SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " vora " 138 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
The merits and pitfalls of metaphor use in science communication
Effective science communication is a powerful but underrated tool. Metaphors, a common literary device, draw connections between unlike things and are often conceptually, innately understood. In science and science communication, these figures of speech act as a means of structuring concepts to provide the basis for further exploration. The use of metaphors in science can be a catalyst for change, invention, and, unfortunately, misunderstanding. Metaphors should be used responsibly when attempting to make complex scientific concepts easily understandable, and should weigh the accuracy and accessibility of information in a favorable balance.
Dodgers offense faces a vulnerable Astros bullpen
After an underwhelming output against the Cardinals, the Dodgers offense gets a favorable matchup in the Astros bullpen
Did DOJ Settlement and Strong Ticket Demand Just Shift Live Nation Entertainment's (LYV) Investment Narrative?
Live Nation Entertainment recently outlined continued strong global concert demand, pricing power and a favorable Department of Justice settlement that avoided a Ticketmaster divestiture, while also confirming past management presentations at MoffettNathanson and J.P. Morgan investor conferences, both of which were webcast to investors. These developments, alongside Vanguard holding over 12.04 million shares and modest insider selling, spotlight how regulatory outcomes and investor...
Americans continue to view both the Republican and Democratic parties negatively
The share of Americans holding unfavorable views of both parties has grown over time, rising to 26% today compared with 21% in 2020.
Where UNC lands in USA TODAY Sports' post-spring practice re-rank
An unfavorable 2025 season gives the UNC football team a bleak outlook heading into the fall. Where does USA TODAY Sports rank the Tar Heels?
College sports sponsorships are quietly shaping what fans buy
44% of college sports fans say sponsorships favorably influence their purchase decisions, according to February data from Big Chalk.
Altman makes courtroom appearance as potential jurors slam AI, Musk
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman was spotted at a California courthouse, where some potential jurors shared unfavorable views about AI — and Elon Musk
Warming waters are supercharging an invasive salmon predator in Alaska
As Alaska’s rivers warm, invasive northern pike are becoming noticeably more voracious. Scientists discovered that pike of all ages are eating more fish, with young pike increasing consumption by over 60%. Warmer water speeds up their metabolism, pushing them to hunt more. This growing appetite could spell trouble for struggling salmon populations.
Pasture cropping may improve soil health and forage quality
Pasture cropping as a land management practice can pay off for producers on lands where environmental conditions are favorable.
Is tit-for-tat political gerrymandering the future of US politics?
Virginia voters delivered a major win to Democrats on Tuesday.A narrow majority voted to allow lawmakers to bypass the state's bipartisan redistricting commission. That means the Democratic-led legislature will create a map that’s more favorable to them in the midterms.It's the latest chapter in a redistricting saga that President Trump started last year, but is the tit-for-tat redistricting battle the future of US electoral politics?We speak with Democratic Virginia governor Abigail Spanberger to hear her perspective.For sponsor-free episodes of Consider This, sign up for Consider This+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org.Email us at considerthis@npr.org.This episode was produced by Tyler Bartlam and Matt Ozug. It was edited by Tinbete Ermyas. Our executive producer is Sami Yenigun.
A Look At Sphere Entertainment (SPHR) Valuation As Upgraded Earnings Outlook Lifts Momentum
Momentum shift puts Sphere Entertainment in focus Recent favorable revisions to earnings estimates and a strong momentum score have pushed Sphere Entertainment (SPHR) onto more investors’ radars, as the stock’s performance has differed from both the broader market and its media peers. See our latest analysis for Sphere Entertainment. Despite a 2.8% decline in the latest session and a 4.4% 7 day share price pullback, Sphere Entertainment’s 30 day share price return of 18.8% and very large 1...
Spain Business Confidence Falls 2.3% in 2Q, Most Since 4Q 2022
Spain’s business confidence fell 2.3% in the second quarter compared with the first quarter, the biggest decline since the end of 2022, according to data from the Spanish statistics office. The survey showed 21% of business establishments expect a favorable quarter, while 16% are pessimistic about their business outlook.
“AI polls” are fake polls
A few weeks after Donald Trump’s second presidential win, I took the train up from London (where I was living at the time) to Oxford to attend a conference on polls and forecasts of the 2024 election. Most of the attendees were pollsters or academics, but I also watched presentations from Aaru and Electric Twin, two companies that do what is interchangeably called synthetic sampling, silicon sampling, or synthetic audiences. Stripped of startup jargon, that means they use large language models (LLMs) to simulate responses to public opinion polls by having AI agents take on the role of survey respondents. I had already heard of Aaru thanks to some articles with eye-catching headlines like “No people, no problem: AI chatbots predict elections better than humans” in the months leading up to Election Day. The founders were making some big, some might even say far-fetched claims, such as: “within two years, we will simulate the entire globe — from the way crops are grown in Ukraine to how that impacts production of oil in Iraq, trade through the strait of Malacca, and elections for the mayor of Baltimore.” When Semafor asked Aaru’s cofounders — Cameron Fink and Ned Koh — about my boss, they said “we respect all those who came before us.” Nate (as he so often does) shared his thoughts on Twitter: Fink and Koh were relatively good-natured about this back-and-forth when we spoke at Oxford. They even offered to mail me one of the t-shirts featuring Nate’s quote they apparently had made. I never took them up on the offer, which I now somewhat regret. These synthetic sampling companies fell off my radar for a while, but they do still exist. In fact, Aaru recently received a $1 billion valuation. Is what they’re doing anywhere close to the most important frontier in AI development? Not by a longshot, especially when Anthropic just developed a model so adept at exploiting software vulnerabilities that it’s only being released to 40 companies. Still, silicon sampling is increasingly finding its way into public polling. Axios reported in March that “a majority of people trust their own doctors and nurses” based on findings from Aaru — without mentioning that the “people” in that sentence were actually LLMs. Around the same time, the Public Sentiment Institute “boosted” their online sample of 373 real survey respondents with 114 AI agents.1 (Spoiler alert: even the co-founder of Electric Twin doesn’t think that’s a particularly defensible approach.) Polling companies like Qualtrics and Ipsos are also developing synthetic data panels. So, what should we make of these … “polls”? Let’s get one thing out of the way: whatever they are, they’re not polls in the way that term is usually defined. Subscribe You can’t replace polls with AI On one hand, using LLMs to essentially make up fake survey respondents sort of sounds like the dumbest idea ever, one that will at best imperfectly replicate real polls while introducing all sorts of biases. On the other hand, with LLMs improving at a remarkable, perhaps even alarming rate, maybe that means I’m a dinosaur at the ripe old age of 24 because I still want to rely on polls that talk to actual people. I’m not going to argue that synthetic samples are completely useless. In fact, as I’ll return to later, there is evidence that some techniques can replicate topline survey results quickly and cheaply. But the marketing from certain companies can be slightly optimistic. “No traditional poll will exist by the time the next general election occurs,” said Fink in 2024. We’re just 206 days away from the midterms, and based on the fact that I still have to collect a bunch of polls every day, I’d say he should have run that prediction by a sample of AI agents before the interview.2 To see why synthetic samples can’t replace polls, here’s a quick primer on how they work. The simplest version of these models involves taking a LLM (like ChatGPT or Claude), giving it a demographic profile (e.g., a white, college-educated woman who lives in Utah and makes $70k a year), and then asking it to respond to a survey question. You repeat that process a few thousand times using different demographic profiles and end up with a sample of synthetic survey responses. The actual models used by private companies are more sophisticated than this, usually because they incorporate more hypothesized demographic characteristics for each agent and provide them with extra information. Aaru, for example, feeds agents a diet of news and information they’d be likely to consume, while Electric Twin incorporates their customers’ proprietary data about the audience they’re trying to replicate. The way Ben Warner, the co-founder of Electric Twin, explained it to me was “we have a large amount of data on […] for instance, 5,000 people. Can we make an accurate prediction of how they would respond to another question?” Still, it should be obvious why synthetic samples can’t replace polls. Polling is fundamentally a data collection process. We might use surveys to make predictions by feeding them into election forecasts, but the main purpose of a poll isn’t prediction, it’s gathering new data about what people think and how they feel. Silicon sampling, on the other hand, produces no new data. It’s simply a model: you input LLM training data, demographic prompts, and a bunch of other information, and it spits out a prediction for what a poll would say. We love models here, but models aren’t polls. That difference is an important philosophical sticking point for most pollsters I talk to. “I think politics should stay away from [synthetic sampling], because we’re trying to […] represent the voice of the people,” said Natalie Jackson, a vice president at GQR Insights. Democratic pollster John Hagner told me: “I think I’m just incredibly skeptical of this idea. I don’t think it’s research. At that point, you’re asking the machine to tell you what you already believe.” Hagner has seen some presentations of early synthetic sampling experiments, but so far, “if it’s being used in a campaign, people are keeping it incredibly quiet.”3 But Eli, I hear you saying, aren’t polls themselves increasingly governed by modeling decisions? Indeed they are: pollsters’ choices on which sampling method to use, how to define their likely voter models, and how to weight their samples can and do lead to dramatic differences in the results they publish. Aaru even referenced these limitations in the methodology statement included with that maternal mortality “poll” — although I’m using the term “methodology statement” loosely here, because it doesn’t really explain how the model works at all. We can ignore the (frankly preposterous) implication that synthetic sampling isn’t subject to a separate set of biases. The important point is that there’s still a meaningful difference between using weighting and other statistical techniques on actual polling data and using a model to predict what a poll would say. The latter is far closer to election forecasts or techniques like MRP — potentially useful models, but not a replacement for polls.4 To be fair, other synthetic sampling companies are perfectly happy with the distinction between polls and models. Warner compared polling and synthetic sampling to different tools in a toolbox. “The mistake I think we make is we think that these new tools should either work in exactly the same way or somehow replace these old tools,” he said. “Rather than thinking of it as, okay, so we’ve always had the hammer, we’ve always had the screwdriver, now we’ve got a saw. But don’t use a saw to try [to] do the job of a hammer.” A quick comment from Nate Eli didn’t ask me for a comment — rather rude of him, don’t you think? But since I’m editing this story, I figured I’d add a few quick thoughts rather than putting words in his mouth. Beyond the frequently misleading marketing, what bothers me about the AI “poll” hype is that as AI tools make statistical inference cheaper and/or better (note that these are not synonyms) that actually increases the comparative value of collecting original data. You might be able to train a model to make a reasonable estimate of what some hard-to-reach poll respondent would say — say, a young Black man who voted for Trump. (Such a person checks a number of boxes for a voter who is usually hard to reach in surveys.) Indeed, this is closely related to what models like the Silver Bulletin forecast already do. They essentially smooth out the kinks in noisy survey data by making inferences based on past voting patterns or national polls or surveys of other states. But you don’t actually know what these voters think unless you’re reaching them directly. If there’s a shift in opinion among this subgroup, you’re not going to detect it. So if I were running a campaign, I’d invest more in going the extra mile to find a representative sample of those voters. And then I’d hire some smart quants — or Claude? — to figure out the implications for campaign strategy based on proprietary data that my competitors didn’t have access to. -Nate Silver Are these models any good? If synthetic surveys are just a new type of model, the next obvious question is whether the models are at least accurate. The answer very much depends on who you ask. On one end of the spectrum, you have the maximalist argument that synthetic sampling is more accurate than actual polls. “It’s an incredibly challenging problem to go to someone and say ‘hey, we’re going to be more accurate at predicting human behavior than you, even when you talk to your customers directly’,” Koh recently told CNBC. In his view, synthetic sampling isn’t a saw to polling’s hammer, it’s “magic.” There’s certainly evidence that synthetic samples can replicate certain survey toplines. But if Aaru does have any examples of their approach outperforming the polls, they’re keeping those to themselves.5 Aaru’s 2024 election model, for example, had Kamala Harris leading in Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin on November 4th. And although they’ve since taken down their forecast page, they gave Harris a 50.5 percent chance of winning the race on November 2nd.6 After the election, Fink told Semafor he was happy enough with those results because they were “within margin of error,” a term that is completely meaningless when applied to a “sample” of AI agents. And of course, Aaru says their models have improved since 2024, so supposedly now they’d be more accurate than the polls? Still, their stronger argument is on cost: “We are significantly faster and cheaper than traditional polling, and still more accurate,” said Fink. The first two claims are undeniably true, but the third brings us to the opposite end of the spectrum. Both Jackson and Hagner are skeptical that these models are reliable for anything beyond replicating common survey toplines. “I just […] don’t think the machines are what we want when we’re looking for nuanced views. My example on this is people in Arizona and Nevada in 2024 who voted for Trump and voted for expanding abortion in their states on ballot initiatives,” said Jackson. Hagner identified another issue. Maybe the synthetic respondents, like sycophantic LLMs, are inhuman in one important way: they’re too nice. “The reports that have come through at the meetings that I’ve been at are that the early experiments on this, they cannot get respondents to be as racist or sexist or, frankly, as negative as human respondents,” he said. Academic research mostly agrees on this point. While there are some papers that show promising results when using LLMs to replicate polling data, most show that LLMs suffer from various quirks like producing too few “don’t know” responses and can seriously overpredict the favorability of politicians like Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. They also seem to struggle with too little variation between demographic subgroups, so the difference in predicted opinion between Democrats and Republicans, for example, is too small. When I asked Warner about these studies, his response to these papers was that just because academics can’t get synthetic sampling to work doesn’t mean that the technique doesn’t work in general. “Actually, the argument is, okay, yours does not [work]. That does not mean […] for this complex set of machinery, which uses a lot of investment, a lot of time, a lot of money, you can’t get it to work.” Cards on the table, I’m somewhat sympathetic to this argument because academics aren’t exactly great at making election forecasts. Usually, the people with skin in the game are the most accurate. Warner’s argument is that the approach Electric Twin takes — which includes, for example, making multiple predictions for each synthetic respondent using different models and prompts and subsequently averaging those to get a final prediction in a sort of ensemble forecast — produces better results than the simpler academic models. Warner shared a comparison between his method and the method from a recent academic paper with me, and Electric Twin was indeed able to get more accurate replication. But even still, he acknowledged that synthetic sampling “is not a crystal ball.” “If you asked me, do I think using other data sources will be more accurate than asking somebody who they will vote for, I would probably say no. But if you asked me ‘would your system be useful for our turnout modeling today?’ I would say yes.” For better or worse, it looks like the method is already getting more popular in the market research world. Most of the clients Aaru touts these days are businesses like EY and McDonald’s. And AI will probably begin to pop up in other parts of the political polling process. Pollsters are already using it to code open-ended survey responses, and some firms, like YouGov, are testing using LLMs to ask survey respondents questions. More worryingly, one danger to actual polls is that AI agents can be used to infiltrate online surveys. Most online polls use various checks to prevent that from happening, but there’s conflicting evidence on how effective those filters are and how prevalent AI agents currently are in online panels. If those agents ever become impossible to detect, it might spell the end of online polling, but the solution isn’t to replace all of your respondents with ChatGPT. Silver Bulletin is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a subscriber. Subscribe 1 That particular poll obviously doesn’t meet Silver Bulletin standards for aggregation. But we exclude all Public Sentiment Institute polls from our averages because we classify them as an amateur polling firm. 2 You could argue that Fink meant the next presidential election, but (a) I’m also confident we’ll still have real polls in 2028 and (b) in that case he should have asked an LLM to define “general election.” 3 Quick caveat: that’s reporting from a Democratic pollster. It’s possible that Republicans are more willing to use AI in political campaigns. 4 Indeed, Silver Bulletin does not include “polls” produced by MRP in our forecasts or averages, and we think it’s extremely misleading when their practitioners describe them in a way that suggests original data had been collected among a large number of states or Congressional districts. 5 A recent report from Aaru and EY did show two examples of a synthetic estimate being closer than a survey to a real-world benchmark — but I’d take those findings with a grain of salt because the report reads more like an ad and didn’t involve any sort of prediction being made ahead of time. 6 For comparison, our odds for Harris on the same day were 48.2 percent.
Poll: Colorado Gov. Jared Polis loses support among Democrats
Gov. Jared Polis is losing steam among members of his party, particularly progressive Democrats, according to a recent poll. Other statewide Democrats also saw their favorability ratings drop, though relatively stable compared to the governor’s numbers, the poll conducted by the Colorado Polling Institute in late March said. Forty-four percent of respondents said they view […]
NovaBridge Reports Full Year 2025 Financial Results and Provides Business Update
Successful transformation to global biotech platform with two mid-stage potential best-in-class/first-in-class programs, givastomig and VIS-101, with compelling proof-of-concept dataGivastomig, a potential best-in-class/first-in-class Claudin 18.2-directed bispecific antibody for gastric cancer, has shown robust and durable responses with broad CLDN18.2 activity, favorable safety, as well as potential eligibility for FDA’s Accelerated Approval Pathway with potential initiation of a registrationa
MAGA Is Winning Its War Against U.S. Science
Source: NBER With all the other terrible news right now, you may not have noticed that Donald Trump is in the process of killing American science. OK, that’s an exaggeration — but not that much of an exaggeration. The Trump administration’s latest budget proposal calls for a gigantic increase in military spending combined with severe cuts to social programs. But as the chart above shows, it also calls for debilitating reductions in research funding. Furthermore, Trump appointees have already been strangling science by sharply reducing the rate at which research grants are approved. Here, for example, is the number of new grants approved by the National Science Foundation: Source: Nature Large numbers of existing grants have also been frozen or terminated, especially in the study of infectious diseases. Add to this a sharp drop in visas issued to foreign students, who often play a direct role in research and who help support academic departments that do research: Put all of this together, and much U.S. scientific research is set to come to a screeching halt — not a few years from now, but over the course of the next year or two. This new assault on U.S. science is taking place at a time when the role of American science in the world has already been greatly eroded. The chart below, based on research recently reported by the National Bureau of Economic Research, measures national strength in science by the share of publications in highly ranked journals. In the 1990s the United States had more such publications than the rest of the world combined. Since then we’ve dropped into third place — well behind China and slightly below the European Union. And this was before the Trump administration’s attack on science had time to take its full effect. Source Some erosion in U.S. scientific preeminence was inevitable given China’s growing sophistication and wealth. But we’ve also fallen behind Europe, even though everyone says that Europe is lagging economically and technologically. Claims about Europe’s underperformance are, in fact, dubious if one looks hard at the data. But it’s still striking to see America lagging. What’s going on? There are presumably multiple factors behind America’s scientific lag. But even before Trump II the growing hostility of the U.S. right to science surely had some negative effect. And since the rise of MAGA G.O.P. attitudes toward science in general have become overwhelmingly hostile. This is true even for the Republican rank and file: And while I haven’t been able to find good survey data, it’s obvious that the anti-science turn has been even more pronounced — and began earlier — among the Republican political elite. Chris Mooney published The Republican War on Science in 2005, and even then was describing a longstanding trend. Why have Republicans turned so anti-science? Part of the answer is that they believe that scientists don’t support them. And they’re right! A study of who scientists give money to shows that only a small percentage gave money to Republicans even 20 years ago, and that almost none of them donate to Republicans now: Social scientists have always been strongly pro-Democratic, while there used to be a significant number of physical, “hard” scientists supporting the GOP. But these days physicists are almost as uniformly Democratic, or at least non-Republican, as sociologists. Why are there almost no Republican scientists? It’s not a mystery. GOP political orthodoxy includes positions that are at odds with the scientific consensus on multiple issues, ranging from the validity of the theory of evolution, to the reality of climate change, to the efficacy and safety of vaccines. In each case the scientific consensus is solidly grounded in evidence. But even before the rise of MAGA the U.S. right was increasingly hostile to evidence-based policymaking — especially, of course, where the evidence is unfavorable to fossil fuel interests or quack medicine, both financial mainstays of right-wing politics. So scientists don’t support Republicans, and the feeling is mutual. Today’s Republican Party doesn’t like science or scientists. It doesn’t like having its preconceived views challenged by appeals to evidence. It knows that very few scientists are on its side electorally. In general, it sees scientific research as a threat to its grasp on political power. Add in MAGA’s combination of rabid anti-intellectualism and allergy to any hint of criticism, and one has the makings of a drastic anti-science turn in policy. “Ignorance is strength” might was well be an official MAGA motto. And as I said, we aren’t talking about something that will happen over the course of multiple years: The U.S. scientific enterprise is threatened with severe damage, even collapse, over just the next year. There are many reasons to find this prospect horrifying: Think of all the beneficial advances, affecting almost every part of life, that won’t happen because U.S. science — still crucial to the world — has been eviscerated. But think, also, of America’s international standing. Can a nation that has forfeited its role as a leader, or even a contender, in global science, still be a Great Power? No. MUSICAL CODA
Flutter Entertainment NYSE FLUT Valuation Check After FanDuel Predicts Optimism And Favorable Sportsbook Results
Board change and what it might mean for Flutter Entertainment (NYSE:FLUT) Flutter Entertainment (NYSE:FLUT) has drawn fresh attention after two separate developments: a boardroom change in its compensation leadership and renewed focus on how its US-facing operations respond to recent betting trends. See our latest analysis for Flutter Entertainment. Despite fresh interest around FanDuel Predicts and sportsbook profitability when favorites lose, Flutter Entertainment’s share price has faced...
Something really big is going to happen': NASA's historic Artemis II mission approved for April 1 launch
NASA has given the 10-day Artemis II mission the green light after its flight readiness review, and the weather outlook remains favorable.
New poll finds Trump's net favorability at record low in Wisconsin
The first Marquette University Law School poll conducted after the U.S. attacks on Iran found 61% oppose the war, with divides among Republicans.
American Express Business Line of Credit Review 2026
The American Express business line of credit offers fast funding, flexible payments and favorable terms, especially for existing Amex customers.
Storm science: What fuels severe weather
Severe storms threaten North Carolina, as research shows atmospheric conditions fueling tornadoes and thunderstorms are becoming more common across the Southeast.
3 Democrats compete for most favorable governor's candidate in poll
The governor's race remains crowded, and polling has been anything but consistent.
Washington House passes 9.9% ‘millionaires tax’ as business leaders warn of ‘seismic shift’
Some tech leaders and entrepreneurs worry the legislation could undermine their sector by souring Washington’s relatively favorable tax laws for startup founders, investors and high-wage earners.
PENN Entertainment Resets Board As ESPN Exit Refocuses Digital Strategy
PENN Entertainment (NasdaqGS:PENN) has ended a proxy battle with activist investor HG Vora through a cooperation agreement. As part of the deal, three new independent directors are joining the board and the board is being expanded. The governance changes follow PENN's exit from its ESPN Bet partnership and ongoing corporate restructuring efforts. PENN Entertainment, a major US regional casino and online gaming operator, is reworking its boardroom as it reorients around its core land based...
Changes brewing at PENN Entertainment
WYOMISSING, Pa. – How will a truce with activist investor HG Vora impact PENN Entertainment? The stock market had an optimistic take today.
Mamdani pitches Trump on housing investments by with mocking up newspaper with his name in the headline
It’s a tactic designed to appeal to Trump, who is keenly aware of his media coverage and, aside from being an avid viewer of cable news, is known to voraciously consume coverage in the local New York City publications.
PENN Entertainment adds three directors, reaches deal with HG Vora By Investing.com
PENN Entertainment adds three directors, reaches deal with HG Vora
Democrats' positivity about the party still in the dumps since Trump victory, poll finds
A recent poll by The Associated Press-NORC indicated that only around 7 out of 10 Democrats hold a favorable view of their political party.
Gallup ends its presidential tracking poll, the latest shift in the public opinion landscape
Gallup, one of the country’s most well-known polling firms, announced Wednesday that they will no longer track presidential approval or favorability of political figures. The move ends the longest-running continuous effort to track US opinion of the nation’s president, dating back to the tenure of Franklin D. Roosevelt in the late 1930s .
West Hartford Business Buzz: February 9, 2026 - We-Ha
A round-up of openings, closings, and other news about West Hartford businesses. Business Buzz is sponsored by NBT Bank, and we are very thankful for their support! By Ronni Newton Neither the weather nor college basketball have been very favorable this weekend. I'm hoping, however, that the arctic attack will recede and
Supreme Court allows new California congressional districts that favor Democrats
The Supreme Court has allowed California to use a new voter-approved congressional map that is favorable to Democrats in this year’s elections, rejecting a last-ditch plea from state Republicans and the Trump administration
Poll: Hochul hits new favorability rating high, keeps lead over Blakeman
New Yorkers don’t like U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) the poll found, with only 28% supporting it and 67% opposed to it.
'New evidence' gives Jordan Chiles a chance to secure the return of her Olympic bronze medal
Switzerland's highest court has sent the case of Jordan Chiles' disputed bronze medal from the 2024 Paris Olympics back to the CAS based on 'new evidence' that might prove favorable for the U.S. gymnast.
The trajectory of Ohio State women’s basketball in March Madness
There is a lot of basketball left, but the road to the postseason is favorable — if the Buckeyes can win
Poll finds Trump, 3 potential presidential candidates, viewed unfavorably by Americans
As 2025 draws to a close, Americans are viewing Trump and these three potential candidates in an unfavorable light.
Wall Street Bets: Accel Entertainment, regional markets, New York online sports betting
Wall Street Bets is a roundup of recent notes from analysts covering the gambling industry.Accel Entertainment benefits from favorable terms for VGTsTruist Securities’ Patrick Keogh on December 24 looked at the prospects for Accel Entertainment, a supplier of video game terminals:“Yester
Houston hailed as one of America's 10 best cities for startups
Houston's favorable economic climate is enticing entrepreneurs.
Why AMC Entertainment Stock Got Mashed on Monday
Key PointsThe Thanksgiving weekend period didn't compare favorably to the 2024 version.