SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " sphere " 701 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
UCF Students Enhance Football Game Day Experience
It started with a T-shirt launcher. Now, inventions coming out of the College of Engineering and Computer Science are making the game day atmosphere uniquely UCF.
Silent Hill: Townfall Can't Match the Stellar Reviews of 2025's Silent Hill f
Critics love the atmosphere and storytelling, are less impressed by the gameplay
Whether you like it or not, celebrities have an impact on politics
The global groundswell of support for Macklemore’s pro-Palestinian advocacy serves to remind us that maybe celebrity activism really is that deep after all, writes Cheek’s Varsha Yajman. Subscribe In the last week, publications, podcasts, and influencers that have either rarely or never spoken about Israel’s genocide in Palestine have flooded my social feed. And it was all because singer Ed Sheeran and his team dropped Macklemore as his opener for saying “Free Palestine” on stage. Millions raised, millions speaking up in support of Palestine - all of this confirming my view that, whether I like it or not, celebrities do have an impact on political outcomes. And this is interesting when much of the time celebrity activism can induce an eye roll - I love to see Charli XCX pointing out a Palestinian flag in the crowd, but it’s hardly the bold symbol of allyship that some fans would make it out to be. But there’s a line between healthy scepticism and outright dismissal - and I’d argue that the latter lets the rich and powerful off far too easily. For instance, actress Jennifer Lawrence, once outspoken about her political views, last year told The Times she no longer believes celebrities have a role to play: “Celebrities do not make a difference whatsoever on who people vote for. So then what am I doing? I’m just sharing my opinion on something that’s going to add fuel to a fire that’s ripping the country apart.” While it’s a narrative she might find comfort in, it simply is not true. Grassroots movements often garner worldwide attention when celebrities and other high-profile spokespeople bring a mainstream platform to their causes. And this frustrates me. We have had three years of a live-streamed genocide. Macklemore himself has been calling for a Free Palestine long before he booked the Sheeran concert. Yet it’s the high-profile fallout of the last week that finally seems to have made saying “Free Palestine” socially acceptable in the mainstream. It feels like the collective mood has shifted, where calling out censorship is now the obvious response - not just the business of ‘radical’ activists. To recap, Sheeran’s decision followed an ultimatum from billionaire Robert Kraft, owner of Gillette Stadium, one of the venues Sheeran was scheduled to perform at: either drop Macklemore as your opener after only two of the eight scheduled shows, or you do not play at any stadiums. Sheeran’s disappointing decision to stand on the side of billionaire-led censorship has ultimately seen a surge in support for Free Palestine. It began when all his openers and his backing band pulled out of Sheeran’s tour, in solidarity with Macklemore and with the Palestinian cause. It was met with an uproar of support from those who had never or barely touched politics before: influencers lip-syncing to Macklemore’s music, singers like Jack Antonoff singing “Free Palestine,” and publications and podcasts standing with Macklemore. And finally, we saw material support: Macklemore donated $1 million in profits from his two nights opening for Sheeran’s tour to several Palestinian aid groups and called for Sheeran and Kraft to match it, which they have since promised to do. We’ve also seen children’s entertainer Ms Rachel follow suit with a $1 million donation to Palestinian aid, and publication PopBase has donated $10,000. Anera, a humanitarian aid group working in Palestine, Lebanon, and Jordan, said donations since Macklemore’s announcement were more than triple this month’s daily average. The group’s Instagram page has also gained 8,000 followers. Macklemore far from the first celebrity to speak and participate in politics in the Western World. In 1924, singer Al Jolson supported Republican candidate Warren G. Harding for president, and decades later, celebrities such as Harry Belafonte, Lena Horne, and Aretha Franklin voiced their public support for the Civil Rights movement. More recently, in the lead-up to the 2024 US election, ‘The Daily Show with Trevor Noah partnered with the organisation Power the Polls to recruit poll workers to address shortages- a problem disproportionately affecting voters of colour. The campaign saw 170,000 new sign-ups - 35,000 of which came directly through the TV show’s link - resulting in the recruitment of 713,000 total poll workers that year, an almost three-fold increase on the organisation’s goal. Alongside recruiting workers, celebrities in the US (where voting in elections is not compulsory) have made a huge difference by calling for people to register to vote. Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Kamala Harris in 2024 saw over 400,000 visitors on the voter registration site within 24 hours of her Instagram post. In 2023, Swift had urged her fans to register, resulting in 35,000 new voter registrations. Similarly, Ariana Grande promoted voter registration in 2019 by setting up booths at concerts on the American leg of her tour, resulting in over 33,000 voters registering. And the same thing is happening closer to home. This year, musician Jack River successfully called for government action to ensure creatives in Australia do not have their work scraped by generative AI companies. Celebrity as the mediator between the punter and the politician Celebrity activism isn’t just a feel-good news story - research tells us it actually makes a difference. By directing attention to issues affecting the average person, like voting inaccessibility or a lack of action on a genocide, researchers Alfred Archer and Amanda Cawston state that “celebrities can play a useful bridging role between political elites and the people they represent”. Alternatively, in a world where talking about politics is “not cool,” or where people lack exposure or knowledge to engage with politics, celebrities can act as an educational resource or an entry point into the political world - when they speak up about an issue, their audience gets exposed to it. Olivia Rodrigo’s Daisy Chain Fields festival is a perfect example. Rodrigo partnered with twelve organisations focused on women’s issues, such as reproductive rights. These organisations had stalls at the festival for people to meet them and were also featured heavily on social media, giving their issues global attention and raising $20 million for the organisations. We have also seen celebrities at award shows such as the Emmys wearing F*CK ICE pins, referring to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s treatment and detainment of people - generally people of colour. When celebrities speak up about political issues in public forums, they put the issue at the forefront of mainstream media, rally their supporters, and make it clear that, however much they disagree, the government cannot simply ignore it. Our over-reliance on celebrities versus our politicians As much as I love seeing my favourite celebrity use their platform for a good cause, there is an important question to ask: not whether celebrity activism is good or bad, but whether we should have to rely on celebrities. And the answer would, in an ideal world, be no. In an ideal world, or merely a just world, action on Palestine would’ve happened decades ago, climate change would be taken seriously, and most importantly, people would understand their democratic rights. However, that is not our reality. Only around 28 per cent of Australian Year 10 students reach proficiency in civics and citizenship. In the US, almost two-thirds of people under 30 say high school civics education didn’t prepare them to understand voting deadlines, how to research candidates, or how to vote by mail. When civics education is weak, our trust in these institutions and our understanding of change-making processes also decline. This is where celebrity steps in and becomes our main source of reliance. As Mary R. Connelly notes in _The Tartan, “_Celebrities will always be involved in campaigns in one form or another, but their presence is not what causes people to vote blindly. The lack of political engagement and literacy is what allows celebrities to wield their influence on the political sphere so impactfully.” About the author Varsha Yajman is the Digital Content Producer at Cheek Media. She is a youth advocate and lawyer with a background in climate litigation and is passionate about looking at the intersection between race, climate justice, and mental health. Thanks for reading Cheek Media Co. ! This post is public so feel free to share it. Share
Scientists hope deeper-rooted soybeans can withstand climate extremes and store more carbon
Scientists have explored ways to remove carbon from the atmosphere, including through air capture, changes to ocean chemistry and reforestation. Now, researchers are testing deeper-rooted soybeans.
Under pressure, Tottenham boss lays into his team
The atmosphere at Tottenham grew even heavier after Saturday’s 3-2 defeat to Aston Villa (19). Under serious risk of being sacked, coach Roberto De Zerbi laid bare the crisis by harshly criticizing ...
Bills’ Heartfelt Gesture Makes Highmark Stadium Debut Unforgettable for Buffalo
For over fifty years, Buffalo Bills‘ football thrived in the raw, ice-bound atmosphere of the original Highmark Stadium. Due to the necessity of modern facilities Bills’ went through a transition and now they have a $2.1 billion dollar worth stadium. The stadium finally welcomed the fans and the organization didn’t forget to make it special […] The post Bills’ Heartfelt Gesture Makes Highmark Stadium Debut Unforgettable for Buffalo appeared first on Gridiron Heroics.
Vast hidden ocean beneath Earth’s mantle? Scientists stunned by new discovery - Futura-Sciences
Water: More Than Lakes and Oceans When we talk about water on Earth, we tend to picture oceans, lakes, rivers, and underground aquifers. But water also lurks less obviously in our atmosphere as vapor, and even deeper within the minerals that make up both the crust and the mantle of...
Sphere Entertainment (SPHR) Stock May Be Above Fair Value On Cash Flow
Sphere Entertainment has had a powerful share price run in recent years, which naturally raises a question for anyone looking at the stock today. Are investors now paying a price that its future cash flows can reasonably support, or has enthusiasm run ahead of the underlying economics? The share price has returned about 298.0% over the past 3 years, which puts a lot of weight on the cash flow profile that underpins any intrinsic value estimate. The business model relies heavily on converting...
From 22,000 Miles Up, This Satellite Tracks Airborne Health Threats Almost in Real Time
The new instrument, called TEMPO, captures hourly snapshots of the pollutants swirling in the daytime atmosphere over North America—“chemical weather” reports that are helpful to public health researchers and government officials
Scientists hope deeper-rooted soybeans can withstand climate extremes and store more carbon
For years, scientists have explored ways to remove carbon from the atmosphere, including through direct air capture, changes to ocean chemistry so seawater can absorb more carbon and reforestation.
Scientists hope deeper-rooted soybeans can withstand climate extremes and store more carbon
For years, scientists have explored ways to remove carbon from the atmosphere, including through direct air capture, changes to ocean chemistry so seawater can absorb more carbon and reforestation. Now,
Scientists hope deeper-rooted soybeans can withstand climate extremes and store more carbon
For years, scientists have explored ways to remove carbon from the atmosphere, including through direct air capture, changes to ocean chemistry so seawater can absorb more carbon and reforestation.
Scientists hope deeper-rooted soybeans can withstand climate extremes and store more carbon
For years, scientists have explored ways to remove carbon from the atmosphere, including through direct air capture, changes to ocean chemistry so seawater can absorb more carbon and reforestation
The nation’s cartoonists on the week in politics
Every week political cartoonists throughout the country and across the political spectrum apply their ink-stained skills to capture the foibles, memes, hypocrisies and other head-slapping events in the world of politics. The fruits of these labors are hundreds of cartoons that entertain and enrage readers of all political stripes. Here's an offering of the best of this week's crop, picked fresh off the Toonosphere. Edited by Matt Wuerker.
Jim Cramer Believes Sphere Entertainment (SPHR) Is “Amazing”
Starting the lightning round of the September 11 episode, a caller asked if they should keep their “best winner” Sphere Entertainment Co. (NYSE:SPHR). Jim Cramer replied: Oh yeah, Sphere is really, I got to tell you, everyone at one point was telling… Dolans that they’re not geniuses. I question that. I think Sphere is amazing. […]
Sphere Entertainment (SPHR) Following Lyft Deal Has Its Valuation Back In Focus
Sphere Entertainment (SPHR) just signed a multi-year marketing deal with Lyft that makes the rideshare service the official partner across its venues, highlighting how transportation partnerships can shape the broader entertainment ecosystem. Sphere Entertainment’s recent Lyft tie-up lands at a time when momentum has cooled in the short term but remains strong over a longer horizon. The share price is down 15.8% over the past month, while the year-to-date share price return is 53.2% and the...
What Does the Science of Climate Change Really Look Like?
Editor’s Note: This is the second in a three-part series on how the Right should think about environmental and climate policy. Read Chris Barnard on Reclaiming Environmental Policy from the Left. More than a decade ago, the world’s governments negotiated and signed the Paris Climate Agreement, committing to hold global warming well below 2 degrees Celsius. In the following years, climate had immense cultural power. Greta Thunberg emerged. Fortune 500 companies established net-zero plans. The U.S. got the Inflation Reduction Act. Then the pendulum swung back. President Donald Trump returned to the Oval Office, speaking of green energy as a “scam” and carbon footprints as a “hoax” and on all matters of international policy emphasizing bilateral engagement and power over globalism and cooperation. The technology companies that had been at the forefront of net-zero pledges and green leadership discovered the importance of all-of-the-above power to their visions for artificial intelligence and began quietly postponing or removing their targets. On the left side of the political spectrum, rising concerns about inflation and cost pushed climate lower down in the stated priorities of voters and stump speeches of politicians. The moment is ripe for a reset on the politics of climate change and for conservatives especially to chart a course that acknowledges and addresses the real challenges in plausible ways. So what should we think about climate change as we enter a post-peak climate era? If it is neither an apocalypse nor a hoax, what will hold up as a durable view of climate change? And how does it project onto the concerns and priorities of the right-of-center’s emerging coalition? New to Commonplace_? Subscribe below to get the magazine in your inbox._ Subscribe A Solid Foundation As the politics and economics of climate careened over the past ten years, the physics carried on regardless. In 2015, the year the Paris Climate Agreement was adopted, the world emitted 41.2 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide. By 2025, emissions had risen only 2.4%, to 42.2 gigatonnes, because falling emissions from land use offset increasing emissions from fossil fuels. But slow growth in annual emissions is not rapid decline, let alone net-zero, so carbon dioxide kept accumulating in the atmosphere, going from 399 to 426 parts per million. Global temperature kept rising too, from about 1.1 degrees Celsius above the 1850–1900 average in 2015, to 1.4 degrees above it in 2025. None of this should surprise anyone. Even most prominent skeptics, like the authors of the 2025 report commissioned by the Trump administration’s Department of Energy, accept the basic physics. Carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere at industrial volumes accumulates and traps heat that would otherwise escape to space. That heat warms the upper ocean and increases temperatures at the surface. Increased ocean heat and melting of land ice cause sea levels to rise. Changes in the climate become noticeable to us as subtle shifts in temperature and precipitation, seasons arriving early or late, changes in the surrounding ecosystem, and weather extremes. The much more meaningful debate is not about whether these things are happening, but about what it all means for human societies. (While it is a proxy measure of overall risk, no one experiences global surface temperature.) This debate invokes at least three interesting questions: how much today’s warming is showing up in regional climate trends, how much more warming we should anticipate, and how extreme weather events can be understood in the context of climate change. Recent scientific advances give us new insights into each of these, but there is still much to learn. This is the context in which the next generation of conservative leaders will be the first to deal with significant climate change as a fact, not a forecast. It will be with them for their entire careers. Our evolving scientific picture of climate change will come from weather and climate records stretching further into the past, new kinds of observations in the present, better modeling tools for the future, and simply more time to observe the emergence of climate signals and their tangible effects on ecosystems and communities in the United States and around the world. The policy landscape will be shaped by not only the impacts of changes in the climate, but also by the ways in which societies respond and by the emergence of new technologies for both altering the trajectory of emissions and adapting to new climate realities. Global climate records now show the fingerprints of warming in different phenomena around much of the world. The IPCC, in its most recent assessment report, documents warming trends over all land regions, even as natural variability adds substantial variance to local trends. And the highest temperature extremes have become more intense and frequent, almost everywhere, since the 1950s. Scientists are highly confident that these changes are attributable to human influence. But confidence in detecting trends and attributing them to human influence degrades across heavy precipitation events; drought trends are heterogeneous and not attributable to human activity with great confidence. For hurricanes, tornadoes, and other severe storms there is even less confidence in trends or their relationship to climate change. In general, a fair summary of the evidence is that for well-observed phenomena, like surface temperature or heavy rainfall, with a clear relationship to warming, our multidecadal observations are consistent with human influence overcoming natural variability over long time periods and extremes increasing. For regions that are sampled more sparsely, or phenomena with a higher noise-to-signal ratio, we will need to observe them longer to understand the magnitude of the climate signal or improve dynamical understanding using models and observations together. But for Climate For those who can’t wait, we also have new techniques that attempt to understand the role climate change has in influencing particular extreme events. When the climate is changing and disaster strikes, it is natural to ask whether that disaster was somehow “caused” by climate change. For scientists and policymakers acting in good faith, answering that question helps develop a more accurate picture of the problem, how it may be getting worse, and what preparations we should be making to respond to it. It may, at some point, give some weight to how liability is assigned by courts or adaptation funding is distributed by society. But how we ask this question is extremely important. It is easy to get the analysis wrong by discounting the role that meteorology plays. As meteorologist Theodore Shepherd explained in a clear 2016 review of climate attribution methods, “if a weather or climate event is truly extreme in the present climate, then perforce it requires unusual meteorological conditions, which means that climate change is at most a contributing factor.” Share Scientists have two ways to probe climate as a contributing factor, both of which have entered media coverage of extreme weather events. One asks a probabilistic question: How much more likely is a particular event (e.g., a temperature record over a particular area) amid global warming? The answer involves using historical records and computer simulations to estimate the likelihood of such an event in both a changed and a preindustrial climate. The findings are less about the specific event, and more about events of that nature. The other question is: How has the changed climate affected the specific event in question? Here, scientists try to understand what a similar event would have looked like in the preindustrial climate. This is sometimes called the storyline approach, where the story is the specific meteorological details of the event. These methods offer ways to test the intuition of scientists about real weather extremes. In late June and early July of 2021, a persistent high-pressure ridge, or heat dome, set up over the Pacific Northwest and an extraordinary heat wave affected the area from Oregon to British Columbia. For six days, it shattered temperature records across the region and hundreds died from heat-related causes, in an area where such high, and persistently high, temperatures were well outside of experience and many live without air conditioning. Scientists have studied its connection to climate change using multiple approaches. This specific event was created by a rare combination of meteorological factors, a strong high-pressure ridge created the conditions for extreme heat, which occurred on top of higher average temperatures in the region from global warming. Probabilistic analyses showed that climate change increased the likelihood of such an event by at least 8-fold to more than 100-fold. One standout example found that such an event had effectively zero probability of occurring in the preindustrial climate. The enormous range in these assessments reflects how hard it is to estimate probabilities of events at the tail of the historical record. Estimates of the effect on the temperature of the event are more clustered. A recent review paper documents how multiple methodologies have found a positive influence, roughly 1-2 degrees Celsius of an anomaly that exceeded 15 degrees, of climate change on the temperature magnitude of the event. Multiple studies have investigated and found some positive influence of climate change in other extreme events. Attribution studies found climate likely increased the heavy rainfall that accompanied Hurricane Helene in North Carolina and surrounding regions in 2024. The extensive fires that struck Los Angeles in 2025 illustrate how the causal chain can become messy, though. Studies do detect a positive influence of climate on the event’s likelihood, but while climate change likely contributed to underlying aridity, it would not have played a role in the heavy winds or land practices that preceded disaster. These event attribution studies will become more common for extreme, or damaging, weather events. They can be produced quickly, and often are reported before peer review. As the Pacific Northwest heatwave example shows, when multiple methods converge on a positive attribution, the finding should probably carry some weight even if you have to be careful about accepting the results from a single study. I expect that as climate change proceeds and the climate thus departs further from a preindustrial counterfactual, the influence will become more detectable across a variety of extreme events and more easily identified. This will be used to cast blame, but can also be used to inform how communities and society adapt to ongoing change. We May Still Be Surprised One positive development, insofar as less climate change is better, has been that our central estimates for future climate change should probably be revised downward. Mostly, that is because the high-end warmings that scientists regularly analyzed about ten to 20 years ago, driven by high emissions throughout the twenty-first century, now appear to be somewhere between unlikely and impossible. At one time, the upper end of mainstream climate projections extended well into 4 to 6 degrees Celsius of warming by the end of this century, which, models suggest, would have wrought enormous real-world damage. Current energy and policy trends now point toward 2.5 or 3 degrees. Damages and risks are commonly modeled as increasing steeply with more warming, so this is already a better-than-previously-expected outcome for the climate (which is independent of the physical response to emissions). But we should maintain a wide range for plausible outcomes and prepare for the possibility of being surprised. Emissions trajectories are subject to deep uncertainty, the physical climate response is still developing, and whatever change occurs in the climate will then be mediated through unpredictable economic, social, and political institutions. Over the past decade, the pace of warming surprised some keen observers and appeared to accelerate, though not yet outside the range of expectation provided by climate models. The reasons for that apparent acceleration are being actively studied (as was the apparent pause in warming from 1998 to 2012), but no single driver has emerged. Some blame it on the El Niño, variability which would have no bearing on climate. Some think it is a result of factories in East Asia and global shipping fleets cutting aerosol emissions, which in the strongest version of the argument would indicate higher climate sensitivity to carbon-dioxide emissions. Others are more measured, not yet ready to draw solid conclusions as to whether climate projections require revision. We will have to see. Long-Term Thinking Climate change asks us to think over long time scales. But the pace of human-driven warming is compressing a large global change into a century. Changing weather patterns and extreme events are already causing adjustment costs and damages and will do more. Adaptation will help, but it is not free. For some communities, these costs will erode livelihoods and well-being, and may force migration. Are we prepared for large-scale managed retreats in the United States? Thankfully, American wealth, geographical diversity, and moderate climates may leave us better prepared than many around the world. But wealthy countries can still suffer serious disruption from narrowly concentrated costs, even if they appear entirely manageable in aggregate. Readers of Commonplace are familiar with the challenges of rapidly adapting to economic forces. The displacement that came from the China Shock is barely perceptible in aggregate GDP and employment data, but it affected millions of people and those people were far less mobile than economic models tended to assume. Deindustrialization rippled through the nation with enormous effects for not only our economic vitality, but also our national security. The forces surrounding climate change may not be so different; the world gets richer and must accept some diffuse costs. Those may be modest overall, but cause all manner of unpredictable effects with which policymakers must cope. In the case of the China Shock, our faith in a growing pie served us poorly. We’ll need to do better on climate. Leave a comment
On shores of Lake Ontario, the Toronto International Film Festival bristles at Trump's trade war
The 51st Toronto International Film Festival has unspooled against a backdrop of rising tensions between the U.S. and Canadian governments, though it would be hard to tell it from the convivial atmosphere on the ground | KMBZ
Sphere Entertainment Makes For An Entertaining Opportunity
Sphere Entertainment Co. is rated a soft Buy due to strong growth, unique assets, and expansion plans. Read more on SPHR stock here.
Pluto’s Atmosphere May Be Starting to Collapse as a 150 Year Winter Takes Hold
Don’t worry, it’s supposed to do that.
Scientists stunned as volcano cloud starts destroying methane
The Hunga Tonga eruption may have triggered a surprising chemical reaction that destroyed some of the methane released into the atmosphere. Scientists say the discovery could reshape estimates of methane pollution and inspire new methods for slowing near-term global warming.
Entertainment legend adding the Sphere to her world this spring
“Oprah Winfrey’s AHA” will launch for a once-in-a-lifetime show in Las Vegas.
California State Teachers Retirement System Purchases 5,106,487 Shares of Sphere Entertainment Co. $SPHR
California State Teachers Retirement System grew its holdings in shares of Sphere Entertainment Co. (NYSE:SPHR - Free Report) by 16,878.2% in the 2nd quarter, according to its most recent 13F filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission. The fund owned 5,136,742 shares of the company's stoc
Alonso's approach looks unsustainable
There was a subdued atmosphere at the final whistle among Chelsea's players, staff and supporters. Chelsea had previously beaten Fulham 3-2, won 4-3 at home to Brighton and lost 2-1 at Arsenal. Having conceded twice here, Chelsea have now gone 20 Premier League matches without a clean sheet, a run stretching back to January.
Germany’s Political Tailspin: Your Weekly SPIEGEL Recap
It might be tempting to dismiss the results of last Sunday’s state election in Saxony-Anhalt, in which the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party raked in 43.8 percent of the vote, as a rather unimportant extremist blip in a state that hardly anyone can find on the map. And you wouldn’t necessarily be wrong to do so. The state’s population – around 2.1 million – is a mere 2.5 percent of the German total. And while the state capital of Magdeburg was once the political heart of the Holy Roman Empire back when Otto the Great used to hang out there (more than a millenium … no … milennium … nope … millennium ago), it is today something of a backwater, albeit one with a ginormous cathedral in its center. We wanted to briefly interrupt this week’s newsletter to extend a heartfelt thank you to all of our subscribers, both new and old. And to remind you all that a free subscription gets you access to this newsletter every Saturday. A paid subscription, by contrast, gets you one DER SPIEGEL article every weekday, delivered to your inbox. We strive to select pieces that both demonstrate what Europe’s leading newsmagazine has to offer and provide an international audience – namely, you – with an insight into how Germany and Europe view the world. If you haven’t already signed up for a paid subscription, please consider doing so if you can. Our Substack channel relies entirely on reader support and we are excited to continue offering you the best of DER SPIEGEL. Subscribe But even beyond the fact that a huge percentage of the voters in the state decided to place an X next to a party with an ideological lineage that runs rather directly back to the right-wing extremist soup out of which the Nazi Party was born, the results are a perfect example of a phenomenon that has been plaguing German elections in recent years: the lack of an obvious path to a majority. Call it the Balkanization of German politics. There are a number of developments driving the phenomenon, but for the purposes of this newsletter, here are two of the most salient: Persistent voter frustration with the country’s two (former) big-tent parties – the Christian Democrats (CDU) on the center-right (17.2 percent in Saxony-Anhalt last Sunday) and the Social Democrats (SPD) on the center-left (9.3 percent). The presence of parties on the far left (Left Party), the populist left (the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance – BSW) and the far right (AfD) with which mainstream parties are reluctant to form coalitions. So what happens now? Stories of the Week A Lack of Leadership The answer for many people in the country, and particularly within the CDU, is clear: pin (some of) the blame on Chancellor Friedrich Merz. According to a survey taken directly after the election in Saxony-Anhalt, 88 percent of respondents agreed with the statement that if the federal government in Berlin were doing a better job, the AfD wouldn’t be as strong. And it is true that the predominant impression of the federal government ever since Merz was sworn in on May 6, 2025, is one of ineffectiveness and bickering. His rather unique combination of bumbling-plus-bravado has also not exactly endeared him to the German public. Indeed, his standing in the country is so shaky that his popularity – according to recent polls – has now dropped even below the historic lows associated with his predecessor Olaf Scholz. The situation is such that the CDU even opted to keep him largely out of the campaign ahead of the Saxony-Anhalt vote. And since then, dissatisfied rumblings within the CDU have grown louder. DER SPIEGEL’s Swantje Karich notes that the problems with the CDU go much deeper than Merz. “The center-right has a trust problem. At a press appearance following the devastating election result in Saxony-Anhalt, Friedrich Merz said that the party wanted to ‘reach people more effectively’ through ‘emotional engagement.’ It sounded as though he were announcing a political program. On the basis of that statement, it is difficult to take his empathy seriously.” “The Chancellor’s chastened appearance did, at least, reveal where he stands: with his back to the wall. Elections will be held in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania next week, and the CDU could fare even worse there. The party is polling at between 8 and 10 percent in the state.” “What is at stake is the political tradition that has lent stability to the Federal Republic since 1945: a democratic conservatism that understands what must be preserved, but also how to embrace progress and openness to the world. If the Union continues along its current path, it risks becoming politically irrelevant after the 2029 federal election – and Germany could soon find itself with a government of the far right.” The Trumpification of Political Debate? It is often said in Germany that to understand the political and social trends that will soon be dominant in Europe, one need only look across the Atlantic to the United States. When it comes to political debate, that has certainly proven true. Donald Trump understood early on that triggering mouth-foaming outrage among Democrats is an ideal way to both generate headlines and to secure loyalty among supporters. And he realized that far more quickly than the left side of the political spectrum understood that simply ignoring the old man might be the best recipe. To be sure, there have been signs recently that the US president may be over-relying on the strategy. Earlier this week, in an apparent grandpa-discovers-AI moment, Trump sent out 60 posts in the space of 10 hours, many of them AI-assisted images portraying him as a hero – or showing Iceland as part of the US (outrageous!!!). It was also during that slew of schlock that he explicitly backed the AfD with an “MGGA” post. In Germany, though, the outrage cycle remains in full swing, with much of the focus on those who would dare to vote for the AfD. They are alternately portrayed as being dim-witted, ungrateful, backward, racist or all of the above. That, argues DER SPIEGEL columnist Sabine Rennefanz, is not particularly helpful. “Everywhere on election night, people spoke of a watershed moment, a rupture, a turning point. But what is that supposed to mean in concrete terms? A watershed would imply an interruption, a moment of pause – perhaps even a willingness to rethink and learn. At first, there was little sign of that in the main television panels. Instead, the familiar rituals that had already shaped the election campaign continued: outrage, lecturing and abuse.” “That’s just the tone, one might object. They’re only talk shows. Given that the party’s state branch has been classified by domestic intelligence officials as confirmed right-wing extremist, there are more important problems than hurt feelings on television. Yet although the condescending tone is not the cause of the AfD’s success, it is an expression of the broader mood within the so-called political center – a kind of institutional blindness that too often treats material concerns as a communications problem.” “People have a pretty good sense of whether you like them – whether you approach them with curiosity or merely study, lecture and manage them as a problem group. They notice whether you genuinely want to understand their fears and pain, or whether you are simply waiting for the chance to correct them. They can also tell whether someone still has the energy to change things, or whether they have barricaded themselves behind platitudes and empty phrases.” “Anyone who wants an egalitarian democratic society cannot promise equality only to those whose language, tastes and moral convictions they share. They must also acknowledge the wounds, resentments and fears of those whose political conclusions they consider wrong. Acknowledging them does not mean agreeing with them. But a democracy that communicates with almost half its citizens only through warnings and labels gives up on political debate before it has even begun. An atmosphere must be created in which people can express their opinions without fearing that they will be canceled. We are currently a long way from that.” East-West? One of the clear undercurrents in the election last Sunday was, of course, Germany’s ongoing east-west divide, particularly as it pertains to the success of the AfD. Historically, the party has been far stronger in the former East German states than in former West German states. The fact that this generalization no longer reliably holds is certainly one of the primary concerns that many have about the party’s growth. And yet, there is still a distinct flavor of “stupid easterners, they don’t understand democracy” to the coverage. In the weeks before the vote, there was even a rather interesting back-and-forth in Germany’s culture pages about how ungrateful eastern Germans allegedly are for being pulled out of their pre-reunification backwardness and into the light of the West. DER SPIEGEL’s Jochen-Martin Gutsch has had enough. “Ten years ago, in 2016, elections were also held in Saxony-Anhalt. The AfD won more than 20 percent, which at the time rightly provoked outrage and incomprehension in western Germany. Today, in 2026, the AfD is also polling at around 20 percent in western German states, but this no longer provokes outrage and incomprehension. Instead, it is now regarded as proof of democratic conviction and civilizational resistance. After all, in the east, it’s 40 percent!” “This allows people to continue feeling morally superior to the East, but the wiser course would be to admit: if something doesn’t happen soon, the West will turn AfD-blue too. Or bluish.” “But will anything happen? The truly depressing thing about election night was not so much the AfD leaders intoxicated by their own success. It was the representatives of the other parties, who once again said that they were utterly shocked, needed some time to digest the result and would, of course, not simply return to business as usual. The SPD, a former big-tent party, celebrated its ‘stable’ result of 9.3 percent. Congratulations!” “For 10 years, the AfD has gone from one electoral success to the next. And still, the established parties remain ‘shocked’ and scratch their heads in astonishment. How long can they keep being shocked? Friedrich Merz says he may need to communicate his reform ideas in a more ‘emotional’ way. So the CDU’s political professionals sit down together after the election, mull over a strategy, and in the end come up with this: Fritz, try to be a little more relaxed, charismatic and emotional – or something. Beyond that: no political plan, no defiance, no promise of a future. That is frightening.” What was good, what was bad for democracy? Good: Voter turnout in Saxony-Anhalt was 77.8 percent, the highest ever recorded in the state. Whatever one thinks of the result, that figure is encouraging. Democracy needs citizens to take an interest. Bad: Although a strong AfD result had been expected in Saxony-Anhalt, many politicians from the mainstream parties – including in Berlin – appeared confused, helpless and overwhelmed in their initial reactions. That is not how they will win back voters’ trust. Last Week’s Highlights: 🗳️ Meet the Germans Who Voted for the AfD: Why would voters in a country like Germany, with its Nazi past, vote for a right-wing party? It’s a question only an editor in Berlin could come up with. On the ground, the view is different. 🟦 How the AfD Wants to Expand Its Power Across Germany: The far-right AfD is planning to decimate public broadcasting in Saxony-Anhalt, revamp education and install extremists in positions of power. And it is eyeing victory on the national stage as well. 🕯️ The Continuing Reverberations of September 11: It was a generational shock, and the consequences can still be felt today - from massive surveillance and significant increases in presidential power to violent excesses at ICE. 🤝 “For Europe, Canada Is the Preferred Partner in Trans-Atlantic Relations”: In an interview with DER SPIEGEL, Canadian Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne discusses his country’s failed trade deal with the US and why Canada is looking to Europe. 🏛️ The True Historical Roots of the AfD: During the Weimar Republic in the 1920s, there were numerous parties on the extreme right espousing “Germany first” nationalism. The Nazis may not be the best comparison for today’s AfD. 🌊 AfD in a Landslide: Merz Is the Wrong Leader for Germany: The right-wing Alternative for Germany won in a landslide in Saxony-Anhalt state elections on Sunday. What does that mean for the country at large? Thank you for your continued support and have a wonderful week! Subscribe Share Leave a comment Your SPIEGEL Substack Team Compiled and edited by Charles Hawley
9,500 Shares in Sphere Entertainment Co. $SPHR Purchased by VIRGINIA RETIREMENT SYSTEMS ET Al
VIRGINIA RETIREMENT SYSTEMS ET Al acquired a new position in shares of Sphere Entertainment Co. (NYSE:SPHR - Free Report) in the 2nd quarter, according to its most recent filing with the SEC. The fund acquired 9,500 shares of the company's stock, valued at approximately $1,644,000. A number of othe
The politics and possibilities of ‘AI could kill us all’
I found myself fielding a lot of questions from folks who don’t usually talk much about AI this week. They were mostly along the lines of “do you think AI is going to kill us all?” or “how worried should I be about this human extinction stuff?” Motivating this wave of existential anxiety was the highly dramatic resignation of now-former Anthropic employee Jacob Coxon, who quit his job while publicly sharing his concerns about safety practices at the leading AI companies. More specifically, he declared that almost everyone at OpenAI and Anthropic, the leading AI labs, believes that there’s a decent chance the AI systems they’re producing could “kill us all” by the end of the decade, and the companies aren’t “acting responsibly.” Other AI safety researchers, including those still employed at Anthropic and OpenAI, all confirmed that yes, Coxon is correct, they’re all worried that their company’s products might prove fatal for the entire human race as well. Two more AI employees quit and joined the chorus. Now, the warning shot has been covered everywhere from the Wall Street Journal to Fox News to WIRED to the Guardian. I understand why all this sounds scary, but my response to those who have asked, has generally been: No, you don’t need to worry that AI will kill go rogue and kill us all. But that does not mean we shouldn’t worry, period. Far from it. The companies building AI products are now among the wealthiest and most powerful entities in the world. And they very much are building enormous engines of mass surveillance, extraction, and automation. They can and have allowed their AI systems to carry out felony hacks of other companies, provided the government with autonomously generated kill lists, and sold enterprise technology to firms around the world that is explicitly intended to replace jobs. But “AI” has done these things not because they have all-powerful minds of their own but, ultimately, because people have programmed, calibrated, and directed them to. In other words, it’s not AI we need to worry the most about. It’s the people and corporations working to profit from and gain power by deploying it. The technology is sophisticated, sure, and, especially in cybersecurity contexts, potentially disruptive to plenty of existing systems. But if we want to stop this predatory, profiteering, and extractive form of AI—and it’s worth noting that at this point, most people do—we absolutely can. A quick note/plea: I can only do all of this with the support of readers like you, so if you find value in independent, critical tech journalism and analysis, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. I want to keep as much of this un-paywalled as absolutely possible, and I need your support to do so. Many thanks to all who continue to chip in, it’s very much appreciated. Onward. Subscribe First, some context: AI industry folks like Coxon have been discussing the prospect that AI will destroy humanity for years. Even before the beginning of the AI boom, many working in the industry, from the executive staff to the rank and file researchers, have obsessed over ‘x-risk’, or the possibility that AI will become sentient or semi-sentient and move one way or another to exterminate humanity. This is ostensibly why Elon Musk bankrolled OpenAI in the first place, and is the grounds for his lawsuit alleging OpenAI betrayed its charter by abandoning its nonprofit status to become a commercial enterprise. Many AI engineers and startup founders have calculated their own personal p(doom), or the probability that the tech product they are working on will initiate an actual humanity-extinguishing apocalypse. 10-25% p(doom)s are pretty common. (I wrote about a long weekend I spent among these folks at one of their top conferences here, to give you an idea of their ideas and belief systems.) Sam Altman himself drove the narrative of the imminent rise of a super-powerful AI, or artificial general intelligence, to prominence by declaring that the technology he was building posed an existential risk to humanity. This idea is in other words baked into the DNA of modern AI companies and into the products they engineer. It’s also why the industry is routinely accused, by myself and others, of “doom marketing,” ie, using such proclamations and framings to impart the sheer power of the technology behind your product onto investors, partners, consumers, and the state. Some ambient understanding of this tendency may have helped prevent the press from repeating the claim every time one of the x-risk folks made it over the years, including when they quit their jobs at AI companies while doing so. Yet Coxon’s AI x-risk alarm has broken containment, as they say, and has exposed the idea to the mainstream media once again. This has happened, I think, for a number of reasons. First, when AI CEOs were going around saying AI might kill everyone in 2023, their companies were well-capitalized, but not nearly to the extent they are today. They were more easily dismissed as eccentric geeks of the sort that Silicon Valley is supposed to produce. Now, not only do their products have much greater market saturation, but people are more aware of a) the often unethical ways the executives and companies comport themselves b) the other adverse impacts of AI that have already arrived, and c) the physical cost of building these systems, particularly when it comes to data centers. Finally, toss in the constant stream of headlines in 2026 about AI models going rogue or potentially upending the world’s infrastructure. [ ](https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/with-the-backlash-to-data-centers) [ With the backlash to data centers, Flock and AI glasses, a mass opposition to big tech is underway. Silicon Valley is in denial. ](https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/with-the-backlash-to-data-centers) Brian Merchant · Aug 27 [ Read full story ](https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/with-the-backlash-to-data-centers) As a result, general sentiment was already overwhelmingly skeptical of AI and its overlords, so the table was pretty well set for someone to come along and say ‘just a reminder, the companies that are building the product that promises to take your job and leave a data center in your neighborhood also think that it might exterminate the human race’ and get a strong reaction from the media and the public. The question is: Should we understand this stuff as hype, strategically fanned to feed already swelling valuations? Is it doom marketing? Genuine cause for alarm that the infrastructure that undergirds modern life is facing a novel threat vector? Or reason to be sincerely worried that AI companies are amassing too much power, and that their products are genuinely dangerous? The answer, I’m afraid, is “yes.” Let me try to untangle all of this a bit, because arguments over how to navigate this moment are extremely heated right now, as they are essentially arguments over how to approach the politics of AI at a moment where there may be a unique opening for action. Those sympathetic to AI alignment concerns and x risk arguments—which increasingly includes a faction on the left who want to shut down AI over safety concerns—argue that people who dismiss AI as all hype have their heads in the sand. Meanwhile, critics of the x-risk narrative—which I might note includes a cadre of investors and tech folks on the right, too—argue that it is hype and can be used to further inflate valuations or for pursuing regulatory capture. The challenge is that many feel that dismissing AI as just hype or purely marketing also diminishes the urgency of taking on the AI industry as the novel and threat to labor, civil society, and the public sphere it is; others that by accepting the industry’s own terms, we imbue it with undue power and enable it. But let’s be clear: Declarations that AI is so powerful it might end the world are a kind of marketing, and anyone who says otherwise is just as off base as those who say that’s all that it is. If you don’t think that these sub-trillion dollar companies have higher-ups who noticed that when their founders talked about super-powerful dangerous AI they got spikes in media interest and phone calls from investors, or that those founders didn’t notice that themselves, and lean into certain narratives to advantage their products, then I don’t know what to tell you. Not all marketing is a Pepsi ad campaign with a celebrity spokesperson. Yet confronting the AI industry should certainly be considered an urgent project. Do I share the x-riskers’ fear that out-of-control, super-intelligent AI agents might end the world? I do not. I’ve read a good deal of AI extinction literature over the last couple of years and I have not come across a credible, step-by-step documentation of how exactly AI might move from self-recursively improving AI to killing every single human on the planet. Most of what I’ve read seems predicated on a sort of reverse Ian Malcolmian logic: Eventually, it becomes smart enough and AI, uh, finds a way (to exterminate humanity). Are the AI companies also overstating and dramatizing what their products can do? Yes, pretty much all the time. They’re in a knife fight for market share and are trying to win customers and government contracts before their investors come knocking. And yet. They have concentrated enormous amounts of compute, have extensive data collection and surveillance capacities, have inserted themselves into the state in numerous capacities, including military kill chains, and they are being run by egomaniacal billionaires who are rushing to monopolize an entire new market. The way I think about their most recent frightening-seeming exploits is not as a “swarm of rogue AI agents building a new civilization” or whatever, but as corporations with a hitherto-unimaginable amount of compute at their disposal recklessly experimenting with automation programs, completely unafraid of any repercussions because we have been unwilling or unable to impose any on them. So I think we should welcome any newfound imperative to hold them accountable. I also think that ultimately, the AI critics, Pause AI folks, leftists, doomers, effective altruists, and, honestly, most of the public, want a lot of the same things: legitimate checks and limits on AI companies’ power, actual transparency into what the companies are doing, and for more of AI to be under public control. (Ultimately, a lot of what animates the x-risk fears are rooted in just that: a fear of losing control.) How we move towards all this, exactly, is the question of the day, and while there’s much to be argued over in terms of building a viable political platform to challenge the AI industry’s power, I do want to cast a vote against one particular approach. Not to pick on Chris here, as there are a lot of folks out there proposing stuff like this, and the policy ideas actually stem from AI safety groups. But not only would this be challenging to land politically (I can already hear the ‘China will beat us to AGI’ calls) and all but unworkable in practice, this approach is a) far too limiting, b) fails to address the current harms caused by AI and c) would likely only wind up serving Anthropic and OpenAI; it’s what regulatory capture looks like in action. Full model transparency is the floor for what should be on offer here. If these companies believe their products will kill us, the very least we deserve is to know how. It’s in the public interest. I would also argue we might get a lot of the way to stopping any currently envisioned robot apocalypse simply by forcing AI companies to assume liability, and to submit to the full brunt of the law. If Sam Altman were liable to be charged with a felony for approving the hack on Hugging Face1, if Google was forced to pay defamation fines each time it published a false and injurious AI Overviews, these companies might suddenly find cause to restrain their models’ output, and we might hear less about rogue AI. We would need to introduce new frameworks and available tools for tracking automated lawbreaking, to be sure, but I’d wager that little would frighten the AI companies more than actually being held accountable for what their products enable. To that end, Illinois has passed an AI liability law, which the industry fought tooth and nail, and Florida is considering one. The next steps would be towards moving AI under public control; again, it’s only reasonable, since everyone, not just AI insiders, should get a say over how a technology whose developers say might kill us is developed and deployed. Dismantling the whole industrial project as currently structured should be on the table, too, pending democratic input. But that’s for another post. For now, suffice to say that while I won’t be losing any sleep about an AI-enabled extinction event, Mr. Coxon and co. have given us an opportunity to underscore the urgency of the clear and present damage AI companies are doing, the extreme power they wield and the extent to which they hold themselves unaccountable, and the abundance of political capital there is out there for taking them on. Subscribe 1 Purely speculative! I do not know if he did or not.
Cramer's lightning round: Buy Sphere Entertainment
"Mad Money" host Jim Cramer rings the lightning round bell, which means he's giving his answers to callers' stock questions at rapid speed.
Carnival of Clubs helps Business Students find Connection and Community at UA Little Rock
University of Arkansas at Little Rock School of Business students recently had a chance to connect and find their place on campus through the Carnival of Clubs, which showcases various organizations and programs — all under a festive atmosphere. With music playing, and plenty of snacks and refreshments, the Sept. 3 event brought together students, ... Carnival of Clubs helps Business Students find Connection and Community at UA Little Rock
Hellberg eyeing home comforts against Norwich
Middlesbrough boss Kim Hellberg is relishing a Riverside return on Saturday and wants another special atmosphere.
Just across the Hudson, the Western Hemisphere’s largest planetarium is getting a massive $40M upgrade—adding a 90-foot upside-down balloon, river otters, and a touching 9/11 Memorial Garden
Liberty Science Center's massive $40M expansion brings a 90-foot upside-down balloon, a touching 9/11 Memorial Garden, and epic planetarium upgrades.
Squarepoint Ops LLC Decreases Stake in Sphere Entertainment Co. $SPHR
Squarepoint Ops LLC cut its stake in Sphere Entertainment Co. (NYSE:SPHR - Free Report) by 70.4% in the second quarter, according to its most recent 13F filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission. The institutional investor owned 39,480 shares of the company's stock after selling 93,868
The nation’s cartoonists on the week in politics
Every week political cartoonists throughout the country and across the political spectrum apply their ink-stained skills to capture the foibles, memes, hypocrisies and other head-slapping events in the world of politics. The fruits of these labors are hundreds of cartoons that entertain and enrage readers of all political stripes. Here's an offering of the best of this week's crop, picked fresh off the Toonosphere. Edited by Matt Wuerker.
Inside the Republican Midterm Convention, Where It Was ‘Trump-a-Palooza’
Amid the glitz, glamour and party atmosphere of an unusual midterm convention in Dallas, the president boasted of his accomplishments, predicted Republican victories and all but ignored the daunting political landscape his party faces this fall.
Scientists May Have Cracked the Mystery of the Moon’s Unequal Hemispheres
Chang’e-6 samples suggest the Moon’s two very different sides may have formed when uneven heating drove magma from one hemisphere to the other. The Moon presents two dramatically different faces. Its Earth-facing hemisphere is rich in dark volcanic plains, while the farside is dominated by older highlands and a much thicker crust. New analyses of
Antarctic ozone recovery alters austral summer Southern Hemisphere circulation patterns
Antarctic ozone recovery alters austral summer Southern Hemisphere circulation patterns
Rensch: ‘Roma must be ready for Fenerbahce strong start’
Devyne Rensch warns Roma ‘must be ready’ for the atmosphere put on by Fenerbahce fans in tonight’s Champions League opener.It kicks off at the Sukru Saracoglu Stadium in Istanbul at 17.45 UK tim...
Mamdani invites New Yorkers to sleep under the stars at the Unisphere in Flushing Meadows Park
There will be a family camping event at the Unisphere in Flushing Meadows Corona Park featuring nature games, s'mores and more.
Slanted Cartography: The Politics of Mapping
There is much in the nature of a map. The very drawing of a line signifies an assertion, an acceptance, or even a repudiation of power. Borders are
Does AFC Bournemouth’s Atmosphere "Problem" Raise a Bigger Question?
Despite the emphatic 4-0 win, Bournemouth’s underwhelming atmosphere against Lincoln was tangible, and as The Price of Football recently explored, the Cherries’ growing hospitality offering highlights a wider debate about matchday revenue, premium seating and what makes a stadium truly "valuable".
Scientists Made Ice Stay Solid Above 2,000°C. The 'Superionic Ice' Could Be Found Inside Uranus and Neptune
The researchers squeezed water to millions of atmospheres and discovered a bizarre new form of ice.
Michael Phelps is raising 4 boys. Here's how he helps them navigate 'big emotions'
Amid experts' rising concerns about the “manosphere” and male loneliness epidemic, the Olympic gold medalist has a message to share.
USC Dornsife professor Moh El-Naggar named director at Carnegie
Biophysicist and microbiologist will lead Carnegie’s Biosphere Sciences and Engineering, maintains appointment and research at USC Dornsife
Lava-Covered Planets Are Defying a Key Rule of Planetary Science
Researchers developed a model showing how lava-covered planets close to their stars can hold onto their atmospheres, which could help guide the search for life beyond our solar system. Some planets orbit so close to their stars that intense radiation should strip away their atmospheres. Yet several of these scorching, lava-covered worlds still retain thick
Sphere Entertainment (SPHR) Expands 4D Wizard Of Oz As Valuation Hinges On Growth Story
New 4D effects spotlight Sphere Entertainment’s product ambitions Sphere Entertainment (SPHR) just rolled out an expanded 4D package for The Wizard of Oz at Sphere, adding animatronic Winged Monkeys, themed scents, Glinda Glitter, pyrotechnic fireworks, and scented apples from September 25, 2026. For investors watching Sphere Entertainment, the latest 4D upgrade lands after a choppy few months, with the share price down about 11% over 30 days but still showing strong momentum through a 51%...
Slanted Cartography: The Politics of Mapping
There is much in the nature of a map. The very drawing of a line signifies an assertion, an acceptance, or even a repudiation of power. Borders are
Anak Krakatau Rumbles Again
A powerful eruption from the Indonesian volcano lofted ash into the atmosphere, disrupting thousands of flights and degrading air quality.
Scientists Discover the 7 Stages a Meteoroid Goes Through Before Hitting Earth
An analysis of 75 meteorite falls identified seven distinct processes that occur as space rocks melt, break apart, and slow down before reaching the ground. A space rock entering Earth’s atmosphere does far more than simply “burn up.” By examining 75 meteorite falls recorded in videos and photographs, researchers identified seven distinct stages that shape
If You Invested $1000 In Sphere Entertainment Stock 5 Years Ago, You Would Have This Much Today
Sphere Entertainment (NYSE:SPHR) has outperformed the market over the past 5 years by 18.95% on an annualized basis producing an average annual return of 30.39%. Currently, Sphere Entertainment has a market
TD Waterhouse Canada Inc. Boosts Stake in Sphere Entertainment Co. $SPHR
TD Waterhouse Canada Inc. grew its holdings in Sphere Entertainment Co. (NYSE:SPHR - Free Report) by 31,980.0% during the 2nd quarter, according to the company in its most recent 13F filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission. The fund owned 19,248 shares of the company's stock after purc
Scientists found two bat species never known to science in Cameroon’s rainforest after studying bats that looked almost identical
Deep inside the rainforests of southeastern Cameroon, scientists have identified two bat species that had never been formally recognised by science. The discoveries came from surveys in and around Lobéké National Park and the Dja Biosphere Reserve, where researchers examined a small collection of forest bats belonging to the genus Glauconycteris.
2,300 Roma fans expected for first Champions League match
The atmosphere in Istanbul will be heated. It won’t be an easy trip for Roma, but Gian Piero Gasperini’s team seems ready to face Fenerbahce among their fans, coming off a 2-1 defeat to Besiktas. ...
Why Syracuse Football's Improved Game Day Experience Is a Success
The University implemented changes to the Saturday afternoon atmosphere on campus.
Washington Trust Advisors Inc. Lowers Holdings in Sphere Entertainment Co. $SPHR
Washington Trust Advisors Inc. trimmed its stake in shares of Sphere Entertainment Co. (NYSE:SPHR - Free Report) by 14.0% during the 2nd quarter, according to the company in its most recent Form 13F filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission. The firm owned 77,758 shares of the company's
Doubts damp demand for business courses in the ‘Anglosphere’
Immigration policies, inflation and uncertain job markets have reduced appetite for study in the UK, US and Canada
Verisk: One atmosphere, one framework – how science and AI connect views of global risk
A single-system approach to catastrophe modelling is required to capture the interconnected atmospheric drivers that shape risk across regions and perils, argues Verisk’s Jay Guin.
In 2019, scientists shut off rain inside Arizona’s Biosphere 2 rainforest for 9.5 weeks; carbon storage fell about 70% before the forest recovered
Researchers turned off the water supply to the tropical rainforest inside Arizona's Biosphere 2 in 2019, and watched the ecosystem respond to an artificial drought. The experiment lasted four months in total, which included the recovery period, while the forest itself went without rain for about 9.5 weeks.
In 1996, Columbia scientists shifted Biosphere 2’s 2.6-million-gallon Arizona ocean between ice age, modern and future CO₂ every 3 months; future chemistry cut coral calcification by about 40%
For years, scientists argued about whether it would be safe for the ocean to absorb the carbon dioxide that people release into the atmosphere. When Biosphere 2 began, it was a widely reported experiment in which people lived in confinement to test whether a closed biosphere could support them.
Scientists altered the air around a Wisconsin forest for 11 years; extra CO₂ drove 39% more productivity, but ozone reversed part of the gain
What happens when young forest communities spend more than a decade growing in air with unusually high levels of carbon dioxide and ozone? Scientists in Wisconsin set out to find the answer by changing the atmosphere around these communities and tracking how the trees responded over 11 years.
Earth Will Become One Big Supercontinent Again—And It Will Probably Kill Us, Scientists Say
In 200 million years, there will be no borders–and possibly no humans.
The Bull Case For Sphere Entertainment (SPHR) Could Change Following New 4D Wizard of Oz Launch
Sphere Entertainment Co. announced that The Wizard of Oz at Sphere introduced a series of new and expanded 4D effects on September 25, 2026, including animatronic Winged Monkeys, themed scents, “Glinda Glitter,” pyrotechnic fireworks, and scented apples. By deepening its multi-sensory technology in partnership with Warner Bros. Discovery, Google and Magnopus, Sphere is reinforcing its position in premium, experiential destination entertainment. Next, we will examine how this upgraded 4D...
Scientists who read 16 years of radio tracking from three Mars orbiters say the mantle beneath the planet's southern highlands runs 200 to 400 degrees Celsius hotter, averaged over the whole depth of the mantle, than the mantle beneath the northern plains, an inference drawn from the way Mars flexes under the Sun across each Martian year
The tracking shows Mars deforming in a way a uniform planet should not, and the least strained explanation is a hemisphere of mantle that something is still keeping warm.
Gloria Steinem Stayed Positive, Even as the Manosphere Took Hold
The feminist icon thought many women would carry on her legacy. But at an unsteady time for feminism, how will the movement carry on?
Brentford reiterates commitment to ensuring acceptable behaviour
Brentford supporters create a fantastic atmosphere at Gtech Community Stadium on every matchday.Season after season, both home and away, our fans provide incredible support to our men’s, women’s a...
Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio Acquires Shares of 24,151 Sphere Entertainment Co. $SPHR
Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio bought a new position in shares of Sphere Entertainment Co. (NYSE:SPHR - Free Report) during the second quarter, according to its most recent Form 13F filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The fund bought 24,151 shares of the company's
The nation’s cartoonists on the week in politics
Every week political cartoonists throughout the country and across the political spectrum apply their ink-stained skills to capture the foibles, memes, hypocrisies and other head-slapping events in the world of politics. The fruits of these labors are hundreds of cartoons that entertain and enrage readers of all political stripes. Here's an offering of the best of this week's crop, picked fresh off the Toonosphere. Edited by Matt Wuerker.
Iron helped scientists trace Earth's oxygen. Now it's telling a bigger story
For decades, scientists have studied iron preserved in ancient rocks to reconstruct how Earth's oceans and atmosphere became rich in oxygen. A new study suggests iron has recorded other major transformations ...
US Proposal To Eliminate PAHO Funding Raises Alarm Over Health Security In Western Hemisphere
The oldest multilateral health organization in the world, the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), is fighting across dozens of countries against many of
Why is Sphere Entertainment stock rallying today?
Why is Sphere Entertainment stock rallying today?
Decagon on Saturn’s South Pole (Color)
Recent NASA Hubble Space Telescope images show the gas giant Saturn and its southern pole, where astronomers have discovered a 10-sided atmospheric wave. Observations show the decagon extends through multiple layers of Saturn’s atmosphere.
Astronomers Spot an Uncannily Geometric, 10-Sided Structure in Saturn's Atmosphere
Saturn keeps forming polygons.
Scientists discover a mysterious wave shaped like a decagon in Saturn's atmosphere
The strange structure appears to have formed recently, but nobody can explain exactly why
Amendment 72: New Opportunity: A.17 Hydrosphere
A.17 Hydrosphere solicits research on the Earth's Hydrosphere: to advance the understanding of the physics of Earth’s water across the ocean, land, and the
Heliophysics Education Community meeting presentation
Presentation | Grades 6-12+ | This presentation by Dr. Jared Espley explains how the Sun sends a stream of charged particles called the solar wind.
Entertainment Unleashed: Sphere Entertainment’s (SPHR) Innovative Approaches
Sands Capital, an investment management company, released its “Sands Capital Select Growth Fund” Q2 2026 investor letter. The letter can be downloaded here. Select Growth Fund targets U.S. businesses driving significant structural change through disruptive innovation. The fund returned 23.2% in the quarter, outperforming the Russell 1000 Growth Index’s 16.7%. U.S. large-cap growth equities rebounded […]
Hubble tracks new decagon encircling Saturn’s south pole
Recent observations with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope have revealed a giant, evolving 10-sided atmospheric wave encircling Saturn’s south pole. This discovery marks the first time a large regular-sided jet pattern has been observed in the planet’s southern hemisphere. The feature appears remarkably similar to Saturn’s famous hexagon at its northern pole, but is also distinctly different, suggesting scientists may be witnessing a new atmospheric phenomenon develop on the iconic gas giant.
What is a fan really worth?
As football teams around the country begin their seasons, it’s a good time to ask a bigger question about college and professional sports: What is a fan really worth?For sports organizations, the answer starts with the ticket, but it doesn’t end there. Fans buy parking, concessions and merchandise. They attract sponsors, bolster media products and help create the atmosphere that makes live sports feel different from almost anything else.
Amendment 71: New Opportunity: A.16 Cryosphere
A.16 Cryosphere solicits high-impact efforts focused on sea ice, ice sheets, and glaciers. The expectation is that proposed investigations will use the wealth of data from NASA satellites and airborne campaigns to address the most urgent and impactful topics in cryospheric science, as identified in the National Academy of Sciences Decadal Survey, Thriving on Our Changing Planet: A Decadal Strategy for Earth Observation from Space (2018), https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24938.
How many cosmic particles are passing through your body at any moment?
While Earth's atmosphere protects us from harmful cosmic rays, other cosmic particles are passing through us every second.
Space News: NASA Johnson pilots chase Moon’s shadow for eclipse science
During the Aug. 12 total solar eclipse over Europe, scientists aimed to study a long-standing mystery: why the Sun’s outer atmosphere, the corona, is far hotter than its visible surface. Capturing the data they needed meant being in exactly the right place at the right time.
The nation’s cartoonists on the week in politics
Every week political cartoonists throughout the country and across the political spectrum apply their ink-stained skills to capture the foibles, memes, hypocrisies and other head-slapping events in the world of politics. The fruits of these labors are hundreds of cartoons that entertain and enrage readers of all political stripes. Here's an offering of the best of this week's crop, picked fresh off the Toonosphere. Edited by Matt Wuerker.
Florence Harding Photographed Taught Me About Women Partaking in Politics
What would Florence Kling Harding think now? A week or so ago when I cast my ballot at my designated polling place this thought crossed my mind. I imagine the former first lady would be pleased about how routine voting has become for women in the United States. But perhaps she would not be satisfied. Today, a published essay I wrote for In Pursuit spotlights a lesson in leadership demonstrated by First Lady Florence Harding. In my research, I discovered there’s a lot to be said about this strong female historic figure. But it was the blurry photograph capturing Mrs. Harding voting for her husband Warren G. Harding, one of two presidential candidates from Ohio, on Nov. 2, 1920—Election Day—that drew my attention. It was the first presidential election held in the United States after the ratification and certification of the 19th Amendment, granting women the right to vote. Its 106th anniversary was marked on Wednesday. I remember thinking what a shame it was that her presence in the image was imperfect while the mostly men surrounding her were in sharp focus. Perhaps cynically I thought, “No surprise!” On further examination, though, the clear reaction of the people surrounding Mrs. Harding was equally important. In that snapshot of time, many of their expressions were serious. One man stood elevated above the rest with a slight smile as he caught a glimpse of history. Mr. Harding hovered over his wife’s shoulder closely observing the last seconds of her vote being cast. Their gazes were locked in on who would hours later become first lady. Subscribe The attention she drew is worth noting, mostly because, as I learned, Mrs. Harding understood the power her image could have on women across the country. She and I share in common a career in newspapers—hers the business side and mine on the editorial side. Nevertheless, it became clear to me as I write in the essay that she understood if she was seen voting, other women would follow suit. That wouldn’t necessarily be the case in that 1920 election, though, Karen Kedrowski, the director of the Carrie Chapman Catt Center for Women and Politics at Iowa State University, explained to me. Florence Harding was a suffrage advocate. But, suffrage was a contentious issue and women were far from united at the time of the election. In fact, a substantial number of women and active anti-suffrage organizations thought women participating in elections was a “bad idea and antithetical to their roles in the private sphere as mothers and homemakers,” Kedrowski said, adding that women were also viewed as the moral compass for their husbands and sons. If women got involved in politics they would become contaminated by it. Suffragists, on the other hand, wanted to bring that moral presence into politics to help clean things up. Only about 30% of women voted in that 1920 presidential election. That was a start. More than 100 years later in the 2024 presidential election, 66.9% of eligible women voted (91.3 million), compared to 63.7% of men who voted (82.6 million), according to the League of Women Voters. Yes, Florence Harding would be pleased. Subscribe That imperfect Election Day image was important symbolism about women’s potential during what was known as the “Modern Woman” era and the growing public role women were taking in the 1920s. I imagine Florence Harding might agree with other succeeding first ladies when it comes to gender equality and the importance of the vote. Like Michelle Obama when she said in her memoir Becoming, “We all play a role in this democracy. We need to remember the power of every vote.” Or Hillary Clinton during her unsuccessful run for president in 2016 when she remarked on International Women’s Day: “We celebrate the progress we’ve made to advance the full participation of women in economies and societies. And most importantly, we recommit to finishing the unfinished work that remains …” I hope if you are reading this, you will also read my essay on Florence Harding’s leadership lesson for In Pursuit. And perhaps that will move you to dig deeper and read more about Florence Harding’s life circumstances in biographies like First Lady Florence Harding: Behind the Tragedy and Controversy by Katherine A. S. Sibley. No, I do not think Florence Harding would be satisfied despite how far women have come from that day she first entered her polling place. She once wrote to the Camp Fire Girls, “The part that women play in the world has been greatly changed … It has been broadened and enlarged …” It has. And as women continue to engage in civics it continues to be. I imagine Florence Harding would want women to keep meeting the moment. Read the In Pursuit essay Watch on C-SPAN Share East Wing Magazine is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe
NASA Johnson pilots chase moon's shadow for eclipse science
During the Aug. 12 total solar eclipse over Europe, scientists aimed to study a long-standing mystery: why the sun's outer atmosphere, the corona, is far hotter than its visible surface. Capturing the ...
Greenland research institutions halt new US collaborations citing mistrust
Although US President Donald Trump still harbours ambitions to take over Greenland, for US researchers his actions seem to have had the opposite effect. Over the summer, Greenland’s two largest research institutions, the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources and the University of Greenland, both announced policies of not starting new research projects with US researchers.Both institutions cite a mistrust of the US as a motivation for the decision. At the University of Greenland, the change of policy has already led to the rejection of specific proposals for new collaborations, rector Mari Kleist told Science|Business. “The reason is the changed political situation between the US and Kalaallit Nunaat [Greenland], and the uncertainty that the American interest in Kalaallit Nunaat has created,” she said.For the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, a partially state-funded environmental research institution, the decision was also prompted by a lack of trust in US intentions. In a July interview with local broadcaster KNR, director Josephine Nymand cited concerns about data ownership, US “influence operatives” and social media monitoring of researchers entering the US.The Greenland Institute of Natural Resources has long collaborated with the US National Science Foundation (NSF). The policy change will not affect these existing partnerships but will apply to collaborations with new, “unknown” partners, Nymand said. At the University of Greenland, the policy is the same.The changes come amid proposals of severe cuts to the NSF, which would likely also see the US research presence in Greenland reduced. In spite of this, when asked about the Greenlandic policy change, the NSF remained optimistic of its continued presence in Greenland.“We are grateful to our partners in Greenland for their collaboration in advancing scientific knowledge and training the next generation of researchers. NSF remains committed to the long-term collaborations with Greenland that enable scientific research near communities and on Greenland’s ice sheet,” an NSF spokesperson told Science|Business.Fewer US researchers in GreenlandMost research published on Greenland is on natural science topics such as the cryosphere, ice dynamics, permafrost and climate change. In recent years, US researchers have been the most prolific publishers on Greenland.The US research presence in Greenland goes far beyond the capital of Nuuk, where the two research institutions are located. It includes the Pituffik Space Base in northwest Greenland, various projects in settlements and research stations along the coast, as well as research stations on the Greenland ice sheet itself.The largest of these sites, Summit Station, is located at the highest point of the Greenland ice sheet, about 3,200 metres above sea level, and since the 1980s it has been used for drilling cores out of the ice sheet. These ice cores provide valuable information on the global climate going back at least 100,000 years. About 30 kilometres from Summit Station, the Danish-led Greenland Ice-core Project (Grip), funded by the European Research Council, is also drilling ice cores. Although they initially competed, the relationship between the two research teams has “long been amiable,” Jørgen Peder Steffensen, a Danish researcher who has been part of Grip for more than 40 years, told Science|Business.However, since Trump took office in early 2025, Steffensen has noticed a reduction in US research in the country. “Several of our American partners did not make it into the field this year. Their field seasons were cancelled because they lacked the budget,” he said.He ascribed part of the reduction in US researchers to a renovation of Summit Station. “A very large share of NSF funding has gone into renewing the station. Money has been taken from research and allocated to rebuilding it,” he said.A report published in August by Arctic Hub confirms Steffensen's observations of fewer US researchers. It shows that US research publications on Greenland took a dip towards the end of the period spanning 2015 to 2024. In 2024, before Trump took office, the number of publications had fallen from an average of about 250 articles a year, to just 164, second behind Canada at 169.Data from the NSF logistics provider Battelle also shows a reduction in US research presence in Greenland in recent years. In 2023, Battelle counted 48 projects across 78 locations, but in 2025 that number had fallen to 40 projects across 38 locations. And while relations with US personnel in Greenland have remained strong, some tensions have arisen since Trump took office. “On a personal level, there is nothing. But it’s hanging in the air. It hangs unspoken,” Steffensen said.Cutting ties with US researchers entirely would come at a higher cost for the ice core researchers than the Nuuk-based institutions. To get cargo to and from their bases, both Grip and Summit Station rely on unique, ski-equipped Hercules LC-130 aircraft operated by the New York Air National Guard. Without these, maintaining a research base on the Greenland ice sheet would not be viable on current budgets, Steffensen said. “[If the Hercules planes were not available], we would have to think outside of the box. We would have to use smaller planes, and we would have to build a base closer to the coast. But staying in our current location would be too expensive and it would create a huge carbon footprint,” he said.Suspicious people in NuukIn her explanation of the severed US ties, Greenland Institute of Natural Resources director Josephine Nymand compared the decision to past situations when the institute had to cut ties with China and Russia, the latter due to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. And although the current situation is less severe, the comparison reflects the seriousness with which Nuuk sees the US threats. “From Greenland’s perspective, the US may not look so different from Russia right now: a much larger neighbouring power threatening to invade,” Lin Alexandra Mortensgaard, a researcher of international politics in the Arctic at the Danish Institute for International Studies, told Science|Business. “From a European perspective, it is not a comparable situation, because we are entangled with the US on all possible fronts and do not want to destroy more than is absolutely necessary. But from Greenland’s side, there may well be a need to send a clear signal to the US,” she went on. Suspicions have been fuelled by instances of Trump-affiliated people in Greenland trying to persuade Greenlandic citizens to support a US takeover. The most prolific among them is Tom Dans, a former venture capitalist and pecan farmer who was appointed by Trump as the chair of the United States Arctic Research Commission. Observers fear that he is now using research to achieve a US takeover.“Greenland is a small society with a small population, so when Americans with unclear affiliations wander around, trying to be good friends with people, and you don't know what they want, that creates mistrust. This probably played into the research institutions taking these drastic steps,” Mortensgaard said.Related articles:The US ‘golden age’ science strategy: what Europeans need to knowEU polar research melts into the backgroundAnchor Greenlanders in Arctic climate research, experts tell EU ahead of policy updateAnd although Greenland’s population is small at just 57,000, for Mortensgaard, it serves as a microcosm for the geopolitical situation as a whole: global powers fighting for their interests to the detriment of the common interest. Arctic research already suffered when collaborations with Russia broke down in 2022, she said, so a split with the US would be a serious hit to climate science.“The Arctic climate system does not respect borders or geopolitical divides. When collaboration across those lines suddenly becomes impossible, it is a huge problem for knowledge production,” she said. European alternatives?The Greenland Institute of Natural Resources is funded partly by research grants from external sources like the NSF. To replace the US funding, the institute will have to look for alternative revenue sources, and Nymand said that she is looking to Europe for those. Aside from Denmark, of which Greenland is formally a part, she also noted increased interest in research collaborations from the UK, France and Switzerland. Kleist of the University of Greenland told Science|Business that it was too early to say if the severed US ties would lead to more collaborations with Europe. Meanwhile, Mortensgaard believed that the tensions in Arctic research could well leave room for closer European partnerships, or stronger links with Canada. “I spoke to Canadian researchers who had long-standing relationships with American colleagues and who collaborated with the US Navy, but who had gotten worried that their data on sea ice could be used if Trump suddenly decided to follow through on his threats of invading,” she said. “Like Canada, I think Greenland is considering creating closer ties to Europe and I think European capitals will be open to this,” she said.
What climate science tells us about the causes of the Colorado River crisis
The scientific consensus is that rising levels of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere have pushed the Colorado River to the brink.
Canadians Unveil Major Change At Bell Centre
The Montreal Canadiens have routinely been regarded as enjoying arguably the top home ice advantage not only in the National Hockey League, but in North American professional sports.Bell Centre has routinely been described by Canadiens players and opponents alike as an intimidating and special atmosphere to play in thanks not only to the history forever […] The post Canadians Unveil Major Change At Bell Centre appeared first on HEAVY.
Why Supersized Entertainment Is Booming
Read this article to understand why supersized entertainment, including premium screen formats, blockbuster concert tours, and the Las Vegas Sphere, are booming.
Michigan must reject antisemitism in political discourse
The atmosphere for Jews in our state feels toxic. We feel under attack, scapegoated, misunderstood and deeply uncertain about the future
Starstruck: NASA Research Shows How Sun’s Ancient History Shaped Earth
In two recent NASA-funded studies, scientists uncover how ancient events in the Sun’s history may have helped create Earth’s unique climate and may have driven previously unexplained climactic shifts.
One Of Our Most Detailed Views Yet Of Betelgeuse Reveals Unexpected Long-Lasting Structures In Its Inner Atmosphere
There are hot spots that have been there for longer than models predicted.
Thrive Counseling opens in Owensboro with focus on accessible, welcoming mental health care
Thrive Counseling, which opened Aug. 3 in Owensboro, is looking to provide a comfortable atmosphere for those seeking mental health services.
When scientists announced Webb’s first definitive detection of Neptune’s auroras in March 2025, they revealed another surprise: observations taken in 2023 showed that the planet’s upper atmosphere had cooled by several hundred degrees since Voyager 2 visited in 1989—and scientists still don’t know exactly why.
Webb's 2023 H3+ spectrum measured Neptune's upper atmosphere at 358 plus or minus 8 kelvin, far below Voyager 2's 1989 estimate, but two snapshots cannot yet explain what drove the change.
Buccaneers news: Fans love Jon Gruden's broadcasting booth return
It was the first time in the last eight years that Jon Gruden returned to the broadcasting booth. The former football coach and media personality returned to the NFL booth for the first time since 2018, helping to call the Tampa Bay Buccaneers preseason game vs. the Kansas City Chiefs . Joining Ronde Barber in the booth, Gruden kept the atmosphere […] The post Buccaneers news: Fans love Jon Gruden's broadcasting booth return appeared first on ClutchPoints.
Blowing Up an Asteroid With a Nuke: Scientists Shocked by Final Result - Futura-Sciences
Asteroids: A Perennial Threat Over Billions of Years The risks asteroids pose to Earth never truly go out of style—they regularly return to the spotlight. And for good reason: these threats are all too real. Unlike any species before us in the 4+ billion-year saga of Earth’s biosphere, we are...
Reimagining how scientists study the chemistry of the air
Professor Victoria Barber and doctoral student Cooper Crabtree are spearheading Keck Foundation-funded project charting a path toward better understanding atmospheric oxidation. by Álvaro Castillo, UCLA College of Letters and Science From the vantage point of Victoria Barber, a UCLA assistant professor of chemistry and biochemistry, understanding the chemical reactions that shape air quality and climate are among the most pressing scientific challenges of our time. And thanks to a recent grant from the W.M. Keck Foundation, she and doctoral student Cooper Crabtree will spearhead a new research project exploring exactly how pollutants form in the atmosphere. Specifically, the project will examine how volatile organic compounds transform through atmospheric oxidation and explore how pollutants, like smog, form in the atmosphere. VOCs are released by sources ranging from trees and wildfires to vehicle exhaust pipes and consumer products such as cologne and perfume. As they undergo atmospheric oxidation, they can transform into a wide range of other compounds. Anyone in Southern California can attest to the urgency of this area of research — for example, in late July of this year, Los Angeles County was under an active ozone pollution advisory for almost a full week. While many people associate ozone with the protective ozone layer high in the stratosphere, ground-level or tropospheric ozone is a harmful secondary pollutant formed through atmospheric oxidation. Understanding how VOCs transform into pollutants like ozone is therefore critical to improving air-quality forecasts and informing strategies to reduce exposure. “My group is focused on trying accelerate our understanding of these networks of reactions so that we can do a better job of predicting how those pollutants form,” Barber said. “When we make decisions about how we might alter emissions, we can understand how that’s going to influence the production of these downstream pollutants.” With support from the W. M. Keck Foundation, Barber and Crabtree are developing new experimental approaches that will combine — and improve — techniques to study hundreds of chemical systems more efficiently than traditional methods allow. Instead of spending years decoding a single VOC, the project seeks to dramatically expand the pace and scale of discovery. The grant comes at a particularly important moment for environmental research. Barber, who joined UCLA in 2023, says funding for climate and air-quality research, especially for early career scientists, has become increasingly difficult to secure, a challenge compounded for ambitious projects that require building entirely new research infrastructure. The Keck Foundation’s support, Barber said, provides the flexibility to pursue bold early-stage, high-risk ideas that may be more difficult to fund using conventional federal funding sources. “It’s really, really hard to do environmental research under the current federal paradigm,” Barber said. “By stepping in and providing stable and flexible funding to explore this new idea, the Keck Foundation is making a huge difference to my research program.” In addition to funding early-career faculty, the Keck Foundation’s support is also focused on empowering graduate students like Crabtree in their scientific growth. The project gives Crabtree the opportunity to help develop an entirely new experimental approach to studying atmospheric chemistry — an experience that will provide him with valuable technical skills, scientific training and preparation for the next stage of his career. Stable funding also allows doctoral students like Crabtree to devote themselves more fully to research rather than balancing their scientific work with additional teaching responsibilities needed to cover funding gaps. “Getting to devote more of my time to research this past school year has greatly improved the pace and quality of our experiments, data analysis and planning for our future work,” said Crabtree, who is pursuing a Ph.D. in chemistry. “I feel very lucky — especially amid the current uncertainty surrounding scientific funding — to be able to continue exploring exciting knowledge gaps in our field and growing as a scientific researcher.” For Barber, mentorship is among the most rewarding and important aspects of her role as a faculty member. “Our jobs as faculty are to do good science and make good scientists,” she said. “I believe the Keck Foundation shares this belief and sees the potential positive impact this project can have.”
The nation’s cartoonists on the week in politics
Every week political cartoonists throughout the country and across the political spectrum apply their ink-stained skills to capture the foibles, memes, hypocrisies and other head-slapping events in the world of politics. The fruits of these labors are hundreds of cartoons that entertain and enrage readers of all political stripes. Here's an offering of the best of this week's crop, picked fresh off the Toonosphere. Edited by Matt Wuerker.
AMPLIFIED: Las Vegas nightlife, Stoney’s Sunset grand opening, and Sphere F1 party
Watch FOX5 Amplified as co-hosts Dani and Tom debrief Las Vegas nightlife, including Stoney's Sunset grand opening and the Backstreet Boys F1 afterparty at Sphere.
From spheres to 12-fanged grains, scientists tame unruly sand in graphics and simulations
On a sunny summer's day, children build sandcastles on the beach. But behind every castle and crumbling dune lies a surprisingly difficult scientific problem. In fact, the physics of sand is not yet fully ...
Insurance premiums, copays top Americans’ list of healthcare gripes
A new survey from the nonprofit research group the Commonwealth Fund found that the cost to access healthcare was the top concern across political divides. Americans do disagree, however, on how to solve the problem.