SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " gulati " 813 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
4 Ways World Affairs And Politics Can Impact Your Business Strategy
How politics and world affairs impact supply chains, consumer behavior, regulation, and growth, and what business leaders should do to prepare and respond.
Kalshi fines Republican in key House race, bans George Santos for life, after insider trading probes
The prediction market Kalshi on Monday fined the Republican nominee in a competitive House race and imposed its first-ever lifetime ban, against former Rep. George Santos, after insider trading investigations.
Louisiana takes a step toward adopting Medicaid work requirements
Louisiana’s proposed work requirements for Medicaid enrollment largely adhere to the new guidelines Congress and President Donald Trump laid out last year. The new state regulations are expected to go into effect for Medicaid recipients in January.
Kalshi's head of research weighs in on election betting, possible regulations
Nicole Kagan, Kalshi's head of research, joined California 360 to explain the platform's purpose and safeguards.
Will Meta settlement reduce physical, mental health risks for young users?
Experts say many of its terms may help limit use, negative social comparisons, but regulation may still be necessary
Video in competitive congressional race spotlights challenge of regulating AI-generated political content
In Wisconsin, a recent example can be found on the campaign social media of U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden, R-Prairie du Chien, who is running a competitive reelection bid.
White House, hemp lobbyists bet on shutdown politics to delay ‘diet weed’ ban
Lawmakers say the Trump administration is promising to use the one-month punt to work on new regulations.
Gubernatorial candidates Phil Weiser, Greg Lopez spar, as Marx skips debate
Two of the candidates for Colorado governor squared off in a televised debate on Thursday night, when Attorney General Phil Weiser, the Democratic nominee, and former U.S. Rep. Greg Lopez, an unaffiliated candidate, delved into issues of affordability, data center regulation and gun laws. The debate’s tone was civil. The policy differences between the two […]
Judge blocks Trump’s Postal Service regulation on mail-in ballots
A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order that prevents the Postal Service from inserting itself into the election process while litigation continues.
Wisconsin congressman violates 'spirit' of state law regulating AI in campaigns
In the days leading up to and after the Wisconsin primary, Congressman Derrick Van Orden was posting AI-generated videos of his opponent Rebecca Cooke online.
Alle-Kiski Valley small business owner, fire department press Harrisburg to make skill games legal again
The fate of skill games still hangs in the balance, despite the state Supreme Court’s imposed Oct. 13 regulation deadline. The state Supreme Court in June deemed skill games are slot machines. It ruled that unlicensed skill games are illegal, but held off on enforcing their removal to give the
Driven: The 992.2 Porsche 911 GT3 Touring earns its keep
The "everyday" GT3 delivers, despite looming regulations and an ever-inflating price tag.
Judge allows Trump’s mail-in ballots plan to proceed, at least for now
With litigation moving quickly, a Postal Service regulation implementing Trump’s proposal could still be blocked.
FDA promises new AI guidance, and what happened at Epic's UGM
In this edition of STAT Health Tech: FDA's plans for regulating generative AI-powered devices, and updates from EPIC's UGM.
Mozambique strengthens regulation of medicines and imported vaccines, boosting health protection
Mozambique has reached a major milestone in strengthening the regulation of medicines and imported vaccines, with its national regulatory authority recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO) as having a stable, well-functioning and integrated regulatory system.The Autoridade Nacional Reguladora de Medicamentos de Moçambique (ANARME) has achieved Maturity Level 3 (ML3) for the regulation of medicines and imported vaccines under WHO’s global classification of national regulatory authorities.Mozambique becomes the 10th country in Africa to reach ML3, joining Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania and Zimbabwe and marking further momentum in strengthening regulatory systems across the region.For people in Mozambique, stronger regulation means greater assurance that medicines and vaccines are appropriately evaluated for quality, safety and efficacy and monitored throughout their lifecycle. It also strengthens the country’s ability to identify and respond to safety concerns and substandard or falsified products, while supporting timely access to quality-assured health products.“Mozambique’s achievement is the result of sustained investment in regulatory capacity that will deliver crucial benefits for public health,” said Dr Sylvie Briand, WHO Chief Scientist and Assistant Director-General a.i. for Health Systems, Access and Data. “Strong regulatory systems protect people, build confidence in health products and help countries respond more effectively to evolving public health needs and challenges. Mozambique’s progress also contributes to advancing regulatory capacity across Africa and promoting more equitable access to safe and quality-assured medicines and vaccines.”Building a stronger regulatory systemMozambique’s achievement follows years of sustained efforts to build the institutions and capabilities needed for effective regulation.WHO worked closely with ANARME throughout this process, assessing the national regulatory system and supporting the authority in addressing identified gaps and strengthening priority areas.WHO evaluates national regulatory systems using its Global Benchmarking Tool (GBT), which assesses the regulatory functions required to ensure the quality, safety and efficacy of medical products. These include registration and marketing authorization, licensing, market surveillance and control, pharmacovigilance, regulatory inspection, laboratory testing and oversight of clinical trials, as applicable. WHO’s maturity levels range from 1 to 4. Reaching ML3 confirms a stable, well-functioning and integrated regulatory system, while ML4 represents an advanced system focused on continuous improvement.Benefits for Mozambique and the African continentAn ML3 regulatory system can support more timely and predictable regulatory decisions, reinforce safety monitoring and help ensure that health products entering and remaining on the market meet appropriate standards.It also creates greater opportunities for regulatory cooperation and reliance – approaches that help authorities make use of the work and decisions of trusted regulators, reduce unnecessary duplication and allocate limited resources more efficiently, while maintaining rigorous standards for quality, safety and efficacy.As the first Portuguese-speaking country in Africa to reach ML3, Mozambique’s experience can also contribute to strengthening regulatory systems and fostering greater cooperation, knowledge sharing and reliance among Portuguese-speaking countries and across the African continent. Its achievement further reinforces a more connected African regulatory ecosystem, providing a solid foundation on which the newly established African Medicines Agency can build to advance regulatory convergence and cooperation across the region.Strengthening confidence in regulatory recognitionMozambique’s achievement comes as WHO strengthens the process through which the performance of national regulatory systems is recognized.The newly established Technical Advisory Group on Regulatory Systems Strengthening (TAG-RSS) brings together independent international experts to advise WHO on whether recommendations concerning regulatory authorities reaching ML3 and ML4 and WHO-Listed Authorities, are supported by the findings of WHO evaluation processes. Its recommendations provide an additional level of independent assurance, strengthening the impartiality, transparency and credibility of WHO’s recognition process.Mozambique is among the first countries to achieve ML3 following consideration and recommendation by the TAG-RSS. As part of the same TAG-RSS process, South Africa was recommended to retain its ML3 status for the regulation of vaccines manufactured, imported or distributed in the country, following an additional WHO assessment. This extends the recognition first granted in 2022 and underscores the sustained performance of the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA).The two recognitions highlight continued progress in strengthening regulatory systems across Africa, as well as the importance of continued performance, improvement and assessment in sustaining regulatory maturity.WHO will continue working with ANARME and SAHPRA to sustain these gains and support continuous improvement as science, technologies and public health needs evolve.
California’s clashes over business regulation rage on as legislative session nears end
As the Legislature approaches the August 31 adjournment of its two-year session, some of the bills arising from the conflict are still pending, and the contending forces are applying maximum pressure to affect the outcomes.
Livestock grazing regulations need flexible updates
The Bureau of Land Management last updated their livestock grazing regulations the year I graduated from high school. I am 49. Assessing rangeland health can’t be done once and not revisited. This year is a prime example that managers must be able to make decisions not just year by year, but week by week. This […]
Health inspectors shut down popular Santa Monica eatery
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health regularly inspects restaurants and markets to make sure facilities comply with health regulations and staff are handling food properly. The vast m…
California's clashes over business regulation rage on as legislative session nears end
Unions, consumer groups, personal injury lawyers and environmentalists are battling business groups over surveillance pricing and anti-monopoly bills.
San Antonio hemp business sues Texas over new regulations, says $300k in inventory pulled
The Limits of Unauthorized-Practice in Regulating Mental Health AI - Petrie-Flom Center
In May, Pennsylvania’s State Board of Medicine filed a lawsuit in the state’s Commonwealth Court against Character Technologies seeking to prevent it from engaging in unauthorized medical practice. The alleged “practitioner,” however, was not a physician or even a human being. It was a chatbot named Emilie.
Radiology Partners petitions FDA for greater clarity around imaging AI regulations
Mosaic Clinical Technologies believes diagnostic imaging vision-language models represent an “important and promising” advancement in medicine, but one that requires greater regulatory scrutiny.
Trump admin. attempts to stop states from regulating online prediction markets
The Trump administration is attempting to block New York and other states from regulating online prediction markets.
California business owners, drivers fume at new tire regulations: 'Everything is going to hell'
Building in Bellingham? Now there's no required parking
The Bellingham City Council has passed new regulations removing requirements to build on-site parking, and establishing consistent and minimum bicycle parking requirements citywide.
Trump's White House business shindig will be a cesspool of financial conflicts
He's welcoming leaders of crypto firms and prediction markets—industries he's deeply invested in—to discuss regulation.
FTC investigating Epic Systems over potential antitrust violations
The agency is looking into claims that the EHR vendor is blocking data access to its over 300 million patient records. If true, such actions would violate federal regulations.
'This isn't just about health': Spike warns Seattle's unlicensed food vendors are hurting businesses playing by the rules
Spike warns that Seattle's unlicensed food vendors threaten health and hurt businesses complying with regulations.
Guest Commentary: ‘New weather’ reality defies politics
The climate has caused more disruptions this summer. Liberal politicians will blame the fossil fuel industries for continuing to drive up greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere; conservatives will blame regulation and lack of…
U.S. District Judge denies hemp business' plea for pause on new regulations
United States Western District of Virginia Judge Robert Ballou Friday ruled against a cohort of Virginia hemp businesses, denying their motions for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order to prevent new hemp restrictions from taking place.
Montenegro Wants To Be Europe’s Next Crypto Hub, But Weak Regulation Might Be Costing It Big Business
Montenegro’s crypto market is growing despite regulatory gaps that could deter investors and leave billions in digital-asset transactions beyond effective oversight.
Opinion | These A.I. Policies Will Hurt Our Business. We Should Do Them Anyway.
The risks posed by A.I. are too great to forgo any regulation, even for those who stand to gain tremendously from the technology’s rise.
A Public Health Approach: Using Alcohol Regulation Strategies to Reduce Online Sports Betting Harms in Higher Education
The O’Neill Institute believes that the law is a fundamental tool for solving critical health problems.
New York State Department of Financial Services Introduces Guidance and Proposed Regulation to Strengthen New York’s Surprise Medical Bill Resolution Process
New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) Acting Superintendent Kaitlin Asrow today issued new guidance to health insurers, health care providers, and independent dispute resolution (“IDR”) entities implementing improvements to the IDR process signed into law by Governor Hochul as a part of her Fiscal Year 2026-2027 (FY27) Budget.
The CJEU Next Wave on Sports and Competition
New rulings on no-poach agreements, sports agents’ regulations, and disciplinary systems further clarify how EU competition law applies to sports ecosystems.
Treasury changes rules for businesses reporting ownership
The Biden-era regulation was intended to prevent money laundering, but critics said it was overly onerous.
California to phase out paraquat, a powerful weedkiller associated with serious health issues
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation said all manufacturers of pesticide products containing paraquat have "voluntarily canceled" their product registrations.
The U.S. Healthcare System is Already Mostly Socialized
Now that Abdul El-Sayed is the Democratic nominee for Michigan’s open Senate seat, the outcome of this crucial race will depend mainly on two things: Whether Republicans succeed in demonizing El-Sayed because he’s brown and a Muslim, and whether they succeed in demonizing him as a left-wing radical. I will defer for the now the question of whether bigotry will be effective this year, although I will address it another day. What I want to address instead is El-Sayed’s signature issue — healthcare. Yes, El-Sayed advocates Medicare for All, a position the usual suspects denounce as “socialism.” I will get to the politics of his stance soon. Today, however, I want to talk about the substance. We should be clear that El-Sayed doesn’t even call himself a socialist. On the contrary, he explicitly disavows the label, saying “I’m a capitalist who just knows about capitalism”. In fact, as I explained in a previous post, the policies that El-Sayed advocates qualify him as a social democrat, not a socialist. Still, El-Sayed advocates a system under which the government would pay almost all medical expenses. Isn’t that socialism? Well, if that is the criterion then much of U.S. healthcare is already socialist. In fact, the government’s role is so large that U.S. healthcare is better described as partially privatized socialism than as anything resembling a free market. Let’s start with the raw numbers on health insurance, which pays the bulk of Americans’ medical expenses. Americans receive health insurance either from private companies or from public programs, overwhelmingly Medicare and Medicaid. Here’s what the breakdown of coverage and spending between private and public looked like in 2024: While a majority of Americans with health insurance get it from private companies, well over 100 million of us are covered by government programs instead. And these government programs pay more total dollars for medical bills than the private insurers do. Why do government programs that cover a minority of the population account for a majority of health insurers’ outlays? Mainly because Medicare covers seniors, and we’re expensive. Also, while Medicaid covers many younger Americans, disabled and elderly beneficiaries account for most of its spending. Even by the raw numbers, then, U.S. health insurance looks as much public as private. But that understates the government’s role: Private health insurance in the U.S. is both highly regulated and heavily subsidized. This is obviously true for the insurance coverage purchased by tens of millions of Americans through the exchanges established by the Affordable Care Act. But employment-based health insurance, which covers 161 million Americans, is far more of a government creation than most people realize. For employment-based insurance exists largely because of huge implicit government subsidies that come with major strings attached. Here’s how that works. If your employer pays you $10,000, that’s taxable income. But if your employer pays $10,000 toward a company health insurance plan that meets certain criteria, it isn’t taxable. That’s a huge effective subsidy, running at more than $300 billion a year. Take that subsidy into account, along with the more than $100 billion per year spent subsidizing policies purchased under the ACA, as well as the outlays on Medicare and Medicaid, and net effect is that the government pays for more than two-thirds of Americans’ health insurance. Granted, there are strings attached. Roughly speaking, employment-based health plans can’t discriminate based on medical history — that is, they can’t deny coverage to employees with pre-existing conditions — and they also can’t offer the plans only to highly compensated employees — a health plan that is only for the C-suite is considered taxable income. So given the restrictions of the federal tax code, employer-based health insurance is a lot like Obamacare, which also prohibits discrimination based on medical history and provides subsidies to make insurance affordable to lower-paid workers. The fact is that virtually all of private healthcare insurance is already well under some form of government control through regulation and tax subsidies. How should we think about this system? First of all, is Medicare socialist? Don’t tell anyone, but the way Medicare operates — it covers every senior’s medical expenses, whatever they turn out to be, while being funded by taxes that depend on one’s income — could be summarized by the old Marxist slogan “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” And back in 1961, when Ronald Reagan was the face of a last-ditch effort by the American Medical Association to block the creation of Medicare, he denounced Medicare as “socialized medicine” and warned that it would destroy our freedom. In reality, American freedom survived until Jan. 20, 2025, while Medicare is immensely popular, with an 82 percent favorable rating in the most recent KFF survey. Medicaid, government health insurance for lower-income Americans, comes in at 73 percent. This is in sharp contrast to public views about private insurers, who are widely disliked if not hated and accused of denying essential care. Furthermore, if Medicare is socialism, then the whole U.S. health insurance system, with the government paying most of the bills and placing conditions on private insurers, is almost equally socialist. If you insist on calling any program the government pays for and regulates socialist, then U.S. healthcare would best be described as a partially privatized form of socialism. And one must ask, what is the point of the part that is privatized? Do private insurers add anything positive? Or are they simply parasites, skimming off money that could have been paying for care? The case for viewing insurers as parasites is strong. Many Medicare benefits are now delivered via Medicare Advantage, that is, plans paid for by the government but run through insurance companies. MedPAC, an independent advisory commission, estimates that last year Medicare Advantage plans were overpaid by $84 billion, thanks to practices such as “upcoding,” in which patients’ health problems are overstated to get larger sums from Medicare. Assessing the waste from employer-based insurance is harder, but most evidence suggests that private insurers have substantially higher administrative costs than Medicare does. Furthermore, the complexity of private insurance, with multiple payers all trying to deny care when they can, is a huge burden both on providers — doctors, nurses, and hospitals — and on patients. What do private insurers offer to compensate for these costs? One must go through intellectual contortions to avoid the conclusion that they are, in fact, parasites. Which brings me back to El-Sayed. In supporting Medicare for All, he’s basically calling for an end to the partial, parasitic privatization of a healthcare system that is already hugely dependent on public funding. When one looks at it that way, it’s not at all a radical proposal. Admittedly, the political lift requires overcoming the opposition to higher taxes to pay for Medicare for All. Political realism rather than economics was the reason I and many other progressives supported Obamacare, with all its complexities, rather than demanding an immediate move to Medicare for All. But the political calculus may very well have shifted since the 2000s, as Americans are fed up with a system of unaffordable premiums, rampant claim denials, and byzantine claim administration. Moreover, funding healthcare insurance through taxation would allow for a much more progressive distribution of the cost. That is, compared to the present system, middle-income households would pay less as high-income households would pay more. And the U.S. would stop wasting large sums on pointless administrative costs. So let’s be clear: El-Sayed’s healthcare platform is perfectly reasonable on the merits of cost, fairness and health efficacy. And with private insurers never more hated, while millions of Americans are losing their health insurance, 2026 may be its time. MUSICAL CODA
Second Academy Sports + Outdoors store planned in Tyler
The City of Tyler could be getting another Academy Sports and Outdoors store, according to the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation.
Ted Cruz’s college sports bill left in limbo as U.S. Senate takes August recess
Sen. Ted Cruz’s bill to place new regulations on college sports failed to reach the floor this week, imperiling its chances to become law this year.
Gavin Newsom's 'hidden climate tax' hitting Americans nationwide, lawmaker warns
Rep. Vince Fong targets the EPA-authorized vessel at berth regulation that lets California levy massive penalties on cargo ships docked at its ports.
Ford's fastest ever Mustang is so wide it had to use legal loophole to avoid being treated the same way as a truck
The 2025 Ford Mustang GTD is so wide that Ford had to rely on a legal loophole to get around an unusual US vehicle regulation
Chinese users of AI companions bereft after government tightens regulations
Li Linlin cried for days after losing her AI boyfriend. She exchanged about 700,000 words with him over two years and never got to say goodbye when he was eliminated
California Politics 360 full episode | CA Forever asks lawmakers to help move project forward
The backers of a new proposed town called California Forever are asking lawmakers to cut regulations to attract a major business to the area to help with development.
Ted Cruz’s college sports bill left in limbo as U.S. Senate takes August recess
U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz’s bill that would place sweeping new regulations on college sports failed to reach the floor this week before the Senate gaveled out for recess, imperiling its chances to become law this year as the midterm elections approach.
The White House's new, quiet plan to attack public health
This proposed regulation is insidious. Political appointees would be given greater authority to decide who gets federal funds, with experts sidelined.
As regulations fade, electric truck adoption will hinge on business cases
Rather than plan around a national transition to zero-emission trucks, fleets are weighing total cost of ownership, operational feasibility and customer expectations.
Scientists Used AI to Create 16 New Viruses
The use of AI systems to create viruses opens up new possibilities for combating bacterial resistance. It also raises concerns about the pace at which technology is outstripping regulation.
Congress considers bill to set new rules for business of college sports
The Protect College Sports Act, sponsored by Sen. Ted Cruz, would codify a broad set of regulations for collegiate athletics.
Congress considers bill to set new rules for business of college sports
The Protect College Sports Act, sponsored by Sen. Ted Cruz, would codify a broad set of regulations for collegiate athletics.
Virginia businesses sue to block new THC regulations set to take effect this month
Starting on Aug. 16, hemp products in Virginia cannot exceed more than 2 milligrams of THC per package. Supporters say it's a safety issues, but some local businesses the new regulations could force them to take massive amounts of products off the shelves.
Wearable ultrasound patch boosts REM sleep without drugs or surgery
A new wearable patch may help people reach REM sleep faster and remain there longer without medication or surgery. In a study of 28 participants, the device shortened the time to REM by 43 minutes and extended it by about 16 minutes. Researchers also observed signs of improved stress regulation and changes in brain circuits tied to emotion.
Lawsuit filed against N.Y. state's lead paint regulations
Petitioners from several nonprofits say regulations don't satisfy the requirements of a state law that went into effect last year.
HHS proposes cutting many federal education and health guidelines for Head Start
A year after withholding funding from the antipoverty preschool program, the agency run by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. now says deregulation will allow the program to serve more children.
Medicare pushes ACCESS but doesn't tell patients what providers offer it
In this edition: Progress report on ACCESS, Medicare's chronic care pilot, and health regulators courting industry on AI regulation.
Stefon Diggs is signing with the Washington Commanders, AP source says
New England released him in March, and the 32-year-old went unsigned in free agency while facing strangulation and other criminal charges in connection with a dispute with his former private chef.
1 Central Florida restaurant shut down after health inspections last week
The Department of Business and Professional Regulation shut down one Central Florida restaurants during the week from July 26-August 1
Viewpoint: Europe needs a new scientific contract
The White House's new science strategy should be required reading in the Berlaymont and every European capital.Not because Europe should copy it. Parts of it should concern Europeans deeply. But because it asks the question Europe has so far avoided while steadily losing ground in the global race for technological leadership.Europe already possesses many of the world's finest universities, scientists and research-intensive companies. It produces world-leading research in fields ranging from quantum technologies and biotechnology to climate science. Yet time and again Europe generates the scientific breakthroughs while others build the companies, industries and strategic advantages around them, particularly in digital technologies. Increasingly, we find ourselves regulating technologies whose underlying capabilities were developed elsewhere.This is not primarily a scientific failure. It is an institutional one.The settlement that shaped modern science policy emerged after the Second World War. In Science, the Endless Frontier, Vannevar Bush argued that governments should invest in fundamental research while protecting scientists from political direction. Public investment was justified precisely because no government, university or company could predict where the next transformative discovery would emerge.That scientific contract served liberal democracies extraordinarily well. It underpinned decades of advances in medicine, computing, energy and communications, but the world for which it was designed no longer exists.Artificial intelligence is transforming not only technology but the production of knowledge itself. Advanced chips, computing power, data and scientific instruments have become strategic assets. Scientific knowledge now diffuses globally almost instantly. Competitive advantage increasingly lies not in making discoveries first, but in possessing the infrastructure, capital, engineering capability and institutions required to translate those ideas into products, industries and strategic advantage.The old boundaries between science, industrial policy, national security and geopolitics have largely disappeared. Dual-use technologies now underpin both economic power and military deterrence.The US has recognised this shift. In July, the White House published Science: A New Golden Age, a comprehensive attempt to rethink the relationship between science and national power. The report builds on Bush's legacy, but departs from his framework in important ways. Science is no longer treated simply as the source of future discoveries. It is presented as the foundation of economic resilience, technological leadership and national security. AI, advanced infrastructure and the capacity to build become as important as discovery itself.Yet the report also reveals a striking paradox. The same administration calling for “a new golden age” of US science has simultaneously proposed deep cuts to the federal research enterprise while expanding political influence over the allocation of public research funding. Europe should therefore distinguish between the report's diagnosis and its prescription. The diagnosis, that science has become a strategic asset, is compelling. But the prescription is self-defeating. Long-term technological leadership depends on strong universities, academic freedom and the institutional autonomy that makes scientific discovery possible. This distinction matters. Bush's achievement was never simply to make science serve national strength. It was to establish a division of labour in which governments invested in research without attempting to direct discovery itself. Scientific breakthroughs emerge precisely because researchers retain the freedom to pursue questions whose value cannot yet be demonstrated and whose conclusions cannot be anticipated.Neither China, nor the USAs science becomes more strategically important, the temptation to politicise it inevitably grows. But scientific freedom is not an obstacle to technological leadership, it is an essential precondition.China represents the opposite model. For decades it has integrated science, manufacturing, infrastructure and industrial policy into a single national strategy. Its ability to mobilise resources around critical technologies is formidable. But it does so within an authoritarian system where scientific priorities are increasingly inseparable from political power.Europe should imitate neither model. It should learn from the strategic ambition of the US without importing its growing politicisation of science. And it should learn from China's capacity to build without adopting its concentration of power.Instead, Europe needs a scientific contract of its own. Bush's scientific contract protected the freedom to discover because the defining challenge of the 20th century was producing new knowledge. Europe's next scientific contract must preserve that freedom while ensuring that scientific discoveries can be converted into technological, industrial and strategic capability. Because in a transactional world, Europe's freedom to shape its own future depends on its capacity to build it.Related articlesThe US ‘golden age’ science strategy: what Europeans need to knowEuropean researchers sound the alarm that Trump rule changes will hit cooperationNIH turmoil risks reciprocal EU-US access to health research fundingThis does not mean subordinating free science to competitiveness or industrial policy. On the contrary. Scientific autonomy remains the first principle of Europe's next scientific contract. Governments should not direct scientific discovery. Their responsibility is to ensure that Europe's scientific, industrial, financial and regulatory institutions work together rather than in isolation.Meeting that responsibility requires far more than research funding. European researchers need access to world-class computing infrastructure, advanced laboratories, shared datasets and scientific facilities. Innovative companies need patient capital, testing environments and a genuine single market in which they can scale without facing 27 different regulatory regimes. Public procurement must evolve from purchasing existing technologies to creating markets for new ones. Regulators must become partners in experimentation rather than guardians of yesterday's rules.A connecting architectureEurope does not need to invent the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) model from scratch. Britain's Aria, Germany's Sprind and Wellcome Leap already show that Europe can build institutions capable of taking high-risk, mission-oriented bets while preserving democratic accountability. The challenge now is not to create more isolated initiatives, but to connect them to Europe's broader scientific, industrial and financial system so that breakthrough discoveries can scale.Above all, Europe must stop treating research, innovation, industrial policy, finance and security as separate policy domains. The challenge is no longer to create excellent institutions in each of these fields, but to make them work as one European innovation system. Europe's strength will increasingly depend not on excellence within institutions, but on excellence across them.Europe's ambition should be neither to imitate the US nor to emulate China. It should demonstrate that scientific freedom, democratic legitimacy and technological capability are not competing objectives, but mutually reinforcing strengths. In an age of geopolitical rivalry, Europe's greatest advantage may ultimately be its ability to attract the world's best talent by combining scientific freedom, democratic openness and technological ambition.Bush's scientific contract helped define the 20th century because it protected the freedom to discover. Europe's challenge is not to abandon that achievement but to extend it. The defining task of Europe's next scientific contract is to preserve the freedom to discover while building Europe's capacity to translate scientific discovery into technological power.Kaare Nielsen is founder of Pomus, a Danish think tank on science and innovation.
Chartbook 464 The"China squeeze" - the politics of development counterfactuals.
There are three types of China shock discourse. Each has a distinct temporal register. China shock 1.0 was a phrase coined by US academics in the 2010s to retrospectively summarize the impact on particular US labour markets, which they identified through painstaking empirical investigation. China shock 2.0 on everyone’s lips in Europe in the mid 2020s is an alarm raised by trans-Atlantic policy thinkers warning of a coming disaster which they project onto Europe’s ailing car industry. The third type of China shock discourse - commonly known as the “China squeeze” launched most recently by Indian economists Shoumitro Chatterjee and Arvind Subramanian in the pages of Foreign Affairs - mobilizes a different, more speculative temporal register: the counterfactual realm of alternate history. The China squeeze argument asks not what has happened, or what is going to happen, but what might have been. Specifically, what options for economic development might have been open to Global South economies like India or the economies of sub-Saharan Africa, had it not been for China’s spectacular industrialization since the late 1990s and the persistent competitiveness of China’s manufacture in low-skilled segments. Chatterjee and Subramanian’s argument is that whilst China has built a powerful position in electrical machinery and other high-skill manufacturing, which is now delivering China Shock 2.0, it also continues to run a trade surplus in low-skill, labour-intensive manufacturing. This surplus is large and has remained largely unchanged in fifteen years. Indeed, in the 2010s, in trade with low-income countries, China’s surplus rapidly increased. On their reading, this squeezes low-income producers in low-skill sectors in which they “should” be able to compete. Source: “China’s Mercantilist Squeeze on Developing Countries” Shoumitro Chatterjee and Arvind Subramanian. Peterson Institute for International Economics 26-7 May 2026 Chatterjee and Subramanian’s wording is telling: (emphasis mine) The canonical trajectory of economic development in the post-World War II period is for countries to transition from agriculture to manufacturing, first in low-skilled manufacturing and then later on to high-skill manufacturing (Herrendorf, Rogerson, and Valentinyi 2013). At the global level, this implies that high-income countries (HICs) that once specialized in low-skilled activities cede manufacturing export space to poorer countries that come along to occupy that space. In 1965, advanced economies accounted for about 60 percent of global value-added exports in four key low-skilled manufacturing sectors, i.e., apparel, leather, textiles, and footwear. Over time this share declined and began to be occupied first by the East Asian tigers and, beginning in the late 1990s, by China. Today China accounts for about 50 percent of the global market. The question is whether China, with its rising prosperity, is continuing to behave like its richer counterparts and ceding export space to poorer followers or to behave unlike them and continuing to occupy space. In terms of the conceptual maneuvers it performs, of the three China shock discourses, the “China squeeze” argument is by far the most ambitious. After all, it bases its critique of China on a counterfactual imagining of the world. Like any counterfactual argument, to construct this alternative reality it must rely on a heuristic model. To make their argument Chatterjee and Subramanian mobilize two key claims. The first reference point is the actual history of rich-country industrialization, what they refer to as the “canonical path”. The idea is that countries transition from agriculture to light industry and low-skilled manufacturing and from there up the value chain. To make this useful as a standard of comparison and a means to construct a normative standard, they adjust sectoral export shares for two factors: 1. the underlying level of economic development of the exporting country, as measured by national income and 2. the degree to which the sector in question is internationalized. The idea being that for a high income country to have a high export share in low-skill sectors is anomalous and even more so if that particular product is highly internationalized and thus suitable for being “conceded” to lower-income competitors. Where should this process end? Here Chatterjee and Subramanian introduce their second benchmark. Their normative idea of a global development path is one in which, in due course, low-skill manufacturing exports are distributed in proportion to a country’s share in the global labour force. They imagine, in other words, a world of proportional, polycentric global development without much national specialization in low-skill manufacturing. A useful benchmark is that, in labor-intensive manufacturing sectors, a country’s share of world exports should be broadly commensurate with its share of the world’s low-skilled labor endowment. … In the Heckscher-Ohlin model, this would be true if value added per worker and export propensities, i.e., fraction of output that is exported, are the same across countries. It is this pleasant liberal vista of orderly global development, progressing towards a general distribution of low-skilled manufacturing against which they judge reality and conclude that the low-income countries are suffering a “China squeeze”. China is not exiting low-skill sectors fast enough Allowing for its gdp level and the degree of globalization, China’s share of low-skill manufacturing exports is far higher than it “should” be. Relative to population, its low-skill share of exports is far too high. That in turn yields the conclusion that huge numbers of jobs - the authors suggest tens of millions - are being hoarded by China. For the four sectors captured in figure 4, this excess in value-added exports is $110 billion in 2022. For all low-skilled sectors overall captured in appendix figure D.1, excess value-added exports amount to $365 billion. The crowding out of LMIC exports by China is therefore substantial. Both these claims have in common that they are strong structuralisms. The first is that development paths ought to resemble each other. The second is that broadly speaking as far as low-skilled manufacturing is concerned, all countries are alike. If the world currently diverges from the distribution of trade implied by these assumptions, if China is not following the advanced economy path and has huge exports, this must be the result of “policy”, which the authors then put in question as illegitimate or unfair. Thus the naturalistic construction of a canonical path leading to a “level” distribution of low-skilled manufacturing reveals itself to be a polemical tool. From the point of view of China shock polemics, this discourse is no doubt welcome. But as an account of economic history, it must surely be regarded as nothing short of bamboozling. Development paths do not follow a regular, natural sequence. As David Fishman put it aptly, “development is not a queue”. They are always and everywhere, through and through political. Development is not so much a process, as a project. Each such project is more or less well adjusted to its context. As Gerschenkron taught uneven and combined development implies differentiation rather than simple imitation on a single parth. It may be true that Europe and the US exited relatively early from low-skill work. But clearly technology has changed. As C&S themselves point out, China no longer enjoys a low wage environment. Do they really believe that such huge differences can be accounted for either by industrial policy, which as they admit does not operate powerfully in low-skill sectors, or by exchange rate manipulation? What is overwhelmingly dominant in explaining the persistence of “low-skill” manufacturing in China are surely the network effects of complex supply chains. Indeed the label of “low-skill” may miss the point. The degree of globalization which Chatterjee and Subramanian decide to conjure away in their model of the development path - to allow for the fact that Europe and American textiles exporters did not enjoy just-in-time logistics in the 1950s - obscures the point that the networks through which Chinese factories supply the world are themselves key parts of the low-skill industrialization project. China isn’t knocking out 1970s style “cheap”. It has redefined the entire product cycle. C&S’s casual reference to “T-shirts” is telling. In today’s “fast fashion”, there is weight on both terms. Fashion and fast. China’s success in delivering on both at unprecedentedly high speed and at unprecedentedly low cost, isn’t a low-skill operation at all. If we see development trajectories not as the serial repetition of the same, but as distinctive, crafted projects that cumulate in complex agglomerations of skill, technology and labor, then this explains why the assumption that low-skilled manufacturing should follow the distribution of population flies in the face of all experience. As countless cases attest, low-wage, low-income developed economies are not by themselves the makings of a competitive production base. As Leon Liao puts it quite fairly: “International trade has never been allocated according to population. A country’s population gives it no natural claim to an equivalent share of global exports." And the remarkable fact is that Subramanian alone and with co-authors has long been making this point, not to pillory China, as is the case of the tendentious _Foreign Affair_s and Peterson pieces, but to highlight the great counterpart to China’s industrial success, namely India’s relative failure. The much-quoted Foreign Affairs piece showed low-skill export shares only for China, not for India. If you put both countries in the picture as Chaterjee and Subramanian have done on other occasions, the picture looks like this. China is far above the line, but India, almost as large in terms of population, is no less anomalous, just in the opposite direction. As far as global populations are concerned, and the imagining of tens of millions of “squeezed” jobs, it is this Sino-Indian pair that account for a huge share of the action. What this graph reveals is not China’s cheating, but India’s “greatest development failure”, at least this is the argument made Arvind Subramanian, this time in co-authorship with Devesh Kapur, in their major book, A Sixth of Humanity. Independent India’s Development Odyssey which appeared with Oxford University Press earlier this year. In this highly critical work on India’s development, China is repeatedly evoked, not to criticize but as a benchmark against which to illuminate what India’s political economy has not delivered i.e. large-scale formal employment for hundreds of millions of citizens. Kapur and Subramanian leave no doubt, if you want to understand why China, not India was the main driver of manufacturing globalization from the 1980s, don’t look to slots opening up in the division of labour thanks to the liberal mindedness of advanced economies, look to the contrasting political economy of the Maoist PRC and India’s post-independence political economy. As Kapur and Subramian note: The great divergence between China and India did not begin in 1978 with the Deng reforms—it was well underway by then. In one of the great ironies of modern history, the conditions created by Maoism turned out to be a great launching pad for industrial globalization. As the comparison of India and China in 1980 makes clear, to imagine manufacturing would be equally distributed when populations are so differently endowed in terms of educational and nutritional is fanciful. Here is the data from Kapur and Subramanian, data which I explored back at the very beginning of Chartbook. As Kapur and Subramanian insist, the striking fact is that even as India’s growth accelerated from the 1980s, structural change has not. Formal employment in India lags woefully behind. Why? As Kapur and Subramanian note, the path-dependent impact of India’s poor early start was devastating. The list of factors they mention is long and weighty: We argue for a new five-fold explanation applicable at different stages of Indian history: in the initial stages, the legacy of two key pre-1980s policies, the neglect of agriculture and the strangling of the domestic private sector, were critical. The failure of broad-based agricultural growth militated against rural industrialization, which would have been devoted to satisfying local needs that would have necessarily been labour intensive. Then, when the boom came after 1980, the thicket of regulation and broader labour protections that were legislated prematurely in a nascent democracy, underpinned by a deep ideological aversion to private capital in general and big capital specifically, became a barrier to attaining the size that would be necessary to compete globally. Similarly, the reforms after 1991, while wide-ranging, did not quite encompass non-tradeable inputs critical to manufacturing, namely, land, logistics infrastructure and power. A combination of low investment (logistics infrastructure), regulation (land) and the continued monopoly supply by state governments (power), combined with residual socialism, kept costs at 75–100 per cent above efficient supply. These factors were compounded on the supply side by the government, which dominated the formal labour market and established exorbitantly high wages at the lower end of the skill spectrum. This made their employment in the labour-intensive sector by the private sector less attractive. Finally, when the services sector and its exports boomed, wages soared even further via a Dutch Disease effect: one successful tradeable sector killed and cannibalized another less-skilled tradable sector, namely, manufacturing. Thus, scarcity-inducing policies of the planning era, precocious democracy and a Gandhian aversion to size; inefficient, monopolistic supply of critical non-tradable inputs; the behemoth of government; and super-successful skill-intensive services successively undermined India’s unskilled labour employment opportunities. The employment failure seems to have been over-determined. … Less quantifiable but no less important are some of the sociological factors that have undermined manufacturing and factory jobs. Take the impact of the success of the IT sector—located in urban areas with better working conditions, such as air-conditioned offices, good schools for children and attractive entertainment options. It became a more attractive place for engineering and management graduates to flock to. … Consider manufacturing and female employment. Indian society makes it difficult for women to work, reflected in India’s unusually low female labour force participation (elaborated in Chapter XIII). Indian society, in particular the routine harassment of women in public spaces, makes it even more difficult for them to travel long distances to take up work.37 Combined with onerous regulations on creating hostels and dormitories for women—which, in turn, prevents multiple shifts of operation—factories need to be located in areas with a large female labour pool. While firms can take apparel plants to female labour or bring them to the plants by building large-scale dormitories, this raises costs. If there was a case for subsidies to encourage labour-intensive manufacturing, housing subsidies to build dormitories for women workers would be a good place to start. All of this meant, that when opportunities did open up, in part thanks to adjustments in China, India was in no position to take advantage. Here is the account of the 2020s from Kapur and Subramanian. It stands in dizzying contrast to the one-sided, “China squeeze” argument delivered in the Peterson and Foreign Affairs pieces: In 2022, for example, India’s share of global exports in clothing (the canonical labour-intensive sector) was 3.1 per cent compared to 32 per cent for China. This is extremely disappointing because China started vacating export space in this sector after the Global Financial Crisis as its wages started rising; it then vacated further space in the aftermath of geopolitical developments that led investors to seek alternative investment locations. Between its peak and today, China lost about 7.5 percentage points of global export share (worth about $43 billion in 2022); over this period, India’s export share remained stagnant at 3 per cent, while that of Vietnam and Bangladesh rose by 3.5 to 4 percentage points. China’s loss did not translate into any gain for India in terms of low-skill exports and employment. Put differently, when the conditions for dynamism and prosperity were established after 1991, and even more tantalizingly when the global export opportunities opened up, it was as if India was a high-wage economy and only skilled labour could benefit from the dynamism. It had converted its physically abundant unskilled workforce into an economically expensive resource, penalizing its use. It is not my mission here to argue for or against Kapur and Subramanian’s interpretation of India’s development trajectory. The point in this context is simply that the “China squeeze” such as it is can only be understood, in relation to the heavy burden of domestic constraints that Kapur and Subramanian so unsparingly enumerate. I am concentrating here on India because it is the great counterpart to China and the unspoken reference point of the “China squeeze” discourse. But the point is more general. Can anyone with a straight face suggest that the main problems afflicting the development of South Africa or Nigeria, the great centers of mass underemployment in sub-saharan Africa, are cheap competition from China driven by Beijing’s industrial policy and an undervalued RMB? Likewise, is the main problem of the American working-class the threat of Chinese competition or the manifest crisis of social reproduction in the United States itself? The point here, as in the discourse around China shock 2.0 in Europe, is to insist that we should not normalize the world and pathologize China, without actually investigating what is going on in America’s industrial wastelands, the German car industry, or India’s lopsided labour market. One-sided pathologization should be understood for what it is, a polemical gesture. Concepts like China shock and China squeeze are, what Reinhart Koselleck, following Carl Schmitt, would have described as “asymmetrische Kampfbegriffe”, or “asymmetrical counter-concepts” or “asymmetrical combat concepts”. If the function of arguments like the “China squeeze” is to alert elites in the rest of the world of the need to rejuvenate and energize their development projects, so be it. But let us see the resulting discourses as the mobilizing interventions that they are. Interestingly, a significant slice of China’s public sphere - the so-called industrial party - have been obsessed for the last twenty years with precisely these questions of counterfactual economic history. Since the mid 2000s, a massive online discourse developed around an alternative history in which Chinese techno-patriots were asked to imagine how they would proceed if they had the possibility of traveling back in time to transport modern technology into the Ming dynasty (1368-1644) thus averting the “great divergence” of the 18th and 19th centuries. It is a fantasy of course, but also a goad. The point was not directed at Westerners. The alternate history is dramatically nationalist, but few n the West had even heard of it until recently. The adherents of the industrial party are not liberal moralists. They don’t project natural ladders of international development and ask why others don’t cede space. They take the Realpolitik of global economic development for granted. Their pointe was directed against fellow Chinese. The rallying cry of the alternative narrative was this: Now that we are beginning to gain steam and push forward on our national development path, now that we are breaking out of the inferior position assigned to us even in the early years following WTO accession, do not lose yourself in humanistic imaginings about better futures. In the spirit of Deng, they called on China to embrace the hard truth of development. Perhaps one might of the Industrial Party as a cultural trend born out of desire for symbolic revenge against those who had inflicted the century of humiliation. In terms of the various temporalities of the “China shock” - retrospective, prospective and counterfactual - one might think of the Industrial Policy discourse as truly speculative, conjuring up the China shock that never was. Or perhaps one might better think of it as imagining a world in which a powerful China was no shock at all, but simply a defining fact of modern history. I love putting out Chartbook. I am particularly pleased that it goes out for free to thousands of subscribers around the world. But, writing this newsletter takes a lot of work. If you are enjoying it and would like to support the project, sign up for one of the subscription options here. It is the equivalent of a fancy cup of coffee per month! Subscribe
Impact to N.Y. Head Start programs unclear amid anticipated federal overhaul
Early reports say the administration is planning to “gut its quality standards and replace it with regulations that would leave most of the specifics up to state and local law.”
Impact to N.Y. Head Start programs unclear amid anticipated federal overhaul
Early reports say the administration is planning to “gut its quality standards and replace it with regulations that would leave most of the specifics up to state and local law.”
Why AI giants’ political spending could balloon this fall
The fight over AI regulation, data centers and more will play a key role in the general elections.
Are automated CT exams on the way? Cardiologist shares concerns about radiation, regulation
Former SCCT president Ed Nicol, MD, knows there has been interest in the potential of automated CT exams. However, he isn't so sure they are possible at this point in time for a number of reasons.
MrBeast Sales Slow, Angel Stock Falls, MUBI and Neon Look for Hits, and Will an NBA Franchise Set a Sales Record?
(Welcome to the Entertainment Strategy Guy, a newsletter on the entertainment industry and business strategy. I write a weekly Streaming Ratings Report and a bi-weekly strategy column, along with occasional deep dives into other topics, like today’s article. Please subscribe.) You probably remember egg prices spiking a few years ago. This led to a lot of debate between the pro-market/pro-competition/antitrust/Neo-Brandesian crowd and the center/center-right/center-left/abundance/libertarian crowd over the cause, whether it was the avian flu outbreak or whether industry consolidation led to price fixing, using avian flu as a convenient cover. Basel Musharbash wrote a whole investigation at BIG looking at it. Well, two years later, we have our answer: it was price fixing. The Justice Department found proof, via emails, of price fixing. Indeed, just the threat of an investigation brought prices down two years ago: I bring this up because at least half a dozen of my favorite political writers and pundits, who were skeptical about price fixing at the time, haven’t written any mea culpas on this issue. It’s really dispiriting and makes it much, much harder to trust their work on other issues. If you take a hard stand on an issue, then you get it wrong, you need to explain how and why you got it wrong. Or update your priors. This is how epistemological bubbles are formed! All of which is to say, it’s time for another installment of “What I Got Right, What I Got Wrong”. Last issue, I mostly focused on the “wrong” side of the equation, so today’s is a bit more balanced, but with one big mea culpa (though I still stand by my original concerns). Let’s dive right in! Subscribe CORRECTION: UFC Didn’t Release Subscriber Data (But Seems to Have Bragged About It Internally) In my analysis of the viewership of UFC Freedom 250, I wrote... “Paramount has also released datecdotes bragging about their subscriber numbers. Earlier this year, they claimed that the first UFC fight on Paramount+ brought in 1 million subscribers.” Well, that datecdote did not come from a PR rep, but from great reporting from James Faris at Business Insider. The actual quote was this: “Paramount’s flagship streaming service generated about a million new subscribers on the day of its first-ever UFC event, Paramount product chief Dane Glasgow told employees in a town hall on Tuesday morning, three staffers who attended the meeting told Business Insider.“ This wasn’t the biggest goof in the world; even Faris emphasized to me that this is more a “clarification” than a correction. Still, it sounds like, internally, the folks at Paramount were very happy about this result—and I’m guessing they were happy with this news getting out—even though the gains didn’t last through the quarter, dropping to 700K adds. RIGHT: MrBeast’s Struggles Continue... I’m very skeptical about MrBeast’s burgeoning media “empire” and, in particular, its $5 billion valuation, as I wrote earlier this year and last year. Sure enough, according to Business Insider, regarding its “booming” consumer products division_:_ “US sales volume grew 13% year-over-year in 2025, following a 33% leap the previous year, according to a presentation deck dated May 2026....A February 2025 investor deck viewed by Business Insider showed Feastables’ net revenue more than doubled in 2024 from 2023, to $215 million, and was forecast to grow 74% in 2025, to $375 million.” [Emphasis mine.] If you told investors that you projected 74% growth but delivered 13%,1 that’s not ideal. But it’s not just MrBeast. Logan Paul and KSI’s Prime had sales drop in half for their energy drinks. It’s one thing to build a successful entertainment company and an entirely different thing to succeed in the heavily-consolidated-but-also-very-competitive consumer packaged goods space! CPGs are dominated by a few firms with very wide moats compared to YouTube, which has few barriers to entry. These businesses require different skill sets and have completely different business environments. WRONG: Does the NBA Have an $8 Billion Bidder? Almost as soon as I published my article about the NBA’s finances, casting skepticism on NBA expansion, I saw this Front Office Sports headline: One group “claims to have already raised $8 billion” for the Vegas expansion team. I mean, wow. That’s just $2 billion less than what the Los Angeles Lakers were valued at when they were sold just last year. And they’re arguably the most popular team in the NBA. (Side note: the new owner is now under an investigation for fraud in how he went about financing the Lakers and the Dodgers purchases.) So much for the “dried up” language I used in that article. (This is why I usually stick to my “Entertainment Nuance Guy” tone in articles...) I went off old information—from April, when I read/heard about the NBA downplaying expansion efforts—instead of doing a quick double-check for new news. That said...if you read the article, the market for Seattle is “slow”, with just one reported bidder. So I wasn’t entirely off. This goof has annoyed me since I first published it, mainly because it undercut that article’s real point, which I stand by: NBA franchises are really overvalued right now. Now, I get why NBA teams are overvalued. When it comes to owning sports teams, it’s basically never wrong to assume that some rich person somewhere will care more about owning a team (or just being part of a group since they’re so expensive) than the actual financials. There are only so many teams to own, and opportunities to buy in preferred markets don’t come along very often. This explains why the teams sell for such high multiples (usually above a 10 to 12.5 revenue multiple, which is very high). You only need one person to overpay! Beyond the ultra-wealthy luxury good explanation, I worry NBA teams are becoming speculative assets. More and more private equity investors are buying into NBA teams. But the value, in owning a team, comes from selling it later, not any meaningful relationship to revenue or profit growth. In other words, the newer NBA owners are increasingly expecting someone later to buy their inflated asset. That’s not sound economics; that’s the “greater fool” theory at work.2 At some point, actually making money has to matter. Especially since revenue growth is now below the growth of the stock market. (And this matters because the NBA doesn’t have easy levers to pull to drastically lower their costs—half of their revenue has to go to players and then you actually have to run a team, including coaching, training, travel, media expenses, and more—or raise revenues aside from one-off expansions in America and overseas.) I just don’t see how investors make their money back buying NBA teams, except for selling at a higher price later on down the line. But if revenue/profit growth continues to slow, at some point, someone will be left holding the bag. RIGHT: Baseball and Basketball are about equally popular. Related to the above, I wanted to cite two quick pieces of evidence for one of my other theories: that the NBA and MLB are about as popular as each other, but the NBA gets much, much better media coverage. One YouGov survey has that fans prefer basketball to baseball by 52% to 48%, which I’m guessing is within the margin of error for that poll. That’s virtually even, meaning they’re about the same popularity. Over on NBC, a recent Red Sox-Yankees game averaged 4 million viewers, higher than Sunday Night Basketball’s average of 3.4 million on the same network. A Yankees-Dodgers game averaged 3.9 million two weeks ago. Not every game averages this much, but it shows you that baseball isn’t far off from basketball, depending on the matchup. Altogether, the NBA is just slightly more popular than baseball, but NBC is paying MLB a fraction of what they pay the NBA, a point I’ve made before. RIGHT: Angel, MUBI and Neon Updates... I’ve long been skeptical about many of Hollywood’s buzziest startups/smaller indie studios. It’s not that they don’t make great movies—films like Anora and Everything Everywhere All at Once are amazing—or that they’re not (rightfully) pushing the majors to make better films, but...they get a ton of hype, and that hype often doesn’t live up to the reality or difficulty in scaling up. Starting with MUBI, well, The Wall Street Journal wrote a feature on MUBI’s struggles last April, best summarized by the subheader “After Sequoia valued Mubi at $1 billion, a left-wing revolt sent the indie film company into a tailspin”. MUBI lost $7.3 million on $200 million in revenue in Q4 2025, but reportedly hit a record 1.7 million subscribers at the end of Q1. As for Neon, Department M purchased a “significant stake” in the company earlier this year. How much is that “stake” worth? According to Deadline, “No financial figures for the Neon-Department M deal were disclosed.” So...that’s not great! If it was a big valuation, we’d hear about. Also, I found this curious: “Both Neon and Department M already have separate partnerships with Qatar. The Qatar Film Committee has a slate deal in place with the former, and a biopic production pact with the latter.” Color me skeptical about much Middle Eastern investment dollars. See: LIV Golf. Finally, as for Angel (formerly Angel Studios), their stock very, very slightly popped last month after Young Washington ($20 million budget) which made $45 million in the US, but their stock is still way down from its opening. Smaller Updates RIGHT: The WGA should focus on antitrust concerns! I’ve been on this for years. Post-WGA/AMTPT deal in 2023, I wrote an article for the Ankler calling on the WGA to focus and organize against industry consolidation. Sure enough, the WGA filed a lawsuit against the Paramount-WBD merger, and people are organizing around this issue now. I wish this energy had coalesced earlier (specifically to lobby Washington much earlier), but better late than never! WRONG: Actually, the chip shortage might be due to market manipulation. In my last “Long Reads for the Long Summer” article, I shared an article about how LLMs are causing memory chip prices to spike, which will make all electronics more expensive. Well, turns out, three RAM manufacturers control 90% of the market, and now a private lawsuit accuses them of price-fixing. So yeah. WRONG/UPDATE: The Odyssey will hold! Two weeks ago, I wrote, “As of this moment, we haven’t had a super-blockbuster, though The Odyssey, Spider-Man: Brand New Day and Avengers: Doomsday could all cross the $500 million mark. (At this point, The Odyssey would need a very strong hold to get there.)” Well, it’s safe to say it’s going to have that hold! It only dropped 30% in weekend two and IMAX screenings are sold out all month. Spider-Man: Brand New Day is also off to a great start. RIGHT: People are rushing to get shows out yearly. I’ve long been bullish on yearly, weekly-released shows, and Leslie Goldberg at The Ankler wrote about how many people in town are now listening. WRONG: Mark Carney reverses Canada’s stance on homegrown production. After writing about Canada installing domestic production quotas, Canada has backed off. WRONG: I don’t trust Spider-Man: Brand New Day’s online “views”. When I originally wrote about the latest Spider-Man film’s record-breaking trailer, I thought this was just YouTube views, but after watching this Corridor Crew video and doing more research, well, it’s all social views of the trailer globally. Really? That stat includes TikTok, Reels and YouTube Shorts views. Basically, I don’t trust it anymore. (This film will probably set record, but I trust the pre-sales data more.) RIGHT: Celebrity Production companies are still struggling. I’ve written about this for years, but the company that I didn’t track was Kevin Hart’s HartBeat, which was valued at $650 million but is struggling now and might just end soon, especially after Kevin Hart pulled his endorsement deals. And Bad Robot is moving to NYC. CORRECTION: SpongeBob is a “second run” title. In my 2025 recap article, I had _SpongeBob SquarePants_labelled as a “library” title, when it is still a “second run” show, with new episodes still coming out on Nickelodeon. CORRECTION: In my last “What I Got Right, What I Got Wrong” update, I offered a correction from Doug Creutz and misspelled TD Cowen. Thanks, Grammarly! 1 Though he could have increased prices to make up for the gap, he couldn’t have increased them that much. 2 There’s a theory, which I think that Daryl Morey created and Bill Simmons popularized, that, to be successful building your team, you only need a handful of bad GMs in the league to take advantage of. To be clear, Daryl Morey’s theory was also for signing bad contracts, that you could always get out of bad contracts. Basically, there’s always someone who will make a bad trade. It’s not the same exact thing, but similar enough to the Greater Fool Theory that I really like it.
How Gap and H&M implement AI for supply chain risk management
Apparel brands like Target, H&M, and Gap use AI to enhance supply chain transparency and meet new sustainability regulations effectively.
Hackensack Meridian Health first to earn Joint Commission’s responsible health AI certification
Private consortiums have been attempting to put guardrails around the use of AI as federal regulations lag. HMH has been refining its AI governance structure for years, its medical informatics chief said.
Senate Banking Committee Examine Small Business Capital Access
Senate Banking Committee hearing on Aug 6 explores unlocking capital access for Main Street businesses. Learn how new regulations could impact small...
Good Communication Is Good Business by Geoffrey Losee
The following column was contributed by J.D. Fisher. Mixed-use communities are increasingly common. Restaurants, breweries, retail stores, entertainment venues, and professional offices often operate within walking distance of established neighborhoods. That proximity creates tremendous opportunity, but it also means that a business's decisions may affect more than just its customers. Many business owners understandably focus on obtaining the permits necessary to open their doors. However, municipal approval is rarely the end of the conversation. As a business evolves, whether by adding outdoor seating, live entertainment, extended operating hours, or other new amenities, the applicable zoning ordinance may require additional approvals or impose operational standards designed to balance commercial activity with nearby residential uses. From a business perspective, the question should not simply be, "Can we do this?" It should also be, "Have we communicated with everyone who may be affected?" Recent local news coverage highlighted how differing interpretations of a municipal ordinance can quickly become the subject of public hearings, legal arguments, and significant uncertainty for a business. While every situation turns on its own facts, one common theme emerged: practical solutions are more difficult to achieve if communication breaks down. Businesses can often reduce that risk by engaging early with the relevant stakeholders. That begins with municipal staff. Planning departments are oftentimes willing to discuss how an ordinance applies before substantial investments are made. Seeking clarification in advance may identify permitting requirements or operational limitations that can be addressed proactively rather than after enforcement action. Communication should not stop with local government. Nearby property owners and neighborhood representatives frequently appreciate being informed about proposed changes before they occur. A brief meeting, an informational email, or an invitation to discuss concerns can foster goodwill and reveal potential issues while there is still flexibility to adjust operations. That’s why such meetings often required for substantial projects and may be a good idea even if not required. Perhaps most importantly, businesses should view compliance as an ongoing process rather than a one-time event. Operational changes that seem minor from a business standpoint may have regulatory implications under local development ordinances. Periodically reviewing proposed changes with experienced land-use counsel or planning professionals can help identify issues before they become disputes. No ordinance can eliminate every conflict between commercial activity and residential expectations. Nor should every disagreement become a legal controversy. But businesses that invest in transparent, proactive communication place themselves in the strongest position to protect both their operations and their relationships within the community. In today's regulatory environment, good communication is more than good public relations, it is good risk management. If your business is planning to expand its operations, introduce a new use, or simply wants to better understand how local land development regulations apply, the attorneys at Rountree Losee LLP are available to help. Our land use and local government practice works with businesses throughout southeastern North Carolina to navigate municipal approval processes, identify potential issues before they become disputes, and keep projects moving forward with confidence. Read more at rountreelosee.com.
I Drank 11 Glasses of Water Every Day for a Month—Here’s What Happened
Hydrating properly supports temperature regulation, waste elimination, and joint lubrication. It can help relieve fatigue, dizziness, and dry skin.
Politics: RNC, Iowa GOP file lawsuit to enforce signature verification on absentee ballots
Iowa and national Republicans took a significant step last week to seek enforcement of additional regulations on voting.
Steve Moore says DSA politicians are making cities ‘unlivable’
Unleash Prosperity co-founder Steve Moore says high regulations and taxes are to blame for states that are economically struggling on ‘Life, Liberty & Levin.’
Missouri releases preliminary health insurance rates for 2027
The DCI is reviewing filings to ensure that the rates are justified and comply with state and federal regulations.
Lawn bowling: ‘What cheap entertainment’
Believe it or not, one of just two regulation lawn-bowling greens in Oregon is located in King City, putting the small town on the sport’s national map. Southeast Portland’s Westmoreland Park is home to the state’s other official green, home to the Portland Lawn Bowling Club. The green in King City belongs to the King
Trump administration plans to upend Head Start by deregulating it
The administration is preparing a rollback of Head Start, a change that supporters of the childcare program fear could gut its long-held anti-poverty mission.
Politics Unusual: Staten Island Borough President Fossella, Assemblyman Simone
In this episode of Politics Unusual, FOX 5 NY's political reporter Morgan McKay speaks with Staten Island Borough President Vito Fossella about the city's new pied-à-terre tax, as well as his push for nonpartisan primary elections. Also, a conversation with State Assemblyman Tony Simone about regulations concerning ICE.
Trump Administration Plans to Upend Head Start by Deregulating It
The White House tried but failed to block funding for preschool for poor children. Instead, it will seek to strip away standards on health, literacy — and brushing teeth.
Farmers step up during health crises
Cyclospora outbreak shows the power of self-regulation
Texas economy booms as businesses, residents flee high-tax states
FOX Business correspondent Lauren Simonetti reports on how Texas' business-friendly environment and low regulations are attracting major companies on ‘Mornings with Maria.’
U.S. states are all over the map on how to regulate AI therapy chatbots
Six states have split four ways on regulating AI therapy chatbots. The same product can be legal in one place and criminally exposed in another
Federal appeals court hears Maine test case on regulating super PACs
The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision that struck down limits on independent political spending does not need to be overturned to rein in Big Money in politics, Neal Katyal argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston on Wednesday in defense of Maine’s 2024 referendum regulating political spending.
Prince William County Zoning Process for Home-Based Businesses Encourages Entrepreneurial Community
Apply for your Home Employment Certificate Approval today. Learn about home-based business zoning regulations and get your application approved fast.
The Science Behind the AI Panic Is Shakier Than You Think
A column by Sascha Lobo Is AI making us dumb? So asked DER SPIEGEL on its cover a while ago. After a few weeks of recovery and a therapeutic intervention with the help of my AI, I feel able to respond. That’s a bit unfair, of course; the article itself is more nuanced than the loud cover, the image of a schoolkid with dull prompt questions, or the subtitle: “AI is conquering the schools, and educators fear a disaster.” The short answer to “Is AI making us dumb?” is: no. The long answer is more interesting, and even carries a preliminary glimmer of the spectacular. Unfortunately, it requires a detour into the sphere of artificial intelligence, into the mogul-field terrain of technology assessment, the attention economy, and the destructive virus of cultural pessimism. Along with narrowing the scope to AI’s effects on education and work rather than on intelligence. Because the honest version of the question would be: Does AI help us learn and work, or not? Generative AI, which set off the still-ongoing hype with ChatGPT, has only existed in relevant distribution since late 2022, early 2023. For a technology-driven transformation of people and society, that is extremely short. For that reason alone, research is still in its infancy. And technology assessment is not a fast discipline anyway. Prominent voices from Elizabeth Eisenstein to RAND to Tom Wheeler say we still cannot conclusively judge the consequences of the printing press. Its invention is a mere 580 years back, and some scholars would rather not circulate assessments that might have to be retracted in two or three hundred years. We’re Going Through Growing Pains A phenomenon that already caused upheaval in social media research makes serious assessment of AI’s consequences even harder: the “moving target” problem of LLM-ology, as the linguist Sean Trott called it in 2025. AI develops so quickly and so unpredictably that researchers often end up studying snapshots of the past. There are concepts, from morphological analysis to anticipatory governance, for keeping research, planning, and regulation halfway meaningful anyway. But even with those, universally valid statements are rare. DER SPIEGEL - The German View is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe We should therefore treat findings about the interplay between humans and AI as far more procedural and situational. Unfortunately, this challenge comes at the worst possible time. We are going through growing pains: AI’s everyday impact has grown very large very fast, and with it the longing for guidance. Annoyingly, the body of solid knowledge has not exploded along with it. Experts cannot be moved to broad consensus on even banal statements about AI. Sascha Lobo, born in 1975, is an author and strategy consultant focusing on the internet and digital technologies. Together with Jule Lobo, he explores the debates of the day in the podcast “Feel the News – Was Deutschland bewegt” (”What Moves Germany”). Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang says software developers are dying out. Bill Gates considers coders one of only three professions that will survive the AI tsunami. Top tech economists find virtually irrefutable arguments both for and against an AI bubble. The same naturally applies to the structurally youth-hostile debate over whether AI is good or bad for young people. The gap between the demand for insight and the supply of solid knowledge creates an orientation vacuum. This vacuum of AI cluelessness is filled, as the attention economy described by Georg Franck in 1998 would have it, with half-knowledge (funnily enough, often AI-generated), marketing, and self-marketing. After all, infinite money is at stake, along with academia’s best current shot at global fame. But this iridescent froth of interpretation operates more by the algorithmic principles of the digital public sphere than by seriously earned insight. That is why dramatized, fear-feeding claims about AI are so promising. It tempts parts of academia into distorted drivel, and parts of the media then sensationalize the published drivel once more. Was the Research Aimed at a Desired Result? How badly this can influence academia and public perception is demonstrated by one of the most-discussed studies on AI’s effects: “Your Brain on ChatGPT.” The MIT study by Nataliya Kosmyna also gets plenty of space in the SPIEGEL cover story. What was measured and interpreted: lower brain activity in people who write with AI assistance, compared to people who only google or write without any tools. As is common with preprints, the study has not yet been peer-reviewed, and it contains substantial weaknesses that experts have sharply criticized. The first round had 54 participants in three groups, the second only 18, who reportedly also came from MIT’s own orbit. There was no preregistration (committing in advance to what you want to find out with which data). In their analysis, Stanković et al. even discovered an opposite effect that the study does not further explain. Some measurement data has not (yet) been published. And the EEG analysis method used is considered too imprecise to support such far-reaching conclusions. The biggest criticism, though, is the suspicion of an activism-driven study. In an interview with Time, lead author Kosmyna said she published the study immediately, rather than after full peer review, because she feared politicians might otherwise decide to put ChatGPT in kindergartens. She considers that absolutely harmful. It is legitimate to hold such a view. It just seems unscientific to approach a study with it, and then to design the setup so that the chance of a fitting desired result remains as high as possible. Ideologies Collide It is not easy to separate genuine AI insights from studies that trivialize and weaken well-founded AI criticism. The same goes for the opposing, AI-enthusiastic narratives, because the pro-AI side works against it with billions in resources. Ideologies collide, fed by egos, PR strategies, moral posturing, and once-in-a-lifetime opportunities. Doomsday marketing makes the search even harder: AI companies can profit from warnings about the dangers of AI, whether through the notoriety of apocalypse narratives or because, in some target groups, danger translates into power. Some seemingly negative findings are therefore quite welcome in the AI industry. If you try to get at the findings presumably less influenced by interest groups, the picture in education seems relatively clear: AI can improve educational outcomes when the right AI is used the right way, namely pedagogically. Simply dumping an AI chatbot into a classroom, by contrast, accomplishes little. Huge surprise. But something else is also obvious: whether they are allowed to or not, kids use AI for school, which is why the controlled integration of AI tools into education is, in the medium term, entirely without alternative. In the world of work, the landscape of findings is more complex and requires more differentiation. A series of serious studies points to an AI effect that suits neither the alarmists, regulation fetishists, and AI opponents, nor the trillion-dollar corporations with their armada of paid scientists, PR professionals, and ecosystems: working with AI helps the inexperienced (at least for now) considerably more than it helps the pros, in certain fields of work, and provided they know how to use it correctly. Missing Domain Knowledge Among the experienced, the professionals, and the high flyers, by contrast, despite frequent time savings, partially negative effects and new problems are emerging. Take the jagged frontier problem: AI solves task A brilliantly and fails completely at task B, even though both look similar even to professionals. Or the verification-cost problem, in which AI’s greater productivity gets eaten up by the enormous effort of checking its output. Or the illusion of competence, because AI makes new domains seem easily penetrable, until you painfully discover that deep domain knowledge is missing. Taken as a whole, the effects of working with AI do lean positive. But the promise that AI works as a turbocharger for everyone and boosts practically everything simply refuses to materialize. The AI magic the world has been feeling since ChatGPT arrived in late 2022 has so far barely shown up in most companies’ numbers. The consulting firm McKinsey has coined a term for this, the “gen AI paradox,” and believes that work processes and corporate structures would have to be rebuilt quite fundamentally to realize AI’s benefits at scale. Reuters just reported that only 3.3 percent of Microsoft’s customers have subscribed to the AI package Copilot. That may be down to the product; in other areas we continue to see soaring successes and new AI triumphs. But after the first quarter of 2026, disillusionment is the word for all too many AI projects at traditional companies: because the promised revolution of AI agents has so far failed to arrive or been postponed, and because of the leveling effect that many of the studies cited here suggest. Against Inequality The societal effects, on the other hand, appear rather encouraging. Many previous technologies operated on the Matthew principle, named for the Gospel verse about giving to those who already have: they tended to reward the more competent and more privileged. AI, however, seems more often to have an equalizing effect once a threshold of access and education is crossed. Some anecdotal insights point in this direction, for example, how an unemployed man in Leipzig successfully defended himself in court in 2025 against fraud accusations from Germany’s federal employment agency — without a lawyer, armed only with ChatGPT. The AI made mistakes and cited invented court rulings, but in the end the man walked away unpunished. And a key capability of artificial intelligence is its capacity to learn: set up correctly and fed with data, it can keep getting better. It is a question of time, or more precisely of AI innovations and training data, until even free AI chatbots write better legal briefs than law graduates with perfect exam scores. Whether that will make anyone dumb is something the world’s press will surely inform us of in due time. Subscribe Leave a comment
New York finalizes social media restrictions for kids
The regulations, which take effect in January, limit the use of algorithmic feeds and nighttime notifications.
European Union innovation needs regulatory science excellence centres
Nature Biomedical Engineering - Fit-for-purpose regulation of medical devices and medical artificial intelligence in Europe needs Centres of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation,...
44 states are aligned on one thing in their fight against prediction markets. It's about sports wagering
The letter is part of the commission’s public comment period for the first draft of its proposed rule on regulating prediction markets.
Data centers: The business structure that's reshaping AI infrastructure finance
Learn how data center REITs fund AI/HPC growth via joint ventures and institutional capital, plus stocks to watch and rising regulation risks—read now.
New Venezuelan Oil Regulations Offer Promise, But Politics and Quake Recovery Threaten Investment - Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University SIPA
Get the latest as our experts share their insights on global energy policy.
Agassi Sports Entertainment publishes updated investor presentation under Reg FD
Agassi Sports Entertainment furnished an updated investor presentation under Regulation FD.Key Highlights:Original SEC Filing: Agassi Sports Entertainment Corp. [ AASP ] - 8-K - Jul. 27, 2026This is an AI-powered summary. It may contain inaccuracies. Consider verifying important information with th…
AI mental health chatbots feel empathetic, but safety evidence still lags
Immune dysregulation may contribute to depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and anxiety through chronic inflammation, altered neuroimmune signaling, genetic susceptibility, and stress-related epigenetic changes. Evidence also suggests that biologically defined patient subgroups may benefit from more precise, immune-informed approaches to diagnosis and treatment.
Fertitta Entertainment counsel doubts Texas will legalize gaming, expects SCOTUS to favor state regulation
The general counsel and executive vice president of Houston-based Fertitta Entertainment cast doubt on Texas getting legalized gaming anytime soon and told Neva
Girl’s death in China reveals human cost of unregulated science
A six-year-old girl's death in China highlights the urgent need for regulation in gene-editing trials amid ethical concerns.
Hospices worry patients will be unfairly punished amid fraud crisis
Health policy researchers and providers say negative attention and the potential for overly punitive regulations could put patients at risk.
F1 needs better balance between business and sport, says Norris
Lando Norris speaks up ahead of Hungarian Grand Prix with drivers feeling new regulations have cramped their speed.
‘I’m over the moon’: New York’s small business owners rejoice as Mamdani cuts red tape
Initiatives including cutting permits just to serve ice-cream amount to a sweeping program of deregulation
6-year-old in China dies after experimental treatment, investigation finds, raising questions about the country's gene therapy regulations
A young girl in China died after being given an experimental gene therapy intended to treat a neurodevelopmental syndrome, an investigation by Science and Retraction Watch revealed.
Pokémon Champions Regulation M-B Double Battles Overview
Mega-Evolved Pokémon dominate the landscape. Which will rise to the top at upcoming competitions?
Pokémon Champions Regulation M-B Double Battles Overview
Mega-Evolved Pokémon dominate the landscape. Which will rise to the top at upcoming competitions?
Can state-regulated hemp THC businesses continue under Schedule 1?
Hemp THC products lose federal protections in November, but states may continue regulating the products like they did with cannabis.
Senate Democrats reject Trump-approved ethics provision in landmark crypto bill
Senate Democrats signaled they would not support a revised version of Republicans’ landmark cryptocurrency regulation bill, saying a new ethics provision approved by President Donald Trump does not go far enough to limit the president’s ability to profit off crypto.
How to Regulate AI Without Stifling Health Innovation
LDI experts discuss the current landscape and questions around regulating clinical AI systems on the state- and federal-levels.