SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " bst " 1,752 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
McCormick ready for Ulster call against Munster
Ulster hooker James McCormick says he is "excited to get going" when Ulster travel to Thomond Park to face Munster on Saturday [17:30 BST].
Health department to lead all street outreach teams
The City’s outreach teams work with people struggling with housing and substance use issues.
How Al Gore Politicized Climate Science
An Inconvenient Truth turns 20 next month. In the 2006 documentary, former vice president Al Gore argued that human-driven climate change was an urgent, civilization-threatening crisis. The film became a cultural phenomenon, winning two Academy Awards and making climate change one of the defining political issues of our time. I am sure that there will be many retrospectives seeking to relitigate the scientific claims in the film. But the far more important anniversary story is not about the accuracy of any of Gore’s individual claims but rather about what the film helped to unleash in the scientific community: bringing partisan politics into the institutions of science. Gore did not simply make a film about climate change: He implored the scientific community to join him in overt climate advocacy. The fuel that Gore added to the fire of pathological politicization of the climate science community is the most important legacy of An Inconvenient Truth. Almost three years after the film’s release, Gore took the stage at the 2009 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)—the country’s largest and most prominent scientific organization—and delivered something much closer to a revival sermon than a scientific lecture. Gore told the assembled scientists that they could no longer “in good conscience accept this division between the work you do and the civilization in which you live.” His directive was clear:
Revitalizing Primary Care: Health Plan of San Mateo’s Investment Strategy
Abstract Health systems that invest in primary care have better and more equitable health outcomes. Yet primary care faces a crisis (characterized by
Partnership offers one-stop site for mental health, recovery services in Manchester
Manchester officials on Tuesday announced a partnership with the Mental Health Center of Greater Manchester (MHCGM) to enhance the city's response to homelessness, substance use disorder and mental health issues.
Deep Sea Mining Symposium Announcement
Abstract submissions are now open for the 8th International Marine Conservation Congress (IMCC8), taking place November 13–17, 2026, in Edinburgh, Scotland—and we’re excited to announce an open sym…
Behavioral health data exchange challenges impede interoperability, says ONC
Technical barriers, workforce limitation, privacy concerns and cost may all contribute to lower rates of electronic exchange of health information by mental health and substance abuse treatment facilities, a new analysis shows.
Shaky political science: using "simulated" elections over real-world elections
[Dear DSOS readers – this article is the latest in our “Shaky Political Science” series. In our 38 page report, “Shaky political ‘science’ misses mark on ranked choice voting,” released in early December, we examined over 40 studies focused on ranked choice voting. We found that many of these studies suffered from puzzling research methodologies, poorly constructed surveys, unrealistic simulated elections, cherry picked data, and faulty analyses that often were contradicted by results from real-world elections (a link to our full paper is here). Here are links to the first three articles in our series: the first one summarizing the overall results of our report, the second one analyzing a study co-authored by University of Minnesota academic Larry Jacobs, which was one of the most error-prone of all the research we reviewed in our report, and a third article showing an admirable example of two political scientists holding two other political scientists accountable for their flawed, sloppy research]. In this fourth article in our “Shaky Political Science” series, we shine a spotlight on seven studies that were web-hosted and funded by New America’s Political Reform Program and its Electoral Reform Research Group (the ERRG is an ad hoc committee headed by New America’s Political Reform Program and joined by the American Enterprise Institute, the Unite America Institute and Stanford University’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law). This research consortium has been led by Lee Drutman, senior fellow with New America’s Political Reform Program. These seven studies are simply not credible from any objective standard about how political “science” is supposed to illuminate our understanding of either ranked choice voting or politics in general. The feature that six of these seven studies have in common is that they all used surveys – artificial, simulated elections -- to attempt to say something cogent or interesting about ranked choice voting (RCV) elections. None of them used real world data from actual RCV elections – either the 1000+ elections in the US or the many thousands of elections from places like Australia, Ireland and elsewhere where RCV has been used for 100 years. While a few of these studies conclude with some mixed positives about RCV, our analysis here is content neutral. The idea that, with a political reform like RCV, you can ask respondents in a mock, artificial election to vote with that method, with only the barest of explanation about how RCV works or its likely impacts (i.e. no spoiler candidates, majority winners, voters liberated to pick their favorite candidates, coalition-building), and then ask them their thoughts/reactions about voting in that system, with fake candidates and no real campaigning, no real exposure to an actual election or actual candidates, rests on some very puzzling assumptions. The findings of these seven studies actually are contradicted by the findings from many other studies based on real-world RCV elections. These New America studies also failed to list the real-world RCV studies in their own citations, instead including those studies that reinforced their conclusions. The seven studies featured in this article were chosen because they form a cohesive cohort which precisely illustrates one of the main points of our research paper, namely that using surveys, i.e. artificial elections, or mathematical/theoretical models, instead of real-world data, is in fact “shaky political science.” Below are summaries of our analysis of five of the seven New America studies. You can read our complete analysis of all seven studies at our paper, “Shaky political ‘science’ misses mark on ranked choice voting.” Choosing to “Vote As Usual” by Andre Blais, Carolina Plescia, and Semra Sevi. New America. (Blais et al., 2021). This study, web-hosted and funded by New America’s Political Reform Program and its Electoral Reform Research Group, used two surveys in which respondents completed ballots for simulated elections using plurality, approval, RCV and point (Score) voting. In both cases the authors provided the respondents with only minimal explanation of each method. For example, the entire explanation for RCV was “For this vote, rank the candidates from your first to your last choice (you do not need to rank them all). This is called the ranked vote.” That’s it. The study did not provide any context or explanation to survey respondents about why she/he might want to rank multiple candidates. Participants were not even told that ballots would be tabulated using an “instant” runoff, not to mention any description of RCVs ability to eliminate the spoiler effect or liberate voters to rank their favorite candidates without fear of helping the “greater evil” candidate to win. That’s like taking an iPhone back in time to 1970 and asking someone if they like it better than their rotary phone without explaining how it works. Their first survey targeted states that held 2020 Super Tuesday Democratic primaries and used the real candidates’ names in the survey; the second survey used fictitious candidates. In other words, they surveyed respondents who had only ever participated in plurality elections, had no history or background with using RCV or any of the other methods, had no clue about its likely impacts, and did not communicate how the alternative methods would be counted, and then asked them: “How satisfied are you with using each system?” Predictably, the winner was plurality elections, the system used for president, Congress, gubernatorial and state legislative elections – in other words, the method they have been using, year after year, all their voting lives. With so little explanation of RCV and its impacts, this study is simply not credible in discovering anything useful about real-world RCV elections. It merely shows that a basic voter education campaign is needed when adopting a new election system. Additionally, the result contradicts many other post-election surveys following real RCV elections, asking opinions from voters who had just participated in a RCV election, that showed a great deal of satisfaction with RCV (see details on that in Studies 22-25 in our paper, as well as the four studies cited in the review for Study 28). Share Other studies on “satisfaction” and “understanding” make similar mistakes, in terms of basing their surveys on inadequate explanation to respondents and lack of education about context. How could any survey ever hope to measure accurately, in essence simulate a real-world election, without actual campaigning candidates, the media writing about those candidates, organizations endorsing candidates and voters being inundated with crucial information? More than anything, what these “studies” based on surveys show is that if you ask voters about something they don’t know very much about, and fail to adequately educate them, their responses will unsurprisingly reflect their confusion. Equally puzzling is that New America’s Electoral Reform Research Group, headed by political scientist Lee Drutman, found this to be a credible enough study that they not only published it but highlighted it in Drutman’s own discussion of research related to ranked choice voting. This pattern was repeated in study after study featured by New America’s Electoral Reform Research Group. For example in Ranked-Choice Voting and Political Expression: Voter Guides Narrow the Gap between Informed and Uninformed Citizens by Cheryl Boudreau, Jonathan Colner, and Scott MacKenzie, the researchers based their analysis on a survey which found that respondents who were asked to vote in a simulated RCV election, with minimal explanation of RCV or how it works, displayed less evidence of being informed about how to use RCV effectively, with the least informed voters ranking fewer candidates. As pointed out under the study above, in a real election voters are informed by a wide variety of methods, including public education by the election administration, by interested political groups, the media, and the candidates themselves who benefit from voters being aware of how to vote in the new system. In Support for Ranked-Choice Voting across Race and Partisanship by Joseph Anthony, David C. Kimball, Jack Santucci and Jamil Scott, the researchers used respondents from different parties and races voting in simulated plurality and RCV elections, who indicated their satisfaction with each voting method. Instead of using real world election results, the authors fell back on the easy, armchair and less reliable academic research methodology of making up mock elections. As with the other studies, little explanation was given of how RCV works or what its implications might be (electing majority winners or eliminating spoilers, for example). Unsurprisingly, this study found that respondents were not very satisfied with RCV. However, when the authors added an explanation that RCV has a tendency to elect more women and people of color, they found that this greater explanation increased the preference for RCV. The more voters were familiar with it, and the more they understood potential positive impacts – surprise! -- the more they were open to switching away from the status quo. Of note, the results from this study are thoroughly contradicted by a number of other studies whose data was obtained from real RCV elections with real voters. Those studies show a great deal of satisfaction with RCV. More “fake election” research An interesting wrinkle on this “research by fake elections” approach, which only served to illustrate how unreliable such “research” can become, was taken in Ranked-Choice Voting, Runoff, and Democracy: Insights from Maine and Other U.S. States by Joseph Cerrone and Cynthia McClintock_,_ also web-hosted and funded by New America’s ERRG. It gets high marks for creativity, but an eye-roll for thinking this could possibly add anything meaningful to our understanding of real world RCV elections. This study tried to determine whether RCV, plurality or two-round runoff elections provided greater voter satisfaction and acceptance of election results. To determine that, the authors conducted a survey asking if voters were satisfied with a fictional newspaper report of an election, with three different versions given to respondents – plurality, runoff and RCV, with variations of Republican/Democrat winners and variations of “come-from-behind” winners,” i.e. candidates not initially in first place but who win the “runoff.” Again, a minimal explanation of RCV or how it works was given, and the survey showed that respondents had the greatest unfamiliarity with RCV than the other methods. The unsurprising result? Respondents were much more satisfied with “come-from-behind” victories in a traditional two-round runoff election than in RCV, even though RCV is also a runoff system but with a single round of counting. Interestingly, the dissatisfaction with RCV disappeared for those who were more familiar with RCV. In fact, among those respondents who were “very familiar” with RCV, they were equally satisfied with RCV, runoff and plurality. Surprise, surprise. Again, what this study revealed, more than anything, is not only the inadequacy of the explanation for RCV given by the authors of this study, but the failure of the research format itself, thinking that such an artificial mock election could somehow simulate what actually happens in the real world in a real RCV election. Those four studies reviewed above are fitting examples of inadequate and shaky political “science.” Other studies reviewed in our paper from the New America/Electoral Reform Research Group cohort which also used mock elections included: Ranked-Choice Voting is an Acquired Taste by Joseph Anthony and David C. Kimball. New America. (Anthony et al., 2021). Ranked-Choice Voting is No Refuge for Extreme Candidates by Melissa Baker. New America. (Baker, 2021). Also included in this New America cohort is Does Ranked-Choice Voting Reduce Racial Polarization? by Yuki Atsusaka and Theodore Landsman, which actually did use real-world election results data but applied an odd and unconventional methodology to the data which relied on shaky assumptions and non-real-world scenarios that were too divorced from reality. To determine levels of “racially polarized voting,” the researchers imagined “ethnic parties,” by which they mean political parties for each ethnic group, which was especially odd since the election data they were using came from nonpartisan RCV races. But then they made an even odder assumption, namely that since race and ethnic characteristics of studied voters were not available, the authors tried to infer that information based on who voters selected and the racial make-up of voters in each district. This amounted to little more than vague and ambiguous guesswork dressed up with a bunch of mathematical equations used to give it a veneer of scientific appearance. Indeed, it seemed to assume racial polarization in order to prove racial polarization. Based on this questionable methodology, the authors concluded that RCV doesn’t reduce racial polarization. But the premise of this study missed an obvious reality: since RCV incentivizes more candidates to run and can result in more diverse fields of candidates, one would expect more racially-polarized voting in voters’ top rankings, not less, because more voters would have someone on that ballot who represents their racial or ethnic identity and more freedom to vote for their real first choice. By encouraging more diverse candidates and eliminating the spoiler effect, RCV facilitates voting for a favorite candidate of your own race and then selecting a second choice with the best likelihood of winning. The real measure is what voters do with their additional rankings – do they consider other candidates and vote “for the best of the rest”? This study didn’t tell us anything useful about that. But readily available data shows this is common in real RCV elections, and candidates act on this knowledge by engaging with voters outside their racial group. So the authors of this study failed to consider or account for what actually happens in real-world elections, and their conclusions are tainted by this failure. New America has contributed a great deal over the past 2.5 decades to our understanding of many policy areas, including politics and political reform (full disclosure: Steven Hill, one of the authors of this article and of the “Shaky Political Science” research paper and series, is a former senior fellow and former director of New America’s political reform program, 2005-2010). So it was especially disappointing that New America funded and published such a large batch of dubious studies about ranked choice voting. The stated praiseworthy goal of its Electoral Reform Research Group was to inspire new academic research about ranked choice voting that would shed light and help the public better understand the impacts of RCV. Instead, the ERRG research did just the opposite. It produced dubious research that created more confusion and misinformation. In so doing, New America’s political reform program contributed to “shaky political science.” Steven Hill and Paul Haughey Share Upgrade to $5 subscription Thanks for reading DemocracySOS, a reader-supported digital portal for the pro-democracy movement. Subscribe for only $5 per month to receive full benefits and to support our work. Subscribe
The Death of Public Health
During the recent measles outbreak, the largest in more than 30 years, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. refused to clearly recommend the measles vaccine, saying instead that it was a “personal decision,” and that parents should “do their own research.” Similarly, during her recent confirmation hearing for United States Surgeon General, Casey Means was questioned by Senator William Cassidy (R, La). “You’re the nation’s doctor,” said Cassidy. “Would you encourage [a mother] to have her child vaccinated!” “I’m not an individual’s doctor,” Means said. “And every individual needs to talk to their doctor before putting a medication in their body.” In June 2025, Marty Makary, Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), said that COVID vaccines for pregnant women should be a “personal choice”, even though every other country in the world recommended the COVID vaccine during pregnancy due to a higher risk for severe disease. It doesn’t end there. On January 5, 2026, RFK Jr. reduced the number of routinely recommended vaccines from 18 to 10. For vaccines that protected against influenza, COVID, and rotavirus, parents were urged to speak with their doctors—to make an individual choice. (On March 16, 2026, in a ruling by a federal court in Boston, RFK Jr.’s revised schedule was invalidated.) What’s happening? Why are public health officials moving away from making recommendations for the public? The origin of this change might be rooted in the first two years of the COVID pandemic. In 2020, during the first year on the pandemic, we didn’t have anything to stop a virus that was killing hundreds of people a day and could be spread asymptomatically. We didn’t have antivirals until October, monoclonal antibodies until November, and vaccines until December. All we could do was restrict travel, close businesses, shutter schools, and mask, isolate, quarantine, test, and social distance. During the second year of the pandemic, when we had vaccines to prevent COVID, people couldn’t go anywhere without their vaccine cards. They couldn’t go to their favorite bar or restaurant or sporting event or place of worship without proof of vaccination. Some people were fired from their jobs for refusing to get vaccinated. For many, this was seen as massive government overreach and energized what has been called the “medical freedom movement.” Indeed, a headline in the New York Times declared, “How Health Freedom Became a Winning Rally Cry.” As expressed in the comments of RFK Jr., Casey Means, and Marty Makary, the medical freedom movement focuses on the individual not the community—the opposite of public health. In an article titled “Ethics and Social Value Judgments in Public Health,” ethicists from Yale University distinguished public health from medical freedom. “Public health policies,” they wrote, “are population oriented. Because individual health affects the health of others, public health measures regulate individual behavior to achieve population health goals. All raise questions about how individual autonomy and freedom should be balanced against public health interests…which respects individuals’ sovereignty over their bodies and actions as long as their actions do not harm others.” The medical freedom movement fails to recognize that it often limits the freedom of others. For example, a parent who is afraid to send a child to school where many of the students are unvaccinated. Or immune compromised children who depend on those around them to for protection. The question then becomes “Freedom for whom?” Is it your right, in the name of medical freedom, to catch and transmit a potentially fatal infection—and in so doing, take away the freedom of others? In Four Essays on Liberty, Isaiah Berlin sums it up best. “Liberty for the wolves,” he wrote, “is death to the lambs.” Thanks for reading Beyond the Noise! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Subscribe
Disallowance of COVID-19 Leave Credits: A Review of Substantiation and Trade or Business Requirements — Current Federal Tax Developments
Marie M. Kanda v. Commissioner, T.C. Summary Opinion 2026-3 (Docket No. 3772-24S. Filed April 20, 2026) Between 2015 and 2023, Marie M. Kanda suffered from several serious health conditions, including breast cancer and severe osteoarthritis, which led to her doctor determining she was disabled and
Special Seminar
Speaker – Lenny Smith, Professor, Virginia Tech. Hosted by Walt Robinson. Title – Reflection versus Regurgitation: Simulation, Statistics, and Insight from Fitzroy to ECMWF’s AIFS. (link to relevant paper) Abstract – There is considerable…
These Salmon Got High on Cocaine. That Wasn’t the Craziest Part.
Scientists in Sweden made an unexpected discovery when they exposed the fish to the illegal drug as well as another substance.
Trump Backs Psychedelic Research
By HealthDay Staff HealthDay ReporterMONDAY, April 20, 2026 (HealthDay News) — Psychedelic drugs could soon play a larger role in mental health care. Over the weekend, President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at boosting federal research into substances like psilocybin, LSD and MDMA
April 20 "Colorado Chamber Office Hours": The housing debate from a business lens | The Sum and Substance
A leader in the homebuilding industry and a Senate Republican offer opposing viewpoints on this year's housing package.
Pinwheels and the ‘lobster district’: How Virginia Democrats drew up a US House map to all but lock out Republicans
Virginia Democrats hope the new congressional map they’re asking voters to approve Tuesday will flip four Republican House districts, delivering 10 of 11 seats in a state Vice President Kamala Harris won with just 52% of the vote in 2024. To do it, they want to dramatically rework entire sections of the state, slicing up deep blue districts in the Washington, DC, suburbs and around Richmond, and creating a new district running along the Blue Ridge Mountains that connects liberal cities. That’s required something called the “lobster district,” stretching from northern Virginia into two “pincers” grabbing up rural territory.
Pep Guardiola issues Rodri injury update after worrying Arsenal substitution
Rodri played 88 minutes in Man City’s 2-1 win over Arsenal at the Etihad StadiumSpain international has played regularly after foregoing injury woes earlier this yearBallon d’Or winner suffered a ...
St. Louis Regional Science Fair returns to Webster University next week
Computer science was once a 'golden ticket' — now it's seeing the biggest enrollment drop of any major in 6 years
Nobel Prize–winning economist Simon Johnson said AI has "substantially wiped out" coding as a reliable source of opportunity.
Disturbing Experiment Bolsters The Case Lobsters Feel Pain After All
We need to do better.
Premier League: Salah starts for Liverpool against rivals Everton
Follow build-up to three games at 14:00 BST, including the first Merseyside derby at Hill Dickinson Stadium.
Computer science was once a 'golden ticket' — now it's seeing the biggest enrollment drop of any major in 6 years. What students are choosing instead
Nobel Prize–winning economist Simon Johnson said AI has "substantially wiped out" coding as a reliable source of opportunity.
Curing U.S. Health Care, Part I
In 2008, much to their own surprise, leading Democrats unified around a program of major health care reform. Policy wonks had spent years developing the concepts behind what eventually became Obamacare; big Democratic victories in the 2006 midterms and the prospect of controlling both Congress and the presidency made it possible to imagine turning those ideas into reality. During the Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama advocated similar plans, based on those ideas, for expanding insurance coverage. And it happened! The Affordable Care Act was enacted in 2010. When it was fully implemented in 2014, millions of Americans got health insurance: Impressive as the raw numbers are, they don’t tell the whole story. Before the ACA, even upper-middle-class Americans often found it impossible to get health insurance if they had pre-existing medical conditions. Many Americans were trapped in jobs they wanted to leave but couldn’t for fear of losing their employment-based coverage. Meanwhile, dire predictions from the usual suspects about runaway costs proved wrong. In fact, overall U.S. medical spending has grown much more slowly since the ACA was enacted than before. But the U.S., alone among advanced nations, still falls far short of providing universal health care. As you can see from the chart above, 8 percent of the population was still uninsured in 2024, a number that is set to rise over the next two years as a result of Republican policies. True, many of the uninsured in 2024 were undocumented immigrants, who we don’t try to cover. But there are still a lot of uninsured. Moreover, a significant number of Americans who have health insurance are in fact underinsured. As a result, they are at risk of incurring devastating healthcare costs and are sometimes forced to forgo needed care. This number is set to rise sharply in the next two years as a result of Republican policies adopted under Donald Trump. And not only is the U.S. unique among advanced countries in its under-provision of health care coverage, it also incurs by far the world’s highest healthcare costs per capita. So now may well be a good time to get behind a new push for major health reform — an effort, if you like, to finish the job begun under Obama. Today’s primer is devoted to the economics of health reform. During his failed effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act, Donald Trump famously complained, “Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated.” Actually, we did know — and it’s not that complicated. Health economists understand the principles very well. And because health policy varies greatly among advanced nations, we know a lot about what works and what doesn’t. This will be the first in a series about health reform. Beyond the paywall I’ll address the following: 1. Why markets can’t be trusted to deliver healthcare 2. Routes to universal healthcare 3. What works? In a follow-up post I’ll discuss the pros and cons of different approaches, and possible paths forward for the United States.
🚨 XIs confirmed: crisis clash at Stamford Bridge
Stamford Bridge becomes the stage this Saturday (20:00 BST) for a clash between two sides under pressure. Liam Rosenior’s Chelsea are going through a deep crisis after three straight defeats without...
How Trump is pushing psychedelics reform through the health agencies
Trump directed the federal government to rush access to psychedelic treatments and reevaluate their status as controlled substances.
Behavioral Health Urgent Care Set to Open in Robeson County
The facility in Lumberton will be open 24 hours a day to help patients who are experiencing a mental health or substance misuse crisis.
Trump Signs Order To Accelerate Legal Access To Psychedelics For Patients With Mental Health Conditions
President Donald Trump has signed an executive order aimed at expanding and expediting research on the potential therapeutic benefits of psychedelics, a move aimed at making substances such as psilocybin, ibogaine, LSD and MDMA more readily available to patients in clinical settings. The move will “dramatically accelerate access to new medical research and treatments based […]
Is stevia actually healthy? What to know when cutting back on sugar
Is stevia bad for you? A dietitian breaks down what to know about the sugar substitute.
Confirmed team news: Bees unchanged for Fulham clash
Brentford head coach Keith Andrews has named an unchanged starting XI for today’s Premier League clash against Fulham at Gtech Community Stadium (12.30pm kick-off BST, live on TNT Sports).The Bees s...
Antrim need a perfect day to shock Derry
For Antrim to upset the odds at Celtic Park on Saturday [17:00 BST], manager Mark Doran feels "it will take a lot of things to go right for us and a lot to go wrong for Derry".
Woman killed, three injured after disturbance at far North Dallas business, police say
The Business Journal wins Fresno EDC Community Impact Award
The Fresno Business Journal received the Fresno County Economic Development Corp.'s Community Impact Award Thursday evening.
Carrick needs Man Utd form reversal
It has been interesting to observe how Manchester United have been assessed in the wake of Monday's disappointing home defeat by Leeds, and particularly the reaction to Michael Carrick. What had previously been viewed as calmness in the technical area and a sense of stability gained from not making many changes, was suddenly viewed as inaction and questions were raised about why Carrick did not bring on any substitutes. To that end, Manchester United are not doing well.
Politics News Site NOTUS to Become ‘The Star’
The Washington publication is rebranding as it expands its local news and sports coverage in the wake of substantial layoffs at The Washington Post.
Protecting kids from deceptive and unsubstantiated health claims: the FTC’s case against TruHeight
Parents and kids (like all consumers) need clear, truthful information to make informed decisions — especially when those decisions affect their children’s health and physical safety. With that in mind, the FTC is working to protect kids and teens from deceptive health claims. Take the Agency’s recent case: the FTC charged Vanilla Chip LLC, which does business as TruHeight, with using unsubstantiated health claims and fake or incentivized reviews to market its supplements to kids, teenagers, and caregivers.
Data highlights gaps in finding in-network mental health coverage
Americans across 43 states enrolled in health plans from the nation’s four largest commercial health insurers face potential disparities in finding in-network coverage for mental health care and substance use disorder treatment relative to physical health care, according to the Mental Health Parity Index released by the Kennedy Forum.
UNC Hussman offers new sports play-by-play class | UNC Hussman School of Journalism and Media
This story, written by UNC Hussman alumna Caroline Daly ’24, was originally published on unc.edu. The UNC Hussman School of Journalism and Media has a new, hands-on class available for students interested in sports careers. Students in “MEJO 390: Sports Commentary and Play-By-Play” can call live radio broadcasts for Carolina sporting events, streamed live on the Go Heels website. This spring, 11 students are calling mostly softball games to gain experience and learn the preparation needed for a successful broadcast. The class is capped at a small number to provide consistent, individual feedback. Matt Krause, the radio voice of Carolina women’s basketball, teaches the class to help students sharpen their skills, using his experience with the Tar Heels and calling games for ACC Network and ACC Network Extra. “There is no substitute for live reps, and that is the only way you get better. The classroom component teaches you how to get better, but going about that requires sitting in that chair, making mistakes and being able to know your broadcast is going somewhere,” Krause said. “These students are doing real live games, and they will have tape where if they want to pursue this. They will have ready-made demos to send for jobs. Being able to utilize all the resources of UNC, GoHeels Productions and the Carolina Athletics brand and create these opportunities for students is really impactful.” In the class, students learn fundamentals like how to announce starting lineups for different sports and how to conduct research before games. Krause has led the class in mock preparation exercises, looking at game charts with information about the different teams and players that they can refer to at pivotal moments during the game. Krause and the students then critique each other, listening to clips from the past week to find ways to improve. It’s a rare class without a slew of quizzes or assignments. Their main tasks are calling games and making a portfolio or demo reel of their best calls at the end of the semester, all with the goal of being ready to step into similar roles after graduation. Laible live streams her coverage on the GoHeels website. Calling a live game while broadcasting her coverage allows her to get hands on experience. (Jon Gardiner/UNC-Chapel Hill) Junior Anna Laible ’27 wished for a class just like this. Her first year at Carolina, she interned with the Coastal Plain League, where she was introduced to play-by-play for baseball. “I enjoy the challenge and uncertainty of each game being different because each sport looks a little different,” said Laible. “Each game is different — not just with teams but what could happen with certain records being broken or random trends. That’s what I enjoy most.” She wanted more opportunities for reps during college to prepare for a career after Carolina, so she pitched an idea for the class to Livis Freeman ’99, distinguished associate professor of sports communication. Laible and Freeman reached out to GoHeels Productions for a partnership and then connected with Krause. “This is how at UNC Hussman we separate ourselves: Our students go into the field ready,” said Freeman. “The biggest compliment we get it is when our students start their careers, they don’t need any hand-holding.” Laible calls a Carolina softball game at Kessing Stadium – after pitching the idea to Hussman faculty. Her interest in sports commentary allowed her to apply her interest as she attends Carolina. (Jon Gardiner/UNC-Chapel Hill) Laible is now a student in the class, which has helped her strengthen her skills and deepen her passion for the field. The goal is to expand to other sports like soccer, lacrosse and field hockey. “The hands-on experience I’ve gotten here is invaluable. I’ve loved the classes and professors because they’ve taught me a lot, but it’s also the things outside of class, too, that have helped me grow,” said Laible. “Since being at UNC, I’ve grown a lot in the versatility, from doing writing to production and commentating. UNC Hussman and Carolina have given me the ability to be strong and well rounded.”
Enhancing workforce training to prevent substance use disorders
KU researchers have updated training materials that prepare health care providers to prevent, identify and treat substance use disorders across Kansas.
How Dangerous Is Anthropic’s New AI Model? Its Chief Science Officer Explains.
Just how fast is the future coming at us, and how worried should we be? Last week, Anthropic announced Claude Mythos, the latest in what has become the leading family of AI models. In a very short time, AI models from Anthropic and other companies have become shockingly powerful at coding. But Mythos stands out because it is not just able to write code that can hack into critical systems, like those that run financial companies, but also to analyze systems and find and string together vulnerabilities in them, allowing Mythos to evade even sophisticated defenses. Anthropic chose to release Mythos to only about 40 leading corporations, so they could analyze the model’s capabilities and prepare countermeasures, in an effort it calls Project Glasswing. The release of Mythos—and the prospect of similarly powerful AIs to follow—has caused tremors at the top levels of Washington and corporate America. Jared Kaplan, co-founder and chief science officer at Anthropic, is at the center of this breakthrough. We sat down with Kaplan so he could walk us through just how powerful Mythos is, what the implications are for issues like our personal privacy, and what comes next. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. Sean Fischer: For the layman, how is Claude Mythos different—more powerful, more dangerous—from previous models released by Anthropic? Jared Kaplan: I think most people have experienced the fact that our computers get faster and faster over time and over many decades. There’s this very smooth trend where every 18 months, maybe, computer processing power doubles. I think AI is on a trend in which it’s improving maybe 10 times faster than that. A lot of the earliest work that I did in AI was around identifying this scaling trend in AI. Claude Mythos is the latest model from Anthropic, but it’s not different because it’s qualitatively different. It’s really just kind of the culmination of the trend of AI models getting smarter and smarter at all kinds of general capabilities, from reasoning to software engineering to scientific research to knowledge work. For us, it was the first model to demonstrate very elite-level cybersecurity capabilities. It wasn’t because we trained Claude Mythos to focus on cybersecurity, but it was because, as a byproduct of its general intelligence and its general ability with software, it’s particularly good at identifying vulnerabilities in software and how to exploit them.
Webster Groves business waits week for answers after water main break
A heating and air conditioning business is waiting for cleanup and repairs a week after a water main break flooded its basement
Liverpool FC pays tribute on 37th anniversary of Hillsborough tragedy
On the 37th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster, players, staff and club officials of Liverpool Football Club have been at Anfield to lay wreaths and pay tribute to the 97 fans who lost their lives. The club will observe a period of silence at 15:06 BST - the time at which Liverpool's FA Cup semi-final against Nottingham Forest was stopped. After the silence, 97 biodegradable balloons will be released from the centre circle at Anfield.
Future Energy, Renewable Energy, Technology, InCites use case, web of science use case, research analytics
Perovskite solar cells are emerging as a transformative next-generation energy technology driven by rapid efficiency gains and global research competition. Based on a collaborative analysis between Sungkyunkwan University and Clarivate using Web of Science and InCites, this blog explores key research trends, leading countries and scholars, and the future trajectory of perovskite solar cells toward sustainable energy innovation.
Worried about the midterms, Republicans mobilize rural Virginia voters against redistricting
Republican groups are mounting an intensifying, 11th-hour campaign to mobilize rural voters ahead of Virginia’s April 21 referendum to redraw its US House maps. At stake are as many as four US House seats Democrats want to redraw in their favor for the midterms. To maximize Democratic advantage, the map would put wealthy Washington, DC, suburbs in the same districts as farm communities 90 miles away, including in one misshapen district nicknamed the “lobster claw.”
Dr. Laura Riley to Unify Women’s Health Care Across Weill Cornell in New Role
As executive director for women’s health, a role that complements her position leading obstetrics and gynecology, Dr. Riley will unify, coordinate and drive new paradigms for women’s health care across medical specialties.
Arteta on team fitness, 'pure fire' and Sporting
Arsenal boss Mikel Arteta has been speaking to the media before Wednesday's Champions League quarter-final second leg against Sporting at Emirates (kick-off 20:00 BST). Arteta was vague on team news, adding that "a few of the boys" will be assessed Wednesday morning to see if they can play. Declan Rice, who did not train on Tuesday, is one of those but Arteta would not give details on the reason he is sidelined.
Towards better vision: WHO South-East Asia regional meeting on eye health
The WHO South-East Asia Regional Meeting on Eye Health was convened to address the substantial and persistent burden of avoidable vision impairment in the Region. South-East Asia accountsfor nearly one third of the world’s blind and visually impaired population, with cataract, uncorrected refractive error, and diabetic retinopathy contributing to more than 90 percent of cases. The meeting responded to the need for coordinated action to achieve the 2030 global targets for effective cataract surgical coverage and effective refractive error coverage, and to advance implementation of the Regional Action Plan for Integrated People Centred Eye Care. It provided a platform for reviewing progress, identifying system gaps, and strengthening country pathways to accelerate universal access to quality eye care.
Britney Spears enters substance abuse treatment facility weeks after her arrest on suspicion of DUI
Britney Spears has entered a substance abuse treatment facility | News and Talk Radio 840 AM
Britney Spears enters substance abuse treatment facility weeks after her arrest on suspicion of DUI
Britney Spears has entered a substance abuse treatment facility | KCBS All News 106.9FM and 740AM
Britney Spears enters substance abuse treatment facility weeks after her arrest on suspicion of DUI
Britney Spears has entered a substance abuse treatment facility | 1010 WINS
UNM College of Population Health Celebrates 10 Years
Friday, April 17, 2026, The University of New Mexico’s College of Population Health (COPH) will proudly celebrate its 10-year anniversary, marking a decade of measurable impact, substantial growth and future ambition. Founded in 2016, COPH became the...
What Flutter Entertainment (FLUT)'s Board Shuffle, Buybacks and Quiet Dart Stake Mean For Shareholders
In recent days, Flutter Entertainment plc reported that long-serving independent director Alfred F. Hurley, Jr. will retire at the 2026 AGM, with Nancy Dubuc set to assume the role of Chair of the Compensation and Human Resources Committee, while the company continues executing a multi-billion-dollar share repurchase program. At the same time, billionaire investor Kenneth Dart has quietly built substantial economic exposure to Flutter through total return swaps, even as analysts question...
Close of polls nears in Hungary's most crucial election in decades
As record numbers of Hungarians head to the polls, the EU is preparing for two scenarios: continued obstruction under Orbán or a victory for Magyar that could reset relations, though Brussels remains cautious about both.
Scientists Finally Crack the Mystery of Water’s Strangest Behavior After Decades of Research
A hidden transition between two forms of liquid water may explain its most puzzling properties.
Health-Related Quality of Life in Burn Injury Victims Attending a Specialized Institution
Introduction Burn injuries cause long-term physical, psychological, and social consequences that substantially affect health-related quality of life (HRQOL), particularly in LMICs. The eviden...
Bullpen took care of business for the Hens
The Official Site of Minor League Baseball web site includes features, news, rosters, statistics, schedules, teams, live game radio broadcasts, and video clips.
“AI polls” are fake polls
A few weeks after Donald Trump’s second presidential win, I took the train up from London (where I was living at the time) to Oxford to attend a conference on polls and forecasts of the 2024 election. Most of the attendees were pollsters or academics, but I also watched presentations from Aaru and Electric Twin, two companies that do what is interchangeably called synthetic sampling, silicon sampling, or synthetic audiences. Stripped of startup jargon, that means they use large language models (LLMs) to simulate responses to public opinion polls by having AI agents take on the role of survey respondents. I had already heard of Aaru thanks to some articles with eye-catching headlines like “No people, no problem: AI chatbots predict elections better than humans” in the months leading up to Election Day. The founders were making some big, some might even say far-fetched claims, such as: “within two years, we will simulate the entire globe — from the way crops are grown in Ukraine to how that impacts production of oil in Iraq, trade through the strait of Malacca, and elections for the mayor of Baltimore.” When Semafor asked Aaru’s cofounders — Cameron Fink and Ned Koh — about my boss, they said “we respect all those who came before us.” Nate (as he so often does) shared his thoughts on Twitter: Fink and Koh were relatively good-natured about this back-and-forth when we spoke at Oxford. They even offered to mail me one of the t-shirts featuring Nate’s quote they apparently had made. I never took them up on the offer, which I now somewhat regret. These synthetic sampling companies fell off my radar for a while, but they do still exist. In fact, Aaru recently received a $1 billion valuation. Is what they’re doing anywhere close to the most important frontier in AI development? Not by a longshot, especially when Anthropic just developed a model so adept at exploiting software vulnerabilities that it’s only being released to 40 companies. Still, silicon sampling is increasingly finding its way into public polling. Axios reported in March that “a majority of people trust their own doctors and nurses” based on findings from Aaru — without mentioning that the “people” in that sentence were actually LLMs. Around the same time, the Public Sentiment Institute “boosted” their online sample of 373 real survey respondents with 114 AI agents.1 (Spoiler alert: even the co-founder of Electric Twin doesn’t think that’s a particularly defensible approach.) Polling companies like Qualtrics and Ipsos are also developing synthetic data panels. So, what should we make of these … “polls”? Let’s get one thing out of the way: whatever they are, they’re not polls in the way that term is usually defined. Subscribe You can’t replace polls with AI On one hand, using LLMs to essentially make up fake survey respondents sort of sounds like the dumbest idea ever, one that will at best imperfectly replicate real polls while introducing all sorts of biases. On the other hand, with LLMs improving at a remarkable, perhaps even alarming rate, maybe that means I’m a dinosaur at the ripe old age of 24 because I still want to rely on polls that talk to actual people. I’m not going to argue that synthetic samples are completely useless. In fact, as I’ll return to later, there is evidence that some techniques can replicate topline survey results quickly and cheaply. But the marketing from certain companies can be slightly optimistic. “No traditional poll will exist by the time the next general election occurs,” said Fink in 2024. We’re just 206 days away from the midterms, and based on the fact that I still have to collect a bunch of polls every day, I’d say he should have run that prediction by a sample of AI agents before the interview.2 To see why synthetic samples can’t replace polls, here’s a quick primer on how they work. The simplest version of these models involves taking a LLM (like ChatGPT or Claude), giving it a demographic profile (e.g., a white, college-educated woman who lives in Utah and makes $70k a year), and then asking it to respond to a survey question. You repeat that process a few thousand times using different demographic profiles and end up with a sample of synthetic survey responses. The actual models used by private companies are more sophisticated than this, usually because they incorporate more hypothesized demographic characteristics for each agent and provide them with extra information. Aaru, for example, feeds agents a diet of news and information they’d be likely to consume, while Electric Twin incorporates their customers’ proprietary data about the audience they’re trying to replicate. The way Ben Warner, the co-founder of Electric Twin, explained it to me was “we have a large amount of data on […] for instance, 5,000 people. Can we make an accurate prediction of how they would respond to another question?” Still, it should be obvious why synthetic samples can’t replace polls. Polling is fundamentally a data collection process. We might use surveys to make predictions by feeding them into election forecasts, but the main purpose of a poll isn’t prediction, it’s gathering new data about what people think and how they feel. Silicon sampling, on the other hand, produces no new data. It’s simply a model: you input LLM training data, demographic prompts, and a bunch of other information, and it spits out a prediction for what a poll would say. We love models here, but models aren’t polls. That difference is an important philosophical sticking point for most pollsters I talk to. “I think politics should stay away from [synthetic sampling], because we’re trying to […] represent the voice of the people,” said Natalie Jackson, a vice president at GQR Insights. Democratic pollster John Hagner told me: “I think I’m just incredibly skeptical of this idea. I don’t think it’s research. At that point, you’re asking the machine to tell you what you already believe.” Hagner has seen some presentations of early synthetic sampling experiments, but so far, “if it’s being used in a campaign, people are keeping it incredibly quiet.”3 But Eli, I hear you saying, aren’t polls themselves increasingly governed by modeling decisions? Indeed they are: pollsters’ choices on which sampling method to use, how to define their likely voter models, and how to weight their samples can and do lead to dramatic differences in the results they publish. Aaru even referenced these limitations in the methodology statement included with that maternal mortality “poll” — although I’m using the term “methodology statement” loosely here, because it doesn’t really explain how the model works at all. We can ignore the (frankly preposterous) implication that synthetic sampling isn’t subject to a separate set of biases. The important point is that there’s still a meaningful difference between using weighting and other statistical techniques on actual polling data and using a model to predict what a poll would say. The latter is far closer to election forecasts or techniques like MRP — potentially useful models, but not a replacement for polls.4 To be fair, other synthetic sampling companies are perfectly happy with the distinction between polls and models. Warner compared polling and synthetic sampling to different tools in a toolbox. “The mistake I think we make is we think that these new tools should either work in exactly the same way or somehow replace these old tools,” he said. “Rather than thinking of it as, okay, so we’ve always had the hammer, we’ve always had the screwdriver, now we’ve got a saw. But don’t use a saw to try [to] do the job of a hammer.” A quick comment from Nate Eli didn’t ask me for a comment — rather rude of him, don’t you think? But since I’m editing this story, I figured I’d add a few quick thoughts rather than putting words in his mouth. Beyond the frequently misleading marketing, what bothers me about the AI “poll” hype is that as AI tools make statistical inference cheaper and/or better (note that these are not synonyms) that actually increases the comparative value of collecting original data. You might be able to train a model to make a reasonable estimate of what some hard-to-reach poll respondent would say — say, a young Black man who voted for Trump. (Such a person checks a number of boxes for a voter who is usually hard to reach in surveys.) Indeed, this is closely related to what models like the Silver Bulletin forecast already do. They essentially smooth out the kinks in noisy survey data by making inferences based on past voting patterns or national polls or surveys of other states. But you don’t actually know what these voters think unless you’re reaching them directly. If there’s a shift in opinion among this subgroup, you’re not going to detect it. So if I were running a campaign, I’d invest more in going the extra mile to find a representative sample of those voters. And then I’d hire some smart quants — or Claude? — to figure out the implications for campaign strategy based on proprietary data that my competitors didn’t have access to. -Nate Silver Are these models any good? If synthetic surveys are just a new type of model, the next obvious question is whether the models are at least accurate. The answer very much depends on who you ask. On one end of the spectrum, you have the maximalist argument that synthetic sampling is more accurate than actual polls. “It’s an incredibly challenging problem to go to someone and say ‘hey, we’re going to be more accurate at predicting human behavior than you, even when you talk to your customers directly’,” Koh recently told CNBC. In his view, synthetic sampling isn’t a saw to polling’s hammer, it’s “magic.” There’s certainly evidence that synthetic samples can replicate certain survey toplines. But if Aaru does have any examples of their approach outperforming the polls, they’re keeping those to themselves.5 Aaru’s 2024 election model, for example, had Kamala Harris leading in Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin on November 4th. And although they’ve since taken down their forecast page, they gave Harris a 50.5 percent chance of winning the race on November 2nd.6 After the election, Fink told Semafor he was happy enough with those results because they were “within margin of error,” a term that is completely meaningless when applied to a “sample” of AI agents. And of course, Aaru says their models have improved since 2024, so supposedly now they’d be more accurate than the polls? Still, their stronger argument is on cost: “We are significantly faster and cheaper than traditional polling, and still more accurate,” said Fink. The first two claims are undeniably true, but the third brings us to the opposite end of the spectrum. Both Jackson and Hagner are skeptical that these models are reliable for anything beyond replicating common survey toplines. “I just […] don’t think the machines are what we want when we’re looking for nuanced views. My example on this is people in Arizona and Nevada in 2024 who voted for Trump and voted for expanding abortion in their states on ballot initiatives,” said Jackson. Hagner identified another issue. Maybe the synthetic respondents, like sycophantic LLMs, are inhuman in one important way: they’re too nice. “The reports that have come through at the meetings that I’ve been at are that the early experiments on this, they cannot get respondents to be as racist or sexist or, frankly, as negative as human respondents,” he said. Academic research mostly agrees on this point. While there are some papers that show promising results when using LLMs to replicate polling data, most show that LLMs suffer from various quirks like producing too few “don’t know” responses and can seriously overpredict the favorability of politicians like Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. They also seem to struggle with too little variation between demographic subgroups, so the difference in predicted opinion between Democrats and Republicans, for example, is too small. When I asked Warner about these studies, his response to these papers was that just because academics can’t get synthetic sampling to work doesn’t mean that the technique doesn’t work in general. “Actually, the argument is, okay, yours does not [work]. That does not mean […] for this complex set of machinery, which uses a lot of investment, a lot of time, a lot of money, you can’t get it to work.” Cards on the table, I’m somewhat sympathetic to this argument because academics aren’t exactly great at making election forecasts. Usually, the people with skin in the game are the most accurate. Warner’s argument is that the approach Electric Twin takes — which includes, for example, making multiple predictions for each synthetic respondent using different models and prompts and subsequently averaging those to get a final prediction in a sort of ensemble forecast — produces better results than the simpler academic models. Warner shared a comparison between his method and the method from a recent academic paper with me, and Electric Twin was indeed able to get more accurate replication. But even still, he acknowledged that synthetic sampling “is not a crystal ball.” “If you asked me, do I think using other data sources will be more accurate than asking somebody who they will vote for, I would probably say no. But if you asked me ‘would your system be useful for our turnout modeling today?’ I would say yes.” For better or worse, it looks like the method is already getting more popular in the market research world. Most of the clients Aaru touts these days are businesses like EY and McDonald’s. And AI will probably begin to pop up in other parts of the political polling process. Pollsters are already using it to code open-ended survey responses, and some firms, like YouGov, are testing using LLMs to ask survey respondents questions. More worryingly, one danger to actual polls is that AI agents can be used to infiltrate online surveys. Most online polls use various checks to prevent that from happening, but there’s conflicting evidence on how effective those filters are and how prevalent AI agents currently are in online panels. If those agents ever become impossible to detect, it might spell the end of online polling, but the solution isn’t to replace all of your respondents with ChatGPT. Silver Bulletin is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a subscriber. Subscribe 1 That particular poll obviously doesn’t meet Silver Bulletin standards for aggregation. But we exclude all Public Sentiment Institute polls from our averages because we classify them as an amateur polling firm. 2 You could argue that Fink meant the next presidential election, but (a) I’m also confident we’ll still have real polls in 2028 and (b) in that case he should have asked an LLM to define “general election.” 3 Quick caveat: that’s reporting from a Democratic pollster. It’s possible that Republicans are more willing to use AI in political campaigns. 4 Indeed, Silver Bulletin does not include “polls” produced by MRP in our forecasts or averages, and we think it’s extremely misleading when their practitioners describe them in a way that suggests original data had been collected among a large number of states or Congressional districts. 5 A recent report from Aaru and EY did show two examples of a synthetic estimate being closer than a survey to a real-world benchmark — but I’d take those findings with a grain of salt because the report reads more like an ad and didn’t involve any sort of prediction being made ahead of time. 6 For comparison, our odds for Harris on the same day were 48.2 percent.
Memorial Hermann and BCBSTX reach a new deal, restoring in-network coverage, hospital says
The Houston-based health system and the insurance giant had previously let an April 1 deadline pass without a new agreement, meaning many patients across the region were forced to pay higher medical costs or find new doctors.
New metal with triple copper’s heat conduction challenges fundamental physics
With performance three times better than copper’s, this new material could substantially improve heat management of electronics, data centers and energy systems
In praise of popular science
As a kid, I was enthusiastically and unreservedly in favor of a manned space program. Our destiny lay in the stars, I figured. Get people out there. We need Star Trek here and now. As I got older, I became rather disenchanted with the idea. Humans are expensive, fragile, and inefficient as space cargo. We could flood the solar system with 100 robotic probes for the price of any single manned mission and get back just as useful data. Besides, it turns out space travel is dangerous. Tusk is a reader-supported publication. To support this work, please become a paid subscriber. Subscribe When it came to the recent Artemis II mission, my cynical side didn’t really see the point. Flying around the Moon and back is literally something we did before I was born, and I once owned a Members Only jacket. Apollo 8 circled the Moon ten times and returned to Earth safely the same month that “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang” was released. What was the point of repeating a feat that far braver people once did with tin foil and slide rules? Yet I’ve surprised myself with how moving I’ve found the Artemis II mission to be. The photos have been stunning. The crew has been professional and engaging. There have been modest but important milestones — the farthest humans have travelled from Earth; the first woman, person of color, and non-American to leave low-Earth orbit; innovations in communication, and more. One thing that really stood out is that this is really NASA at its finest. Not that this is the most important mission they ever pulled off, but they did this in a competent way that celebrated the achievements and kept the crew and the science at the forefront of the project. This wasn’t some billionaire throwing celebrities or cars into orbit as a vanity project — this was a collective effort to send experts in to do a job and come home safely. We don’t see that sort of thing much these days. I’m guessing few people would describe many government agencies as inspiring, but this one counts for me. We’re living through a profoundly anti-science era, in which pathbreaking, lifesaving discoveries like mRNA vaccines are routinely downplayed or even vilified. As I’ve noted previously, this era is something like that of the Red Scare in the 1940s and 50s, in which “egghead” professors were portrayed as out of touch or even hostile to regular Americans. One of the things that helped break that spell was Sputnik — the Soviet communications satellite that demonstrated that the United States was falling behind in crucial scientific research and applications. Its launch triggered a new appreciation for American science and goaded the federal government into supporting research universities and labs. I’m not saying that Artemis is the equivalent of Sputnik, but it potentially reminds people that there’s some value to scientific endeavors and the human faces attached to them. Despite my love for the show “For All Mankind,” I’m far from convinced that there’s any real value to putting colonies on the Moon or Mars that would justify the capital investment and the massive health risks to the astronauts. But sending scientific good will ambassadors on a trip into space once in a while? Bring it. Share
New Research Shows Many Social-Science Papers Lean Left. Does That Mean Bias?
A study used AI to analyze hundreds of thousands of abstracts published over the past 64 years.
Broncos ownership group joins Rockies as minority partners
DENVER -- Penner Sports Group, the family entity of Greg and Carrie Penner that owns the Denver Broncos, has made an investment that will make it the largest minority owner of the Rockies franchise. The move, approved by Major League Baseball, was announced by Rockies owner, chairman and CEO Dick
King County’s mental health expansion 'moving way too slowly,' Zahilay says
We sat down with King County Executive Girmay Zahilay to discuss his vision for mental health and substance use care amid shaky federal and state funding.
Goodwill closes behavioral health services program in Grand Island
Goodwill is shutting down behavioral health programs in Grand Island, which served those struggling with developmental disabilities, brain injuries, mental health, substance use and more.
Apple’s AirPods Max 2 Aren’t a Worthy Sequel to the Original
Apple Inc.’s AirPods Max 2 — the first substantial update to the company’s $549 headphones — don’t represent an upgrade-worthy sequel but should intrigue customers looking to buy the brand’s over-ear offering for the first time.
Chris Collins puts more than $900K toward CD 19 campaign
The former New York Congressman put substantial skin the game.
Obstructive Sleep Apnea’s Effects on Lung Health
In this video, sleep specialist and Pulmonology Today board member Anne Marie Morse, DO, discusses how obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) affects lung health.
Southeast Asia’s business leaders want wellness at work—as long as the programs get real results
Successful wellness benefits should avoid portraying the worker as the problem.
JD Vance's mom to speak at county GOP fundraiser
Beverly Aikins has become a public speaker since her son took office, often sharing her story about recovering from substance use.
Viewpoint: FP10 should remain open, excellent and secure
Europe is right to worry about research security. Foreign interference is real. So is the misuse of sensitive knowledge. Universities working in sensitive areas such as AI, quantum, semiconductors and advanced materials cannot afford to ignore the geopolitical environment around them.But Europe is in danger of drawing the wrong conclusion, one that would increase, not reduce, its strategic vulnerabilities.If the EU applies an “EU preference” logic to the next Framework Programme for research and innovation (FP10), it will weaken one of its greatest strategic assets: a research system built on openness, excellence and international collaboration. In the name of security, Europe could end up advancing science more slowly, innovating less effectively and making itself less attractive to global talent and partners in advanced science and technology.That would be a serious mistake.The EU preference included in Article 10 of the proposed European Competitiveness Fund may make sense in some industrial or deployment contexts, but is far harder to justify when applied to collaborative research in advanced science and technology, where excellence and global connectivity are crucial. Research is not procurement. It does not thrive when isolated. It advances through access to the best ideas, the best people, the best facilities and the best data, wherever they are found. This is why FP10 should not simply absorb industrial policy logic by default. Doing so would risk importing instruments that are ill-suited to research and that ultimately increase vulnerability rather than resilience.For universities of science and technology, the issue is especially acute. These institutions sit at the frontier of knowledge and technology creation in the very fields Europe sees as critical for its future competitiveness and resilience. They know better than most that security risks are real. But they also know that openness and security are not opposites. In practice, they have to be made to work together. Research security is not about closing doors. It is about building resilience through collective responsibility, trust, proportionate safeguards and better governance. That is a fundamentally different approach from default restriction.The risks of non-collaborationThe real danger in the current debate is that Europe talks too much about the risks of collaboration and not enough about the risks of non-collaboration. Those risks are strategic too. Cut researchers off from international networks and Europe loses access to knowledge, data, infrastructures and talent. Slow down global collaboration in critical technologies and Europe slows down its own progress on cutting-edge science. Make participation rules unpredictable and Europe weakens its attractiveness to researchers and investors alike.In other words, over-restricting collaboration will create strategic vulnerabilities, particularly in advanced science and technologies.This point is often underestimated in policy discussions that frame openness mainly as a value to be defended. Europe’s scientific strength, technological development and long-term competitiveness depend on remaining connected to the best research ecosystems in the world. For a continent that wants to accelerate deep tech, strengthen industrial capacity and reduce strategic dependencies, weakening the excellence base would be self-defeating. That does not mean ignoring risk. Quite the opposite. Universities are already strengthening due diligence, internal governance, awareness-raising, screening procedures and compliance support. Across Europe, institutions are working to manage risks linked to foreign interference, sanctions, export controls and the misuse of research. The right response is not complacency. It is better risk management. But that means targeted, evidence-based and proportionate measures, not blunt top-down restrictions with wide spillover effects. In the daily reality of universities, openness and restriction often coexist. The real challenge is how to apply safeguards without sliding into securitisation that damages academic freedom, open science and international cooperation. Restrict partners, not nationsMore restrictive treatment of collaborators from European Economic Area members Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, or from Switzerland and the UK, is strategically very difficult to justify. These are deeply embedded partners in Europe’s research and innovation ecosystem. Beyond that, Europe should still resist default exclusion and instead rely on case-by-case assessment. The relevant question is not nationality in the abstract. It is the actual risk profile of a collaboration: the institution, the affiliations, the field, the knowledge involved, the intended use and the safeguards available. Screening should focus on institutions and affiliations rather than nationality alone. Related articlesParliament ‘misreads’ link between Horizon Europe and ECF, Commission official saysFrustration grows at governance gap in next Horizon EuropeIf EU preference logic is imported into research without careful calibration, the likely result is a chilling effect. Researchers may step back from legitimate and beneficial collaboration, even where risks are manageable. International partners may see Europe as less predictable. And Europe may end up undermining the very excellence base it needs to compete, scale up and lead in strategic technologies, thereby increasing its dependence on others.FP10 should do the opposite. It should remain open by default, with restrictions used only exceptionally, and then on the basis of clear evidence. It should integrate research security into open science and research integrity frameworks, not set them against each other. And it should recognise that academic freedom, scientific excellence and responsible international collaboration are not obstacles to Europe’s security, they are part of it. Europe needs stronger tools to protect itself. But it also needs the discipline to avoid measures that would weaken it and increase its strategic vulnerabilities in the process. In FP10, that means staying open, excellent and secure.Louise Drogoul is senior advisor for innovation and sustainability at the Cesaer university association.
This public health week, the US is squandering health and wealth
The human costs of underfunding public health are not abstractions.
MAGA Is Winning Its War Against U.S. Science
Source: NBER With all the other terrible news right now, you may not have noticed that Donald Trump is in the process of killing American science. OK, that’s an exaggeration — but not that much of an exaggeration. The Trump administration’s latest budget proposal calls for a gigantic increase in military spending combined with severe cuts to social programs. But as the chart above shows, it also calls for debilitating reductions in research funding. Furthermore, Trump appointees have already been strangling science by sharply reducing the rate at which research grants are approved. Here, for example, is the number of new grants approved by the National Science Foundation: Source: Nature Large numbers of existing grants have also been frozen or terminated, especially in the study of infectious diseases. Add to this a sharp drop in visas issued to foreign students, who often play a direct role in research and who help support academic departments that do research: Put all of this together, and much U.S. scientific research is set to come to a screeching halt — not a few years from now, but over the course of the next year or two. This new assault on U.S. science is taking place at a time when the role of American science in the world has already been greatly eroded. The chart below, based on research recently reported by the National Bureau of Economic Research, measures national strength in science by the share of publications in highly ranked journals. In the 1990s the United States had more such publications than the rest of the world combined. Since then we’ve dropped into third place — well behind China and slightly below the European Union. And this was before the Trump administration’s attack on science had time to take its full effect. Source Some erosion in U.S. scientific preeminence was inevitable given China’s growing sophistication and wealth. But we’ve also fallen behind Europe, even though everyone says that Europe is lagging economically and technologically. Claims about Europe’s underperformance are, in fact, dubious if one looks hard at the data. But it’s still striking to see America lagging. What’s going on? There are presumably multiple factors behind America’s scientific lag. But even before Trump II the growing hostility of the U.S. right to science surely had some negative effect. And since the rise of MAGA G.O.P. attitudes toward science in general have become overwhelmingly hostile. This is true even for the Republican rank and file: And while I haven’t been able to find good survey data, it’s obvious that the anti-science turn has been even more pronounced — and began earlier — among the Republican political elite. Chris Mooney published The Republican War on Science in 2005, and even then was describing a longstanding trend. Why have Republicans turned so anti-science? Part of the answer is that they believe that scientists don’t support them. And they’re right! A study of who scientists give money to shows that only a small percentage gave money to Republicans even 20 years ago, and that almost none of them donate to Republicans now: Social scientists have always been strongly pro-Democratic, while there used to be a significant number of physical, “hard” scientists supporting the GOP. But these days physicists are almost as uniformly Democratic, or at least non-Republican, as sociologists. Why are there almost no Republican scientists? It’s not a mystery. GOP political orthodoxy includes positions that are at odds with the scientific consensus on multiple issues, ranging from the validity of the theory of evolution, to the reality of climate change, to the efficacy and safety of vaccines. In each case the scientific consensus is solidly grounded in evidence. But even before the rise of MAGA the U.S. right was increasingly hostile to evidence-based policymaking — especially, of course, where the evidence is unfavorable to fossil fuel interests or quack medicine, both financial mainstays of right-wing politics. So scientists don’t support Republicans, and the feeling is mutual. Today’s Republican Party doesn’t like science or scientists. It doesn’t like having its preconceived views challenged by appeals to evidence. It knows that very few scientists are on its side electorally. In general, it sees scientific research as a threat to its grasp on political power. Add in MAGA’s combination of rabid anti-intellectualism and allergy to any hint of criticism, and one has the makings of a drastic anti-science turn in policy. “Ignorance is strength” might was well be an official MAGA motto. And as I said, we aren’t talking about something that will happen over the course of multiple years: The U.S. scientific enterprise is threatened with severe damage, even collapse, over just the next year. There are many reasons to find this prospect horrifying: Think of all the beneficial advances, affecting almost every part of life, that won’t happen because U.S. science — still crucial to the world — has been eviscerated. But think, also, of America’s international standing. Can a nation that has forfeited its role as a leader, or even a contender, in global science, still be a Great Power? No. MUSICAL CODA
Arteta on key fitness news, doubters and hunger
Arsenal boss Mikel Arteta has been speaking to the media before Tuesday's Champions League game against Sporting CP at Estadio Jose Alvalade (kick-off 20:00 BST). On the latest team news, Arteta confirmed defender Gabriel is fit after coming off with a knock in the defeat to Southampton in the FA Cup.
On plant health and embracing new plant-breeding techniques in South Africa
The major challenge currently confronting South Africa’s agriculture is the spread of foot-and-mouth disease. For many farmers across the country, the most urgent tasks are both securing sufficient vaccines and rolling them out quickly in the coming months, particularly as the beef and dairy industries continue to suffer big losses. There is also pressure on sheep, goats, and other livestock to prevent the disease from spreading. As efforts to get the country through this monumental challenge continue, I believe it is important to sharpen our focus on the broader task at hand: strengthening biosecurity. This covers both animal and plant health. In recent years, we haven’t focused much on plant health, except a few times, such as when we had a goss’s wilt scare in the maize industry, a few cases of citrus black spot, or cases of sclerotinia in sunflower seeds. But the fact that South Africa managed to control the outbreaks of these particular diseases when they occurred a few years ago was due to organized agricultural and government scientific capabilities, and, most importantly, the availability of crop protection or agrochemicals necessary to address some of them. Therefore, as the animal health division in the Department of Agriculture focuses on the pressing challenge of the day, the foot-and-mouth disease, there is an opportunity for the plant health division to assess if they have all the requirements to tackle any outbreak that may occur on fruits, vegetables or crops in future. The challenge with crop diseases is that they can spread quickly and cause much more rapid damage in the field than we typically see with livestock. Therefore, speed is everything in ensuring the appropriate controls are available. I raise this as an important area, particularly given the drastic climate variation we observe across the country. The production conditions in some areas have changed noticeably over time, which may introduce new risks. The other essential part is ensuring that South Africa has access to the best crop protection technology available in the market. Many technology developers worldwide have operations in South Africa. Therefore, the Department of Agriculture, along with the Agricultural Research Council, must continuously interact with technology developers to assess the various crop protection technologies they are releasing globally and determine their suitability and need in South Africa. This will require a proactive approach from the government, unlike the current approach, in which technology developers typically approach regulators with new technologies. The government, recognising the food security risks, must take a proactive approach to ensure that South African farmers have access to the latest crop protection technologies, thereby safeguarding the country’s food security. Beyond crop protection, we must never forget that South Africa’s agriculture is key to ensuring that the country is the most food-secure country at the national level in sub-Saharan Africa. South Africa is also the only African country in the top-40 global agricultural exporters, having more than doubled since 1994 on the back of the adoption of high-yielding seed cultivars. South Africa has been the only African country to adopt a bold approach to embracing science and adopting genetically engineered seeds for grains and oilseeds in the early 2000s. Since then, we have seen crop yields improve noticeably, contributing to the gains we mentioned above. But ensuring that South Africa improves further is not a given. The key lies in South African regulators’ attitudes towards new technologies. We have to maintain a progressive approach and not give in to the politics of non-food and non-scientific voices that shout on the sidelines. Food security is national security, and the government must ensure we progress, leaning on science. Therefore, the registration of high-yielding new genomic techniques is required. South Africa cannot afford to fall behind the EU, the USA, South America, and many of its competitors in global agriculture. The Department of Agriculture’s crop science division must adopt a progress-and-science-embracing approach for the good of the country. Thanks for reading AgriView! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Subscribe Share
Schematic Diagram of Semiartificial Photosynthesis
A semiartificial photosynthesis system composed of photocatalysts (purple), electron mediators (red), and biocatalysts (green) works together to convert carbon dioxide into useful substances using sunlight.
With eye on long-term health, D-backs tab Kelly for 2nd rehab start
PHOENIX -- It’s not a setback, but Merrill Kelly's 2026 season debut for the D-backs has once again been pushed back. After being announced as the club’s Opening Day starter on Feb. 14 before having the proverbial rug pulled from out under him due to intercostal nerve irritation a week
Kavita Fischer: I lost $400,000 betting on sports
I lost more than $400,000 gambling. I’m also a psychiatrist who works with individuals struggling with substance use and behavioral That combination...
These Nintendo games didn't get DLC, but could have
We take a look at four big Nintendo games that could have received substantial DLC, but never did, and what could have been added.
Preparing the Next Generation of Alcohol and Drug Counselors
UNO’s Clinical Mental Health Counseling program is expanding its reach and impact by offering students a pathway to dual licensure in both mental health and substance use counseling. In just two additional courses beyond their required coursework, students can become eligible for Nebraska’s Provisional Licensed Alcohol and Drug Counselor (PLADC) credential.
Album Review: 6WA by BigXthaPlug & 600 Entertainment
BigXthaPlug spent eight months in Nashville making a country-rap album that debuted at No. 7 on the Billboard 200, put “All the Way” with Bailey Zimmerman at No. 4 on the Hot 100, got him a Rolling Stone cover, and filled arenas with Jelly Roll. And then he came back to Dallas, rounded up four of his signees, and made a gangsta-rap record with N.W.A’s Straight Outta Compton on the cover. 6WA is the second group release from 600 Entertainment, named after the 600 block of Meadowridge Street in Ferris, Texas, where BigX and his people grew up. The whole thing is loaded with West Coast samples. From N.W.A.’s “8Ball,” Eazy-E’s “Real Muthaphuckkin G’s” and “Boyz-N-The-Hood,” Ice-T’s “6 in the Mornin’,” Snoop Dogg’s “Nuthin’ but a ‘G’ Thang” and more. BigX is staking his name on the lineup he built—Rosama, MurdaGang PB, Yung Hood, KevanGotBandz, KaineMusic—and claiming a lineage from 1,400 miles away while insisting Dallas is its own thing. A million dollars in cash, split and handed straight to his mother. That’s the first place BigX goes on “From the Bottom.” He’d probably still be in the streets if he didn’t have his son and daughter. He only started rapping to make life better for Carter. Couldn’t start his car back then, now people get starstruck at Starbucks, and he throws the whole field away in one sentence: “How you think we competin’? You on the same bag, I just made me some millions off country.” Goyard bags off a Nashville payday, and he wants you to know exactly how far he’s come from everybody else. “Safe to Say” does something similar but looser. It’s a straight Ice Cube “It Was a Good Day” flip, and BigX nails it. Wakes up, checks both phones, nobody’s locked up, kid accounts look good. Gets pulled over, only catches a warning. Pulls up on the squad to liquor, ladies, and haze. Rosama takes the second verse and matches him. Wakes up to his girl cleaning his cuticles, twins playing peekaboo, pays off his car, calls a cousin, sees the opps and they don’t trip. Lawyer calls, he beat his case. Rosama is the strongest voice in the 600 camp after BigX, and “Life of a Gangster” is why. Third person, riding low, blacked-out windows, snub-nose revolver. A character who chose sticking people up over selling dope. “Quick eraser like a number-two pencil.” He never breaks character, and his delivery drops lower and slower than anything he does on the group cuts, like he’s telling you something at a cookout that he probably shouldn’t. Then on “Long Live Fre$h” he’s a completely different rapper. “Short-bus diamonds, these bitches retarded,” wide-body Durango he can’t even park. That kind of range matters on a group record. MurdaGang PB’s best verse is on the title track. Feds at his door at 6 AM, cameras busted, flushing dope, ram truck putting everybody on the floor. Yung Hood on “The Hottest” just lays out four reasons to keep hustling. Who wants to be broke, women cost money, you need bail, and home has to be straight. It’s funnier and more honest than most rappers get when they’re trying to explain why they sell drugs. KevanGotBandz on “Ain’t Never Slowin’ Down” talks about his father getting caught on the dope while he’s sitting on $300K somewhere in the hills, which is a specific kind of guilt that doesn’t usually make it onto crew tapes. KaineMusic, the newest signee, takes the back half of “Who Dunnit” and introduces herself in third person—“Took flight just to show these hoes how to perform”—but it’s too short to know if she can hold a full song. The flex tracks fill the middle of the LP and mostly run together. “I Go” is Rosama and PB trading brands, guns, and food punchlines. Rosama’s “anemic, my iron tucked low in this shirt” is a slick gun bar, PB fires back with “.223 with a clip ‘bout as big as a toddler” and “I go Burger King, stay with that whopper.” Quick, funny sometimes, but it’s all shopping lists. “Dopeman” is a chant. “6ixer Party” brings Snoop Dogg, who does exactly what you’d expect Snoop Dogg to do. BigX contributes the night’s wildest overshare: “She say she brought a friend too, well, I’m tryna put sausage on her dental.” These songs move fast and don’t overstay, but three or four of them could trade verses and nobody would catch it. Midway through, The D.O.C. shows up for a spoken-word interlude. Tracy Curry. West Dallas native, former N.W.A affiliate, co-writer on a lot of the records getting sampled on this very album. He thanks BigX for the tribute and then gets direct: “This your time, this DFW time. You need to do it like we do it down here.” Leave bread crumbs so everybody behind you can eat. Keep God in your life. It’s fatherly and generous, and it does raise the question of whether 6WA follows that advice. The album borrows heavy. The cover art, the Eazy-E samples, “Amerikkka’s Most Wanted” opening with a direct “Boyz-N-The-Hood” lift, Yung Hood rapping “Flag on my left side, Crip until I die.” But the stuff that actually stays with you is Dallas. BigX talking about Pleasant Grove, Rosama calling himself a country boy, PB recounting a raid that could’ve been last Tuesday. The record smells most like itself when it smells like Ferris, Texas, and least like Compton. BigX on “The Hottest” says his father was the first person he knew who had chickens. Not the way rappers usually wave at the drug trade. He means his actual father, his actual family. On “600 Degrees,” Rosama compares his chopper’s stutter to a speech disorder, PB claims he still has the block on his back even after leaving the city. BigX closes that one saying he used to spin and smack, and now the plaques are platinum. Thirty-two minutes was right for this. Nobody overstays, Tony Coles and Rance and Charley Cooks keep the production punchy, and BigX gives his signees real room instead of crowding every song. 6WA doesn’t reinvent anything. Five rappers, good beats, short clock. Most of what they say you’ve heard before. Some of it—the million to his mother, the cuticles and peekaboo, the four reasons to hustle—you won’t forget. Solid (★★★½☆) Favorite Track(s): “Safe to Say,” “From the Bottom,” “The Hottest” Subscribe
Gemma 4 and what makes an open model succeed
Having written a lot of model release blog posts, there’s something much harder about reviewing open models when they drop relative to closed models, especially in 2026. In recent years, there were so few open models, so when Llama 3 was released most people were still doing research on Llama 2 and super happy to get an update. When Qwen 3 was released, the Llama 4 fiasco had just gone down, and a whole research community was emerging to study RL on Qwen 2.5 — it was a no brainer to upgrade. Today, when an open model releases, it’s competing with Qwen 3.5, Kimi K2.5, GLM 5, MiniMax M2.5, GPT-OSS, Arcee Large, Nemotron 3, Olmo 3, and others. The space is populated, but still feels full of hidden opportunity. The potential of open models feels like a dark matter, a potential we know is huge, but few clear recipes and examples for how to unlock it are out there. Agentic AI, OpenClaw, and everything brewing in that space is going to spur mass experimentation in open models to complement the likes of Claude and Codex, not replace them. Especially with open models, the benchmarks at release are an extremely incomplete story. In some ways this is exciting, as new open models have a much higher variance and ability to surprise, but it also points at some structural reasons that make building businesses and great AI experiences around open models harder than the closed alternatives. When a new Claude Opus or GPT drops, spending a few hours with them in my agentic workflows is genuinely a good vibe test. For open models, putting them through this test is a category error. Something else to be said about open models in the era of agents is that they get out of the debate of integration, harnesses, and tools and let us see close to the ground on what exactly is the ability of just a model. Of course, we can’t test some things like search abilities without some tool, but being able to measure exactly the pace of progress of the model alone is a welcome simplification to a systematically opaque AI space. Share The list of factors I’d use to assess a new open-weight model I’m considering investing in includes: Model performance (and size) — how this model performs on benchmarks I care about and how it compares to other models of a similar size. Country of origin — some businesses care deeply about provenance, and if a model was built in China or not. Model license — if a model needs legal approval for use, uptake will be slower at mid-sized and large companies. Tooling at release — many models release with half-broken, or at least substantially slower, implementations in popular software like vLLM, Transformers, SGLANG, etc due to pushing the envelope of architectures or tools. Model fine-tunability — how easy or hard it is to modify the given model to your use-case when you actually try and use it. The core problem is that some of these are immediately available at release, e.g. general performance, license, origin, etc. but others such as tooling take day(s) to week(s) to stabilize, and others are open research questions — with no group systematically monitoring fine-tunability. In the early era of open models, the days of Llama 2 or 3 and Qwen pre v3.5, the architectures were fairly simple and the models tended to work out of the box. Some of this was due to the extremely hard work of the Llama, Qwen, Mistral, etc. developer teams. Some is due to the new models being genuinely harder to work with. When it comes to something like Qwen 3.5 or Nemotron 3, with hybrid models (either gated delta net or mamba layers), the tooling is very rough at release. Things you would expect to “just work” often don’t. I’ve been following this area closely since we released Olmo Hybrid with a similar architecture, and Qwen 3.5 is just starting to work well in the various open-source tools that need to all play nice together for RL research. That’s 1.5 months after the release date! This is just to start really investing more into understanding the behavior of the models. Of course, others started working on these models sooner by investing more engineering resources or relying on partially closed software. The fully open and distributed ecosystem takes a long time to get going on some new models. All of this is lead-in for the most important question for open models — how easy is it to adapt to specific use-cases? This is a different problem for different model sizes. Large MoE open-weight models may be used by entities like Cursor who need complex capabilities in their domain, e.g. Composer 2 trained on Kimi K2.5. Other applications can be built on much smaller models, such as Chroma’s Context-1 model for agentic search, built on GPT-OSS 20B. The question of “which models are fine-tunable” is largely background knowledge known by engineers across the industry. There should be a thriving research area here to support the open ecosystem model. The first step is to understand characteristics of different base and post-trained models to understand what they look like. The second step is to tune pretraining recipes for open models so they’re more flexible. Interconnects AI is a reader-supported publication. Consider becoming a subscriber. Subscribe For The ATOM Project and other Interconnects endeavors, we’ve put in substantial effort to measuring adoption trends in the open ecosystem. Everything takes a long time to unfold after a model is first publicly available — and adaptability is why. What we know for sure now, when Qwen has been going from strength to strength with its releases, is that technical staff across the industry has gotten comfortable working with Qwen models. Countless research methods and datasets were made to work with Qwen. It’ll take patience for any other model family to get to this point — a patience I’m not sure many open model builders have. This takes us to Gemma 4, Google’s latest open models. Gemma 3 was released more than a year ago, in March of 2025, and is a bit underrated. Gemma 4 comes in 4 sizes for now, with a bigger, MoE model of over 100B total parameters rumored but not released yet. The models we have today come in sizes of ~5B dense, 8B dense, 26B total 4B active MoE, and 31B dense. I’m most excited that they’re finally adopting a standard Apache 2.0 open source license. This’ll massively boost adoption. The standard of better licenses for strong open-weight LLMs was set by mostly Chinese open model labs in the last 1-2 years, and now U.S. companies are following suit. I will personally be so happy if the horrible Llama licenses and Gemma terms of service were an ~18-month transient dynamic of the industry being nervous about releasing strong open models. The Gemma 4 scores look very solid, the small models have incredible benchmark scores (especially in general domains like LMArena) and the 31B model rivals the recent Qwen 3.5 27B, which is the leading member of that class. The ~30B size range is an important one, as it’s accessible both to researchers and to enterprises looking to deploy the model in real use-cases. Where the 7B model scale is the default for tinkering and research, a 30B model is the default for seeing if an open model can unlock substantial value in your specific workflow — a good mix of intelligence, low price, tractability for downstream training, etc. This takes us back to the above adoption criteria I mentioned for open models and the bigger question — do I think Gemma 4 will be an overwhelming success? Previous Gemma models have been plagued by tooling issues and poorer performance when being finetuned. Gemma 4’s success is going to be entirely determined by ease of use, to a point where a 5-10% swing on benchmarks wouldn’t matter at all. It’s strong enough, small enough, with the right license, and from the U.S., so many companies are going to slot it in. I’m cautiously optimistic that Gemma 4 is going to work better here. Winds are shifting for open models built in America. We saw GPT-OSS go through a bumpy launch to become an overwhelming success. There’s a collective energy around the likes of Reflection, Arcee, Nemotron, Gemma, Olmo, and peers that show substantial demand for building new stacks around open models. There’s capital to be spent on AI stacks across the economy by those who want more ownership of everything, including the model. After launching The ATOM Project 240 days ago, the conversation is shifting into the next stage. Summer of 2025 was a crisis moment where the U.S. AI scene realized it can’t wait and figure out open models after building AGI. The two markets will capture different areas and proceed in parallel. Now that more companies in the U.S. are releasing strong models, we need to improve the ecosystem so that these models are easy to use, understand, and build value around. It’s the hard work to build another inflection point in these adoption plots I’ve been updating consistently, but that’s the work to be done. Join me in it. More data coming soon! Here’s a sneak peek:
We all need to become better science storytellers. Here’s why and how.
Last week, in a lovely New Haven bar, six people gathered in front of a crowd to tell stories that were somehow related to science and public health. It was magical. One person talked about learning how social determinants of health helped them forgive their mother’s alcoholism. Another shared what it’s been like navigating a dementia diagnosis. Another described their last dinner with their mother before they left Nigeria to come to the U.S. and how that moment, plus the diagnosis that followed, shapes their career goals today. As the Executive Director of The Evidence Collective at Your Local Epidemiologist, I was ecstatic to bring this event, “Science and Storytelling,” to the community surrounding the Yale School of Public Health. Stories are not the default way most people communicate about science and public health. In fact, we are taught to take all the emotion out of data, but that makes it pretty darn boring to everyone else. And if people can’t see themselves in it, feel themselves in it, or influence it, how can we ask them to support it? Why do stories stick? How can we all—from community members to public health scientists—do better? And what are some examples?
Guardianship is not a homelessness policy
By Amelia McKeon The federal government’s proposal to expand guardianship for homeless veterans is being framed as compassionate. It is anything but. It is a dangerous shift toward using one of the most restrictive legal tools we have as a substitute for real solutions — and it risks turning guardianship into a mechanism for forced […]
Materials Science and Engineering Weekly Seminar with Dr. Mathias Kläui
Combining The Best Of All Worlds: Altermagnets – A New Class Of MagnetsAbstract While known for a long time, antiferromagnetically ordered systems have previously been considered as “interesting but useless”.
Politics Chat, April 2, 2026
A newsletter about the history behind today's politics.
Sharing her passion for science
By Danielle Rush Communications Specialist, Indiana University Kokomo Hisako Masuda, Indiana University Kokomo professor of biochemistry, was honored by the Indiana Academy of Science (IAS) as its 2026 Distinguished Scholar. The award is given to an individual who is recognized by the IAS as having an exceptional record of scholarship. Recipients are selected from nominations submitted to its awards committee. “I was surprised,” said Masuda, who joined IU Kokomo’s faculty in 2013. “I feel there are many good scientists in the Academy, so I wasn’t expecting it at all.” Patrick Motl, dean of the School of Sciences, said the Academy recognizes up to one member per year, and that Masuda is the second or third IU Kokomo faculty member to receive the commendation. “Clearly this speaks to the strength of Dr. Masuda’s accomplishments in research and scholarship and that her work stands out amongst her peers in Indiana,” said Motl, who received the award in 2019. “Many of the institutions that participate in the IAS are undergraduate institutions or primarily undergraduate institutions, but even having that caveat, Dr. Masuda has built and maintains a very active research program in her lab, working exclusively with undergraduates. She is passionate about science and can share that passion with her students. To carry on a quality research program with so many students involved in so many projects is truly remarkable and I am glad that the IAS acknowledged that for Dr. Masuda.” The IAS specifically commended her for involving more than 50 undergraduates in her research in bacterial metabolism, genomics, and their phenotypic plasticity at IU Kokomo, and publishing 23 articles with many student co-authors. Masuda’s current work primarily focuses on biodegradation and chemical repurposing of nylon. Using soil bacteria, her lab studies bacterial biodegradation of nylon and other environmental pollutants. She applies principles of green chemistry while developing a method to convert nylon waste into other nontoxic polymers. In collaborative work with health scientists, her lab investigates gut microbiomes of Indiana native birds as well as human subjects in a clinical study. She became interested in converting plastic waste while earning her Ph.D. at Rutgers University, working on methods to remove environmental waste not using chemicals or other intrusive methods. She learned about Nylon 11, which is used in pipes for transferring oil, interior components for cars, catheters, and in other industrial hard plastics. Nylon 11 is nontoxic, she added, so it is safe to include students in the research. “Those are considered to be nonbiodegradable, and have to go to a landfill,” she said. “I thought if we could come up with a way to biodegrade it, that would make some kind of impact.” Eventually, she wants to develop a product that would convert nylon waste to something useful, and to reduce waste and microplastics in the environment. “That would be my goal at some point, that we can make that change, and also make people more aware of their use of plastics,” she said. “I hope students stop to think about what we can do as scientists to address issues currently impacting us.” She appreciates the IAS for its support of scientific research at Indiana institutions, and IU Kokomo and the School of Sciences for providing funding for students to attend the Academy’s annual meeting. She added that IU Kokomo has also supported her research with funding from the School of Sciences and Academic Affairs. “Without that, I couldn’t do my research,” she said. Masuda has also earned a Senior Research Grant from the IAS, IU Kokomo’s Distinguished Research Award, and the IU Kokomo Junior Faculty Annual Research Award. She is a Fellow of the Indiana Academy of Science. Education is KEY at Indiana University Kokomo.
If you have Blue Cross Blue Shield health insurance, you'll want to know about this big change
Beginning April 1, Memorial Hermann Health System facilities and physicians are out of network for some BCBSTX plans.
Going to Bat: Small business initiative returns for 2026
The Official Site of Minor League Baseball web site includes features, news, rosters, statistics, schedules, teams, live game radio broadcasts, and video clips.
Microsoft Warns of WhatsApp-Delivered VBS Malware Hijacking Windows via UAC Bypass
WhatsApp VBS campaign began February 2026, abusing AWS and UAC bypass to gain persistent remote access.
Business-backed bill to review regulations clears committee on unanimous vote | The Sum and Substance
The bill would require agencies to review regulations every five years, looking for those that are redundant, outdated or not beneficial.
Webster University Bolsters iMBA Partnership with the University of El
Ryan Guffey, Executive Vice President of Webster International led a delegation to Chengdu to attend the 2026 Spring Alumni Annual Reunion of the international MBA (iMBA) program, a partnership betwee
Walkable Neighborhoods Can Boost Physical Activity, Population Health
New research from Washington State University shows that small increases in neighborhood walkability could lead to substantial gains for a sedentary population, boosting individuals’ physical activity and ultimately improving their health.
Employers, legislative leaders seeking change in business atmosphere with bill | The Sum and Substance
Shortly after Steve Swinney and his partners founded Kodiak Building Partners in 2011, they acquired two local companies that they viewed as core to the...
Midjourney engineer debuts open source Pretext to revolutionize web design
It allows developers to treat text as a fluid substance that can be recalculated every single frame without dropping a beat.
Coatue Projected $1.995 Trillion Valuation for Anthropic in 2030
In a presentation to prospective investors in January, Coatue offered a rare look at how it justifies Anthropic’s heady valuations. An anonymous source sent me the slides, which give a unique look at how a top investment firm values Anthropic’s business. This is a moment in time when some of America’s most valuable, growing technology companies remain private. In the January presentation, Coatue estimated that Anthropic would lose $14 billion in EBITDA on $18 billion in revenue in 2026, ending the year with $30 billion in annualized run-rate revenue. Most recently, it’s been reported that Anthropic is at $19 billion in ARR, which could suggest Anthropic is already running ahead of Coatue’s expectations. By 2031, Coatue projected that Anthropic would be generating $48 billion in EBITDA profits on $200 billion in revenue, with $224 billion of ARR. That would give Anthropic a 41x forward EBITDA multiple at a projected $1.995 trillion valuation in 2030. Coatue told the investors it was pitching that Anthropic could be worth $2.413 trillion in 2031. In February, Coatue co-led a $30 billion Series G investment in Anthropic that valued it at $380 billion. Coatue declined to comment on this story. I first shared this slide and talked about the presentation on my new podcast, the Cerebral Valley Show, which I host with my CVAI co-hosts Max Child and James Wilsterman. I’ve got a few other slides from the Coatue presentation for Newcomer subscribers.
Scientists Discover Hidden Behavior in Water That Helps Explain Why Ice Floats
Water exists in two different liquid forms, which might be why it behaves differently than other substances.