how media outlets reacted to them and what to make of all this. His video weighs the merits of Kotick’s request and looks at some of the articles that were changed (one of which had a glaring error). I highly recommend watching it: (Note, I did some editorial consulting for a People Make Games video last year but nothing to do with this report.) While many outlets haven’t left any public evidence that they updated their Kotick coverage at Kotick’s counsel’s request, at least one has. Back in October 2025, the mainstream outlet Reuters applied the most transparent article update I’ve seen. On the 3rd of the month, they published an article about the state of the Swedish pension fund’s lawsuit. Days later, they added this: In an October 7 letter sent after publication of this article, Kotick’s defamation counsel disputed claims of widespread harassment at Activision. “Not a single investigation, court finding, verdict, or ruling ever concluded that there was any merit” to the allegations of widespread harassment at Activision, Tom Clare and Nick Brechbill of Clare Locke wrote. I’ve never added a statement to my article on Game File, because none was needed. Not for fairness’ sake, nor to meet any demands of Kotick’s lawyers. I’ve nevertheless wanted to be transparent with Game File readers. If someone powerful is questioning my reporting, is threatening a lawsuit over it… if that threat is part of a pattern involving other games media outlets and if, in my case, the whole thing ran into a ridiculous ditch, I want you to know about it. I also share this as a real example of how I handle threats to Game File. I stand up for my own reporting, even when it’s not comfortable to do so. (In that same category of standing up for the work I do, I’ll point to an incident in late August. Asocial media post I published to X/Twitter regarding reporting I did about Take Two and GTA VI was hit by bogus copyright claim by a firm working for the publisher. I pushed back and got it reversed; even while a bigger games media outlet let themselves be censored. This is the other reason I’m sharing this story: To emphasize that dealing with threats from powerful people is one of the costs of covering the video game industry independently and as fearlessly as possible. This is where you come in. Your support, through free and paid subscriptions (sign up here!), can help me keep doing that. It can ensure that I’ve got the back-up I need. And it can help make fiascoes like this even less of a worry, so I can spend my evenings dealing with more important things, such as making sure I steam the kids’ broccoli just right. 1 That pension fund lawsuit I wrote about in January has all but gone away. In May, the fund and Activision Blizzard owner Microsoft agreed to settle. Lawyers for the fund brokered a $250 million settlement for former Activision Blizzard shareholders. In the settlement, the fund’s lawyers changed their rhetoric. Where once they’d questioned the meaning of the California settlement language, they adopted a version of it for themselves. Several weeks ago, while seeking to get a court to sign off on the terms of the settlement, they proposed their fee for their work in the case: $60 million.
Back-To-School Bargains Or Scams? Better Business Bureau Helps Missouri Families Spot The Difference (LISTEN)
Back-to-school shopping can put a strain on family budgets, and scammers know it. Matt Pilger talked with Khesha Duncan of the Better Business Bureau in Columbia about finding real deals and avoiding costly scams. Share this:
Demi Moore shares intimate photos of daughter Tallulah Willis’ wedding dress fitting: ‘So grateful’
Demi Moore shared an emotional celebration of her and Bruce Willis’ daughter Tallulah Willis, including intimate wedding dress photos: ‘Grateful we were able to share this precious event together.’
If Not AOC, Then Who?
What do we do if Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez decides not to run for president in 2028? It makes sense that many leftists are currently focused on calling on her to take the plunge. But the absence of a Plan B, or even much discussion about one, is worrisome. The US Left can’t afford to sit out the 2028 Democratic primary. Doing so in 2024 was a disaster: our abstention self-marginalized anti-billionaire politics from the national conversation and thereby gave space for Harris to pivot to the “center” (i.e. the policy preferences of corporate donors, establishment hacks, and AIPAC). Abstaining again in 2028 would be especially counterproductive since democratic socialists now have so much wind in our sails after our big electoral wins in NYC and across the country. It’s time to deepen our momentum, organization, and profile — not to retreat to the margins during America’s single most important political battle. Even more urgently, keeping Trump’s heir out of the White House may depend on whether leftists and the party’s unprecedentedly disenchanted base can force the Democrats in 2028 to take meaningful steps towards a very angry electorate and away from the corporate-consultant blob that has helped get us into this mess. If AOC (or Abdul El-Sayed) decides to run, we should enthusiastically go all in — DSA, fighting unions, progressive organizations, anybody who wants to see a better country and world. But, as far as I can tell from the outside, there’s a real chance that she doesn’t run. And we can’t just wait and see where she lands before discussing alternatives, since AOC’s decision might not come for quite a while, giving us little time to scramble at the last minute for an alternative. So we should start working now on getting a Plan B into motion, and recruiting a good candidate for the role. Here’s one idea. A Worker Candidate — Healthcare Not Warfare 2028 Run a union worker Leftists don’t need to always run experienced, well-known socialist politicians for high-profile contests. Lula, the current president of Brazil, began his political career as a metalworker militant who ran for governor of São Paulo in 1982. Especially in an era of institutional distrust, it’s possible to lean hard into making a virtue out of a working-class comrade’s distance from traditional politics. Experience abroad shows this clearly. Rachel Kéké — an immigrant hotel housekeeper — ran as the candidate of the leftist La France Insoumise for the National Assembly in 2022, defeating a former minister in the Macron government. The Belgian Workers’ Party in 2024 won its first Flemish seat in the European Parliament by running Rudi Kennes, a three-decade veteran of the Opel Antwerp auto factory. And the South Korean left in 2024 elected auto factory militant Yoon Jong-oh to the National Assembly. If a tiny French Trotskyist organization could make such a big splash in 2002 and 2007 by running a well-spoken postal worker cadre for office — the LCR’s Olivier Besancenot received about 1.5 million first-round votes — it’s not far-fetched to expect that a much larger organization like DSA, together with a broader coalition of the willing, could run this playbook to much greater effect. This is especially the case now that almost everything DSA does immediately becomes a national news story. We don’t need someone famous. We just need a charismatic, well-vetted comrade who works in a relatable working-class occupation — e.g. a nurse, or a worker in auto or construction, or at Amazon. Ideally, they have a compelling personal story or have been part of a significant strike or organizing campaign, but even those criteria don’t necessarily have to be deal-breakers. The main lesson of the Graham Platner fiasco isn’t that we should never run outsiders for office (the momentum he generated proves the exact opposite), but that they need proper vetting and roots in democratic membership organizations like DSA or a union. In any case, there are plenty of ways to signal working-class authenticity without resorting to Platner’s or Fetterman’s performative macho white dude affect. Better to have someone of any gender or race who is actually working class, with firm socialist politics, who can speak from experience about the day-to-day realities of trying to make it in America. There are surely at least a dozen such worker leaders in our movement nationwide; we just need to sit down and convince one that their personal sacrifice for the greater good (i.e. running for president) will be worth it. If we don’t have a frontrunner with a clear path to victory like AOC (or El-Sayed, were he to win Michigan), it’s better to embrace someone whose decision to run in itself tells an important story about US politics: workers have been iced out of our political system and are now fighting hard to break back in. The novelty factor, in itself, would generate press. And it would help democratic socialists signal to the American public that our movement’s defining characteristic is that we represent workers vs. bosses, not that we’re “the furthest left” force in American politics — a framework that suggests we’re extremists and that helps our opponents isolate us from non-college-educated voters by highlighting extremely minoritarian (and misguided) stances included in DSA’s platform like prison abolition. We don’t get many opportunities to speak to tens of millions of Americans; we need to use these opportunities to broaden our appeal beyond those already in our orbit. Run to polarize the 2028 primary and general election around “Medicare for All” and “End All Aid to Israel” Why should democratic socialists use our scarce time and volunteer energy to run in a race we’re unlikely to win? Running in the 2028 primary will not only recruit us scores of members (imagine having a DSA member intervening in eleven nationally televised primary debates!), but — more importantly — it has the potential to be a decisive leap forward towards an America that finally starts meeting the needs of working people instead of HMO and AIPAC billionaire donors. Polarizing litmus tests are good, actually — as long as they’re fought for around popular demands in a thoughtful and strategic way. Democratic socialists have an opportunity and responsibility to make the 2028 primary about two of the most widely and deeply felt issues of our moment: domestically, America’s unaffordable, family-breaking private healthcare system; internationally, America’s bankrolling of the genocidal Israeli government. A candidacy relentlessly demanding Medicare for All and No Aid to Israel would pose a sharp question to the American public, the Democratic Party, and other 2028 contenders: Why can’t working-class Americans afford their healthcare bills at the same time that our government is spending at least $3.8 billion yearly to fund an Israeli regime eager to keep dragging us and the world into more forever wars? Our candidate can agitate around a clear message: I’m running to give voice to all those working-class Americans who are struggling to get by. No matter what state you live in, who you voted for in 2024, or your background, it’s just plain common sense that we should make healthcare more affordable instead of spending billions to enable the Israeli government’s crimes against humanity. Every American who agrees with me when I say ‘Medicare for All — Not a Dime for Israel’ should make their voice heard through our campaign. Racking up a high number of votes for this agenda is a crucial way to show the Democratic Party and the country as a whole that we can’t keep supporting a life-destroying status quo in our healthcare system and in the Middle East. If we want to defeat Trump’s handpicked crony this coming November, we need to speak to ordinary people’s frustrations with the status quo — we can’t keep running the same tired establishment playbook and expecting a different result. For those highly engaged voters (or skeptical media pundits) who raise concerns about wasting votes, the candidate can take the time to explain why this isn’t the case: It's true I'm a long shot. But Zohran showed anything can happen — and voting for me is a pragmatic decision, not a wasted vote. In a heavily divided primary with a large number of candidates and a very discredited establishment, my campaign and the democratic socialist movement I’m part of are positioned to be the balance of power if we can get a large enough number of voters to loudly demand Healthcare Not Warfare. Since there’s a high chance no candidate will get to 50% in the 2028 primaries, the Democrats could very well be heading towards a brokered convention, where a disciplined, principled current committed to breaking from corporate donors can play an outsized role in making sure whoever ends up with the nomination raises the banner of single-payer healthcare and cutting aid to Israel. How exactly could running this sort of primary campaign be translated into actual leverage? The candidate replies: I’m aiming to win the nomination, but if I don’t achieve that goal, my delegates and I will pledge our support in the primary only for a candidate who agrees in the general election to call for ending US aid to Israel and establishing Medicare for All at home. These are both winning planks for November against the Republicans, and the only reason I can see that other candidates haven’t yet raised these is that they’re still more scared of the donor class than they are of the people. That needs to change. If Democratic leaders want young people, workers, and those sick of the status quo to show up in big numbers this November, they need to meet us halfway. In this way, whether or not we win the nomination, democratic socialists could still play a decisive role in 2028. The approach outlined here is similar to what radical left parties periodically do in parliamentary democracies like Denmark or Sweden when they find themselves as a junior partner electorally: they dictate to center-left allies what their terms would be for enabling, from the outside, the formation of a new government. Running a Healthcare Not Warfare candidate will make it significantly more likely that the 2028 Democratic candidate stands with ordinary people instead of donors on these two pivotal planks — a shift that will, in turn, make it easier to achieve the existentially important task of defeating MAGA’s heir in November. Look at how much popular traction the Uncommitted movement got with a similar strategy in 2024 with so little on-the-ground organization — surely we can go much further with a working-class candidate, a much bigger DSA, and a Democratic Party base that has turned against Israel, billionaires, and the hacks in the party who prop them up. Objections and Responses There are quite a few objections to this proposal, many of which are very reasonable. Let me briefly address each here. Socialists shouldn’t waste their scarce time and resources on a candidate unlikely to win. This is a good rule in general, but there are important exceptions, and presidential elections are the main one. There’s no other political contest that gets anything like this level of attention and engagement in the US, so if you want to be a serious force in nationwide politics, you basically can’t afford not to have a candidate. Far from being an overall drain on our resources, running a dynamic 2028 campaign would likely result in a major net increase in members and capacity. In that spirit, the very pragmatic Milwaukee sewer socialists — who mostly ran to win at home in Wisconsin — supported Eugene Debs’s propagandistic presidential campaigns, which they correctly saw as a crucial means of recruiting to the Socialist Party. And now that the (post-1972) Democratic Party gives more weight to voters than party operatives in determining its presidential nomination, it’s become feasible to run as a socialist in primaries without risking a split in the vote against the Republicans in November. We should just support Ro Khanna, who also supports M4A and ending aid to Israel. I like Ro Khanna and would enthusiastically vote and canvass for him for president were he to get the nomination. But there’s a real chance that Khanna’s bid for office doesn’t catch on; he lacks the grassroots organizational apparatus of DSA, and, because he’s not really of the Left or labor (despite his current very good positions), he’s unlikely to generate the type of buy-in and enthusiasm that a DSA candidate would. Moreover, Khanna would be running as an individual, not as someone emerging from and building an organized movement — his campaign would not likely focus on building sustained power from below, nor would it likely polarize the 2028 primary around M4A and Israel aid. Also, and not inconsequentially, the poor electoral results for Tom Steyer and Saikat Chakrabarti this spring suggest that there’s perhaps not much of a popular appetite in the Democrats’ base to support multi-millionaire class traitors. Much better, then, to run a democratic socialist worker. If by Super Tuesday it’s clear that our campaign has captured the main left lane in the primary, Khanna should drop out and endorse us; conversely, if he’s managed to capture this lane, DSA could at that point transform its Healthcare Not Warfare campaign into an independent campaign to elect Ro Khanna focused on winning (and holding him accountable to) those two critical planks. An openness to consolidating an anti-corporate candidate by Super Tuesday is a necessary component of the strategy I’m proposing, because otherwise we risk splitting the primary votes (per DNC rules, you need at least 15% to get any delegates to convention). We should convince Shawn Fain or Sara Nelson to run for president instead. I agree it’d be great if either ran for president, but my impression is that there’s basically no chance that will happen in 2028, because both are firmly focused on their union leadership duties (and, in the case of Fain, beating back a federal witch-hunt). This plan could have DSA end up endorsing a non-socialist, non-DSAer for president. That’s against our principles. It’s a myth, and bad politics, that socialists can’t ever support candidates who aren’t members of their organization and/or who don’t call themselves socialists. Bernie, after all, was not a DSAer. And socialists abroad regularly make tactical decisions about if and when supporting a non-socialist candidate makes sense from the standpoint of promoting working-class interests, defending democracy, and building a socialist current in the process. If your “principles” prevent you and DSA from helping achieve the momentous stride forward of having a Democratic candidate in 2028 run on Medicare for All and ending aid to Israel, those “principles” are not very good. In fact, they actively undermine the causes they’re aiming to support. We shouldn’t confuse principles (working-class independence) with tactics (the best way to advance this in a given context). In my recent article in Catalyst on Milwaukee sewer socialism (I’ve uploaded the full text here), I have a section showing how similarly rigid rules about endorsements had to be eventually discarded in the old Socialist Party nationwide after WWI because they tended to lead socialists towards a sectarian abstention from broader anti-corporate electoral insurgencies beyond their party’s control. For what it’s worth, Lenin’s current under Tsarism frequently backed bourgeois candidates in the second round of elections and Lenin himself advocated that British Communists support Labour Party candidates; for his part, Kautsky in 1912 defended the German Social Democracy’s electoral pact with the Progressives in the runoffs. If our predecessors could be that tactically flexible in an era before the limits of their underlying strategic assumptions about intransigent class politics in capitalist democracies were made clear, then there’s no need to insist on being more tactically rigid today, after a century’s worth of accumulated experience. As long as you maintain your own political profile and organization while engaging in broader coalitional efforts, there’s zero inherent contradiction with the principle of political independence. More specifically: DSA and allied organizations should enthusiastically back Michigan’s Abdul El-Sayed if AOC declines to run and he throws his hat in the presidential ring. (I have no idea whether he’s even considering this path, but there’ll surely be chatter about it if he wins his Senate race this November.) Though he doesn’t call himself a socialist, El-Sayed is a principled Berniecrat, a consistent fighter for Palestine, and would have a clear path to victory. Using the “s” word is far less important than whether a campaign fights for the interests of working people at home and abroad — and whether actively participating in it can grow the organized working class and the Left. And the same holds true if a less anti-corporate candidate were, under pressure, to adopt our two Healthcare Not Warfare planks. Why focus only on M4A and ending US aid to Israel? There are so many other important issues to fight for! Obviously there are many pivotal issues beyond healthcare and Israel, and our candidate — and especially our organizations involved in the campaign — should be prepared to speak on all of these. But one of the crucial lessons of the Zohran campaign is that you have to relentlessly stay on message if you want to cut through the noise. CNN and Fox News will want to talk about DSA’s views on Venezuela and abolishing the police; we need to polarize the debate on the widely and deeply felt issues that are most favorable for growing the Left, isolating our opponents, and winning urgently needed changes. One recent poll found 63% of Americans support M4A, even after respondents were told it would raise taxes and eliminate most private insurance. Another found that 74% of Democrats opposed “providing additional economic and military support to Israel.” And focusing on two demands sets the campaign up to be able to leverage its mandate to make clear demands upon other candidates (which we can’t do if we run with a laundry list of demands). Talking about a Plan B is a distraction from the more urgent work of building a groundswell of calls on AOC to run. It’s good for DSAers, fightback unionists, and progressive organizations to try to convince AOC to run. This proposal is meant as an addendum to pushes to get AOC to run and to line DSA up for that eventuality, not as a substitute for those efforts. But I’m worried that, like in 2024, we might eventually find ourselves with no time to find a viable alternative unless we start now. DSA, with its abundant deliberative processes, moves slowly. The approach you’re suggesting seems risky. If a DSA candidate runs but doesn’t receive a lot of votes, it’ll undercut our current national momentum. This is a reasonable worry. All big initiatives always carry risks, and the path I’m advocating is certainly not free of these. That said, if a Healthcare Not Warfare campaign doesn’t catch on like we envisioned, it’s a pretty simple pivot in March 2028 to explain that in the future we really need our standard-bearers like AOC, or our growing bench of national electeds, to step up in presidential primaries. Moreover, it’s worth noting that the risk of my Plan B proposal is on the whole significantly less than the risk entailed by an AOC run. We should all back her if she runs, since she’d fire up the base, provide huge openings for organizing, have a real shot at defeating a Republican (especially given MAGA’s unpopularity), be a great standard-bearer for our issues, particularly M4A and ending aid to Israel, and be less willing than mainstream candidates to capitulate to any anti-democratic machinations from Trump and co. But it’s also true that AOC could lose, which would be a devastating setback to the country and the Left. Or she could win and find herself unable to pass much, if any, of her (and our) program, a demoralizing prospect. So if we’re willing to take these risks with AOC (and we should), it follows that we should be able to take lower-level risks if she doesn’t throw her hat in the ring. What’s Your Plan B? The US Left is facing its biggest opening for growth and influence since the 1930s. Initiatives that would have been impossible a few months ago are now potentially feasible. A President AOC is now easier to imagine, but if she ultimately assesses that the risks aren’t worth the potential reward in 2028, we can’t be left flat-footed. So even if you’re not convinced by the specifics of my Plan B, I hope you can at least agree that it’d be a disaster for us not to have one — and not to start getting a Plan B into motion. Hopefully other organizers and political currents will put forward their responses and alternative ideas ASAP. The stakes are too high to just wait and see. More As always, please share this article widely. This newsletter depends on all you lovely people to get the word out. Thank you! I uploaded the full text of my Catalyst article on Milwaukee sewer socialism here (it’s updated and 3x as long as the version published earlier on this substack). If you haven’t yet, please make sure to subscribe to Catalyst here; I read every issue front to back, highly recommend. 🌹🎵 Ivan Lins (arranged by Arthur Verocai) — “General da Banda” 🌹🎵
New OMB rule could break science in the United States
The drug that saved your mother. The treatment your doctor recommended. The clinical trial that bought someone you love more time. None of it was inevitable. It required a system built to operate outside politics and sustained over decades, because science doesn’t operate on the timeline of a politician. That system is now under direct threat. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has proposed a new rule to regulate all federal grants, not just science, but housing, education, defense, NASA and everything in between, that would fundamentally change how research is conducted in the United States. There have been a lot of fires in the past 16 months, and if everything is an emergency, nothing is an emergency. But this is a very big deal. These rules would strip away the independence that has kept science from becoming a political tool. The good news is there’s still something we can all do. How the grant system was designed to work When I was a new faculty member, I was full of millions of ideas, so I sat down and wrote an NIH proposal. I worked on it for months and thought it was so good. Then I sent it to my mentor. It came back covered in comments. Places where my reasoning wasn’t as airtight as I’d thought, methods that could be stronger, gaps in my thinking that I had been too close to the work to see. It stung, as honest feedback always does, but peer review almost always makes the work better. In fact, it’s the backbone of how American science has functioned for generations. At NIH, submitted proposals go to a panel of scientists who have experience in the field. These are the people who can read research methods and spot their weaknesses, who understand when an experiment is designed well and when it isn’t. Applications are scored rigorously, and often only the top 3-20% of proposals receive funding. The people making funding decisions are required to justify them based on these reviews. To be clear: this is not a perfect system, and good science still goes unfunded more often than any of us would like due to limited resources. There is also criticism that peer review may undervalue bold ideas that are risky but could have high payoffs. But the peer review system is nonetheless a meaningful part of the grant selection process. While thoughtful and careful changes could improve the system, the changes being proposed by OMB will not make things better. The rule that could change everything Through this OMB proposal, the system that helps decide what gets funded is being dismantled. There are many troubling elements buried in this proposal, but three provisions stand out in particular. Each would be damaging alone. Together, they would change what kind of science gets done in America, and who it serves. 1. Political appointees would decide which science gets funded, and peer review would be explicitly sidelined or ignored. The guidelines your doctor follows, the standards that determine what’s in your air and water, the drugs that get approved for your family: all of it starts with a funding decision. Right now, that decision is made by scientists who can evaluate whether the work is actually sound and whether it could move the needle forward. Under this proposal, funding decisions could be made by political appointees. The careful, expertise-driven review process that shapes grant funding would be effectively sidelined. That means that a poorly designed study could get funded simply because someone in a political office liked the sound of it, while rigorous, important work doesn’t get funded because it no longer aligns with the administration’s priorities. In other words, critical work that benefits all of us could now be missed just because it has become politically inconvenient. 2. Grants could be canceled at any point, without warning, in the middle of ongoing work. Say your tax dollars have been paying for a cancer study for two years. The grant was awarded for five years, so the team is mid-experiment. There are three additional years’ worth of answers that could change how the disease is treated for hundreds of thousands of people. With this new rule, the federal government could cancel the remaining funding tomorrow, walk away from the commitment it made with your money, and have no legal obligation to finish what it started. This is a huge waste of money. There are rarely other sources of funding for this work, which means the team, the graduate students, postdocs, and research staff who have dedicated years of their careers to this project could lose their jobs. Patients who have contributed their time to studies may not see it turn into useful learnings for others. Every hour of work already completed could result in nothing useful. Science can take decades to get to tangible outcomes. It needs a stable funding system to flourish. 3. Researchers would have a harder time communicating their findings without pre-approval from the federal government. There is a saying from Sir Mark Walport: “Science isn’t finished until it’s communicated.” Science is no use to anyone if it is kept locked away in the labs that produced the data. The proposed rule could make communicating research findings harder in a number of ways: Make it harder for scientists to widely share their findings in scientific journals. Publication costs, including journal fees that allow for broad public access, could not be paid for by federal funds which is often how scientists pay these costs. Restrict researchers from engaging publicly about how their findings should inform policy or public health guidelines. This would restrict scientists from doing the work that transforms years of lab work into decisions that actually affect people’s lives. Make it harder for scientists to attend conferences. Conferences would now need to be approved by the federal agency at the time of grant award. This disadvantages conferences or publications that are not politically aligned. Conferences are a key way in which scientists learn about work happening in their field so they can collaborate and build on each other’s findings. What good is science with a muzzle? The long-term impact These changes could (and hopefully would) be reversed under the next administration. But by then, damage has been done. Once projects are halted or denied funding by political appointees, people leave their science careers for other paths or even leave the country to do their amazing science elsewhere. You cannot pause a scientific study the way you pause a subscription you decided isn’t useful anymore. You cannot freeze a research team that depends on salaries to feed their families, causing a scramble for replacement funding that, in most cases, simply does not exist. When the money stops, everything stops, and all the work in progress and its potential are lost. Despite all of the language about reducing waste, fraud, and abuse, this new proposed rule increases the administrative burden tremendously. Every researcher watching this unfold will make a rational decision: don’t start anything that will take a decade to finish. This includes not building a team around funding that could vanish, or asking the big questions that need patience and stability to answer. The most consequential science, the kind that produces the treatments and the breakthroughs that reach your doctor’s office twenty years from now, is exactly the science that would be abandoned first. This is still a proposal, so we can all do something Some worry this rule is already a done deal. But by law, OMB is required to open a public comment period. Those comments matter because they inform members of Congress, they can be used in litigation, and they create a public record. So here’s what you can do: Submit a public comment. The public comment period on this proposed change is open until July 13. Anyone can submit a comment, and OMB is required to respond to substantial ones. Each comment must be different to count as distinct; identical comments will be counted only once. Comment as an individual, not on behalf of your organization. Here’s a full resource to help you, with useful examples, but in general: Share a story about how science or federal funding has benefitted you or is involved in your work. Are you or someone you loved a cancer survivor? Do you know someone with Alzheimer’s? Have you received NIH/NSF or other federal funding? All of these can be stories you use to highlight why you care. Explain why you’re worried about these proposed changes. You can use the wording found here or in other resources to help you. Ask them to withdraw this proposed rule. Contact your elected representatives. Congress allocates money to federal agencies to spend, and it has oversight of how that process works. You can let your representatives know this proposed change concerns you and ask them to intervene. There are levers they can push that can help at this moment. Let others know why federal funding matters. This isn’t just about science, but ALL federal grants, including for education systems, defense projects, and more. The process, including the importance of federal funding, is invisible to many. We can all make it more visible by sharing how science benefits us and why we value it. You can also share this article, or any of the resources linked here, to help spread awareness! Bottom line We are quickly losing ground in scientific research in the U.S. More changes, like the proposed rule by OMB, would decimate our ability to conduct research here, leaving us all worse off: fewer treatments for pancreatic cancer, less research on pollution impacts, fewer answers for patients with rare disease, and more unaddressed health needs. The impact will be very real for all of us, regardless of where we stand politically. Using our voices for science is more important than ever. Love, LM Big thanks to Dr. Megan Ranney for reading this over and providing brilliant insights, as always. Dr. Liz Marnik, PhD, is Executive Director of The Evidence Collective at YLE and a science communicator and immunologist working at the intersection of public trust, science, and public health. You can find her on Substack, LinkedIn, Instagram and Threads. 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: Subscribe
From Classroom to Racetrack: How Charlie Baur is Building a Motorsports Career in a Business Discipline
Charlie Baur can trace his racing story back to a Christmas morning in Michigan — the kind that starts with snow on the ground and ends with a throttle in a kid’s hands. “I remember being 3 years old and then for Christmas that year, my parents had gotten me a 120 cc snowmobile,” Baur said. Long before sprint cars, he was a Michigan kid on snowmobiles, dirt bikes, four-wheelers and jet skis — and a regular at car shows and races with his family. Photo courtesy of Charlie Baur That early exposure became a calling. At 12, he sat in a sprint car for the first time and knew he’d found the next chapter. He started in quarter midgets, moved to go-karts, and the day before he turned 16 — one day shy of the minimum age required by track insurance — he made his first sprint car start after convincing officials to let him race. Five years later, Baur is still pushing forward, now racing sprint cars on both pavement and dirt while pursuing an automotive business education at Northwood University — with a clear-eyed understanding that motorsports encompasses more than what happens under the lights on Saturday night. “It’s a business,” said Charlie, a 20-year-old who calls Fenton, Michigan, home when he’s not at a racetrack or at Northwood’s residential campus in Midland, Michigan. Photo courtesy of Charlie Baur Racing is the product — but preparation is the job To the average fan, race day begins around dinner time. For a team, race day can be a 12-hour shift — plus the work that came before it. And Baur’s racing operation is a family affair. “The team is my parents and myself,” he said, explaining they own the cars, maintain equipment and manage the business side — from sponsor relations to budgeting. On race weekends, the core group includes Baur and his parents (Eric and Stefanie), plus a couple of additional hands (Alex Photiou and Robert Flannigan) who help with the intensity and pace of trackside work. That structure has shaped how he thinks about efficiency and professionalism. “We’ve always kind of had the mentality of we’re never working on the car for maintenance at the track,” he said. “Our goal is to do as little work as possible to the car because it should be ready when that car rolls out of the trailer to go racing.” That mindset shows up in routines: bolt checks, tire procedures, safety equipment and a repeatable process designed to limit errors. “Once I fire the car up and put my helmet on, that’s when it’s go time,” he said. “You can plan as much as possible for how the race is going to play out, but until you take the green flag … you don’t know how it’s going to go.” Photo courtesy of Charlie Baur First-generation driver, student of the game In racing, “first-generation” matters — and Baur wears that label with pride. “A lot of the drivers are third or fourth generation,” he said. “My family has never been in motorsports. So for me, we’ve always looked at it as we’re new to it and we want to be as different as possible. From a marketing standpoint, it helps us stand out.” It also pushes him to seek out mentors — especially veteran drivers who have seen every scenario, solved every problem and won in multiple eras. Baur credits accomplished driver Jason Blonde, a 10-time champion, for becoming his driver coach and helping him develop as a competitor. “To me, learning from Jason helps me because he has had lots of success and knows what to do,” Baur said. “You have to humble yourself and say, ‘I don’t know what to do; can you help me out?’” That willingness to learn extends off the track, too. Baur says one of his biggest challenges is not a mechanical limitation, but credibility. “It’s my age,” he said. “Some people won’t take me seriously because I’m so young. Even though … I do know what we’re talking about and have a general idea.” His answer has been to out-prepare, out-communicate and treat the operation like a real enterprise — because it is. Photo courtesy of Charlie Baur Northwood’s role: Turning passion into a plan Baur is majoring in automotive aftermarket management and pursuing an accelerated path that pairs undergraduate study with graduate work. He’s also exploring how to align his studies with motorsports-focused coursework as Northwood advances related programs and pathways. He sees the value clearly: motorsports needs business-literate professionals who understand budgets, sponsorship, marketing, operations and long-term strategy — and who can translate between the language of the shop and the language of the boardroom. That’s why his Northwood experience isn’t limited to the classroom. He has been involved with the Northwood University International Auto Show and serves as motorsports chair — a leadership role that demands outreach, contracts, coordination and a steady professional demeanor. “There’s so much outside work that makes the auto show successful that people don’t realize,” he said. “And it is truly student led.” He’s also participated in industry experiences through Northwood at major events such as AAPEX, SEMA and PRI, along with other automotive networking events — opportunities he describes as a fast track to understanding how business really gets done. “You learn a lot in the classroom,” he said. “But if you learn it and you can’t apply it to the real world, it loses its value. Or if you learn it and can apply it, but you don’t know anyone, it is still of no value.” In his words, Northwood helps him win because it “gives me the tools to succeed” — including flexibility and faculty support as he balances travel and racing commitments with academics. Photo courtesy of Charlie Baur Racing as an ecosystem — and a talent gap waiting to be filled Baur is blunt about what he sees across the motorsports world: a deep bench of experienced professionals, and not enough young talent entering the pipeline. “I go to car shows, I go to these different events, and typically … the average age is between 45 to 55,” he said. “There’s not a lot of young people going into the motorsports world.” That reality reinforces Northwood’s communications focus: positioning motorsports not as a narrow lane, but as a wide ecosystem of business careers — sponsorship, logistics, data, media, leadership, hospitality and innovation — with real demand for prepared graduates. It also shapes how Baur talks to younger students who love racing but aren’t sure what their future looks like. “If you have a passion for motorsports, there’s gonna be a spot for you somewhere,” he said, emphasizing that driving is only one of many career paths — and that local tracks and hands-on experience are often the best first step. But if someone is interested in driving as a career path, it will take a team to make that happen. Baur’s team includes Stahl’s Motors and Music Experience, Rhino Racing, Randy Wise Buick GMC Chevrolet, Western Michigan Fleet Parts, Mother’s Polish, Schaeffer’s Oil, Hepfner Racing Products, Ameriguard Storage Centers, Justice Brothers, Race 1 Wraps, TBM Brakes, Behind Your Design, CharlieBaur.com and Northwood University. “There are so many people who invest not only in myself but in my race team and who believe in us to succeed,” he added. Pictured: Charlie Bauer’s sprint race car. Looking ahead: A headline worth chasing Ask Baur to imagine 2035, and he’ll give you two answers — one dream, one blueprint. “In a perfect world,” he said, “winning the Indy 500.” Realistically, he wants to build a life where business ownership and racing reinforce each other and where he can pay forward the help he has received by mentoring younger drivers, especially those trying to break into motorsports without a family legacy. “When I retire from full-time racing, I want to be able to provide the same opportunities that were presented to myself to the next generation of drivers,” Baur said. “I know how difficult it is to get your foot in the door.” For now, the focus is simple: keep building the operation, keep learning the business, and keep showing up prepared — because in sprint car racing, as in life, process matters. And once the helmet goes on? “It’s go time,” Baur said. Photo courtesy of Charlie Baur Learn more Students interested in motorsports careers — whether in competition, team operations, marketing, finance, sponsorship, data, or management — can explore opportunities through Northwood University’s Center for Automotive and Mobility Studies. For Charlie Baur’s latest motorsports adventures, follow Charlie_Baur and Charlie Baur Racing on social media. To learn more about Northwood’s Bachelor of Business Administration in Automotive and Mobility Studies and motorsports management concentration, visit www.northwood.edu/programs/automotive-mobility-studies/. Photo courtesy of Charlie Baur Pictured: Charlie Baur at Butler Motor Speedway on May 31, 2026. Share this page
Introducing Northwood Insights, a New Blog for the Next Generation of Business Leaders
New content platform strengthens the university’s digital presence, broadens its reach among prospective students, and establishes Northwood as a thought leader in business, free enterprise, and entrepreneurial education. Northwood University has launched Northwood Insights, a new blog designed to position the university as a leading voice in business education, free enterprise, entrepreneurship, and career development. The platform delivers expert, research-informed content to prospective students, current students, and the broader professional community, meeting audiences where they already are online and searching for answers. “Northwood has always been about preparing people to move forward with clarity and confidence,” said Marketing and Communications Officer Rachel Valdiserri. “With Northwood Insights, we’re meeting students where they are with content that’s relevant, direct, and built for how they discover and learn today. It’s not about adding more noise; it’s about delivering ideas, perspectives, and insights that help them make more informed decisions earlier in their journey.” The blog features a growing library of articles spanning Northwood’s core academic strengths, including business administration, automotive and mobility studies, sports management, and entrepreneurship. Each piece is written to inform and guide, answering the real questions students are asking while organically connecting readers to the academic programs, faculty expertise, and career outcomes that define a Northwood education. Each article is crafted to reflect Northwood’s institutional voice while being optimized for the search behaviors of today’s prospective students, a generation that begins researching universities long before they apply. By appearing in those early search results, Northwood establishes credibility, builds familiarity, and creates a meaningful connection with students the moment they are most open to influence. “This platform is a natural extension of our enrollment strategy,” said Dr. Matthew Bennett, vice president of enrollment and strategic alliances. “When a prospective student searches for career paths, we want Northwood to be the source they trust. Northwood Insights makes that possible at a global scale.” Beyond enrollment, Northwood Insights serves the university’s broader advancement mission. As a platform built to demonstrate expertise and institutional relevance, it reinforces Northwood’s standing as a thought leader in free enterprise education and entrepreneurial leadership, directly supporting alumni engagement, donor confidence, and community partnerships. The content signals that Northwood is not only preparing students for the careers of today but actively shaping the conversations defining the industries of tomorrow. “Attention isn’t given anymore; it’s earned,” said Milada Dzevitski, Northwood’s digital content and technical writer who manages the Northwood Insights blog. “This platform is built to meet that standard, with content that’s relevant, direct, and worth engaging with.” Northwood Insights is live now and will continue to grow with new content published regularly. Share this page
Missourinet Sports Report
Cardinals hang on in Pittsburgh and Royals roughed up by the A’s Share this:
Northwood University Celebrates 2026 Class of Outstanding Business Leaders
Gala honors achievement, raises scholarship funds, and inspires students to pursue lives of meaning, leadership, and earned success Northwood University celebrated five honorees whose vision and leadership have transformed industries and communities on Saturday, April 18, during the 46th Outstanding Business Leader Awards Gala at the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan. The gala brought together honorees, alumni, students, donors, and university leaders for a signature event rooted in Northwood’s mission to develop free-enterprise leaders who drive global economic and social progress. This year’s honorees represented an array of industries, including entertainment, entrepreneurship, construction, manufacturing, motorsports, and automotive retail. “Outstanding Business Leader Awards is one of the most meaningful traditions at Northwood University,” said Dr. Kent MacDonald. “It gives our students the opportunity to learn directly from leaders who have built exceptional careers through vision, perseverance, personal responsibility, and service to others. What makes these honorees special is that their impact reaches far beyond business success. They create jobs, strengthen communities, open doors for others, and lead with purpose. They remind our students that free enterprise, when guided by character and integrity, can be a powerful force for good.” Since 1981, the Outstanding Business Leader Awards have recognized exceptional business leadership while supporting student opportunity through the Outstanding Business Leader Endowed Scholarship Fund. Prior to the gala, honorees met with Northwood students during a roundtable conversation designed to give students direct access to first-hand mentorship and career insight. The student-centered experience continued that evening, as each honoree was formally introduced by a Northwood student selected through a competitive process that drew more than 50 applicants this year. The experience reflects Northwood’s emphasis on learning through experience and providing students with meaningful opportunities to build confidence, connections, and professional momentum before graduation. The following honorees and presenters were featured at this year’s Outstanding Business Leader Awards Gala: Paul A. Glantz, chairman and CEO, EH Real Estate LLC; chairman emeritus, Emagine Entertainment Inc., was introduced by Kennedy Williams, a marketing communications and automotive aftermarket management student from Farmington Hills, Michigan. They are pictured with Gala Emcee Steve Madincea (far left) and Northwood University President Kent MacDonald. Jennifer Tenaglia Panning ’92, president, Artisan Tile Inc., was introduced by Karley Baker, a finance and marketing student from Washington Township who is enrolled in Northwood’s four-year bachelor/MBA track. Danny Sullivan, 1985 Indianapolis 500 champion, 1988 IndyCar World champion, and 1994 Rolex 24 at Daytona champion, was introduced by Max Hart, an automotive marketing and management student from Cheboygan, Michigan. Reagan Cordes, a sales management student from Davison, Michigan, is pictured introducing Linzie Venegas, chief operating officer of Ideal Group, who was unable to attend the gala. Larry Zinn, executive general manager of Warren Henry Auto Group and a 2008 Northwood alumnus, was honored to accept the Outstanding Business Leader Award on behalf of his father, Warren Henry Zinn ‘77, who was unable to attend Saturday’s gala. Larry Zinn was introduced by Bella Smylie, a data analytics student from Clare, Michigan. “This gala is about more than recognizing business excellence; it’s also about investing in students and reinforcing the relationships that make Northwood special,” said Advancement Vice President Murray Kyte. “We celebrate leaders whose lives reflect The Northwood Idea while raising scholarship funds to invest in students whose ambition, character, and entrepreneurial spirit reflect the values Northwood seeks to advance.” “During my time at Northwood, I’ve been fortunate to experience things I never could have imagined,” said Baker, who added she was honored to form a meaningful connection with her Outstanding Business Leader honoree. “…Northwood builds a network that stretches far beyond these walls, one shaped by shared values, a belief in free enterprise, and a conviction that business, done right, can change lives.” To learn more about this year’s honorees and gala sponsors, visit the Outstanding Business Leaders Awards webpage at www.northwood.edu/advancement/signature-events/outstanding-business-leader-awards/. Share this page
Climate-Resilient Health Systems for Sustained Value Chains, Healthcare Access and Services - Global Center on Adaptation
Climate-Resilient Health Systems for Sustained Value Chains, Healthcare Access and Services GCA Webinar Series on Adaptation Insights Zoom VIRTUAL 22 January 2026, 15:00 CET Register here nbs-for-infrastructure Share this post: Source: Background Climate change poses unprecedented threats to health systems globally, particularly in vulnerable regions across Africa and beyond. The cascading impacts of extreme weather events, rising temperatures, and shifting disease patterns are disrupting healthcare delivery and access, infrastructure integrity, and supply chains essential for maintaining public health. Event DescriptionThe Climate-Resilient Health Systems for Sustained Value Chains, Healthcare Access and Services webinar will convene a panel discussion on the upcoming Climate Adaptation Insights on Health report and engage key stakeholders across government, development partners, private sector, and civil society in understanding the critical intersections between climate change adaptation and health system strengthening. By sharing insights on systemic vulnerabilities, interdependencies across the health system and supporting systems, and innovative adaptation approaches, this event will catalyze dialogue and action toward building climate-resilient health systems that can sustain healthcare access and services under changing climate conditions. The webinar will bring together participants from healthcare practitioners, multilateral development banks, international health organizations, climate finance institutions, research institutions, and civil society organizations globally. nbs-for-infrastructure Share this post:
You can break apart and share this 10K power bank like a KitKat bar
Two people can charge their phones using Nimble’s new Champ Stack 10K without being tethered to a single power bank.
Gigabyte Announce New OLED Monitors at CES 2026 Including a Glossy Tandem WOLED
Share this contentAlong with their MO34WQC36 34″ ultrawide QD-OLED monitor that we’ve covered separately, Gigabyte have also announced 3 other new OLED monitors at CES 2026. This includes a new 4th....[click link for more]
Missourinet Sports Report
Mizzou hoops and Blues hockey looks to stay hot tonight Share this:
Asus Unveil the ROG Swift PG27UCWM with a 27" 4K Tandem WOLED Panel and RGB-stripe Pixel Layout
Share this contentAsus teased the arrival of this screen recently on their social media channels and we can now unveil official information about this exciting new OLED monitor that will....[click link for more]
The LG 39GX950B is the World First 39" 5K2K OLED Monitor to be Announced
Share this contentAhead of CES in a couple of week’s time, LG Electronics have unveiled their line-up of new monitors that will be on show at the event. They also....[click link for more]
LG Display Announce a New 27" 4K OLED Panel with RGB-Stripe Layout
Share this contentOLED panel manufacturer, LG Display today announced some further details of one of their new panels which was teased a couple of days ago in a promotional video....[click link for more]