SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " watching " 578 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Roku May Help Fox Avoid Aggregeddon
(Welcome to the “Most Important Story of the Week”, my bi-weekly strategy column analyzing the most important (but often not buzziest) news story of the last two weeks. I’m the Entertainment Strategy Guy, a former streaming executive who now analyzes business strategy in the entertainment industry. Please subscribe.) Scrolling through links over the last week, I stumbled across this fun headline: Wow. Formula 1 (the sport, not the docu-series) is the perfect “dog not barking”. As a reminder, each week in my Streaming Ratings Report, I call out the shows that miss every viewership chart. I dub them “dogs not barking”—like the Sherlock Holmes mystery—because without any data, we forget they even exist. This is in contrast to something like, say, a film flop—cough The Mandalorian and Grogu cough—where even underperforming at the box office is widely discussed here, there and everywhere. In the US, Formula 1 is now in “no public viewership data, so not discussed” territory. After moving to Apple TV from its former home of ESPN, basically no one talks about it. Apple did publish an initial, unsourced, unsubstantiated, (dare I say unserious) datecdote claiming more folks are watching Formula 1 on Apple than ESPN, but we haven’t gotten any updates since. This stands in contrast to when the sport streamed on ESPN, and ESPN PR provided weekly viewership figures. Formula 1 was, at best, a niche sport in America—averaging 1.3 million viewers in the Big Data Plus era—but now it’s basically anonymous. (And yeah, after moving to Apple, I very, very, very much doubt its ratings increased.) Unfortunately, that story isn’t quite big enough to warrant a section in today’s “Most Important Story of the Week” column, but I wanted to call it out, because otherwise, no one else will! Certainly, no one will write articles about the silence/ratings decline, unlike when they wrote breathless articles connecting the rise in viewership to Netflix’s Drive to Survive, including Reuters just last month. (This is a topic I’ve tried to provide a moderate/nuanced/non-hyped take since 2022.) Anyway, on to this week’s issue. I was a bit worried I didn’t have a juicy topic, then the Murdochs went out and did their Murdoch thing: buying Roku. So that’s the story of the week, and it happens to touch on quite a few themes of the streaming wars and the disruption therein. I’ll cover that, plus why more consolidation in Hollywood media looks likely, more good news on the Hollywood labor front, whether we’ll see an uptick in production in Los Angeles, some Broadway and theme park news, cellphone prices going up in the third world (and possibly everywhere), and more. Subscribe Most Important Story of the Week - Another Big Media & Entertainment Merger The story of the week is clearly Fox is buying Roku for $22 billion. I read a lot of good strategy takes on why Fox bought this streaming TV device maker—and I’ll have mine below—but what fascinates me more is how this deal connects to quite a few themes of the streaming wars, linking to everything from the pace of M&A to “aggregeddon” to Netflix’s recent M&A actions/inactions to the shift to advertising from pure play streaming and more. The only topic I can’t really connect it to is my old theory, “never bet against Rupert Murdoch” because he isn’t the one who did this deal; his son Lachlan inked it. (Do I think he provided advice, even at his 95 years of age? Sure.) That plus I have one additional piece of strategy for all entertainment players, inspired by this deal. So let’s dive into all those topics, starting with why I like this deal. Roku is a Great M&A Buy
What makes New Hampshire business-friendly?
Across New Hampshire, small business owners are watching their employees' kids grow up. How nice, right? But it's at the office, because there's nowhere else for them to go.
Is watching England play bad for your health?
Watching football is an emotional rollercoaster - but is it good or bad for your health?
Kyle Busch's wife pays tribute to late NASCAR driver: 'The Father’s Day cards that were already made'
Kyle Busch's wife, Samantha Busch, shared an emotional Father's Day tribute to the NASCAR driver after his death. 'Watching these memories hurts more than I can explain,' Samantha wrote.
The public health team watching the World Cup
As millions gather for the World Cup, a scrappy public health operation led by a team at Georgetown is tracking disease threats using surveys, wastewater and online chatter to spot outbreaks early.
The Prime Day TV deals worth waiting for
Prime Day TV deals start June 23. Our TV expert explains which OLED, QLED, and budget models are worth watching and what shoppers should avoid.
Joe Rogan was completely wrong about Donald Trump’s UFC event
Last weekend, United States President Donald Trump hosted the UFC Freedom 250 event on the South Lawn of the White House with thousands of fans in attendance and millions more watching on television. The event was, by all accounts, a success, but not exactly the type of success that commentator Joe Rogan tried to claim…
I love my father deeply — which is why I want him to die quickly
If there is one thing I’ve learned watching my father’s health disintegrate, it’s that our various approaches to end-of-life care are not working.
3 things to watch during 'most technically important' period for stocks
The stock market is heading for a critical stretch as June winds down. Here's what Citadel Securities' Scott Rubner says he's watching.
Video: How a New York Politics Reporter Sets Priorities
Nicholas Fandos explains how he navigates coverage of the primary races this month and what he’s watching in New York politics.
Madison’s new Forge Sports Center gives growing futsal community a home
Friday’s event brought together soccer fans watching the World Cup and players taking part in futsal, a fast-paced indoor version of soccer played on a hard court.
Gooooooal! Where Madison is watching the World Cup
Soccer's biggest tournament happens now through July 19 in 16 cities in North America. Here are nine bars (and more) around Madison where you can watch.
Between watching games and cheering on teams, pick up one of these sports books
It's a great time to be a sports fan, with the World Cup, and championships determined in both the NHL and the NBA.
Microsoft (MSFT) Is Building A Billion Dollar AI Business In China
Microsoft (NasdaqGS:MSFT) is building a large AI and cloud business in China, supplying OpenAI models through Azure to major local technology companies. ByteDance is reported to spend over US$1b annually on Microsoft AI and cloud services, with Ant Group, Meituan, and Tencent also using Microsoft models. Microsoft has emerged as a key provider of OpenAI technology in China at a time when several US competitors are not active in the region. For investors watching Microsoft, this growing AI...
Watching water nanodrops spread themselves thin
Researchers at the Institute of Industrial Science, The University of Tokyo, have determined the molecular origin of line tension for a water nanodroplet on a surface. This tension is the force along the droplet edge where liquid, solid, and gas phases meet. Computational studies showed that at complete wetting, collapse of tetrahedral order in liquid water causes the line tension to change sign. An ice bilayer did not wet a hydrophilic surface, showing that local order can outweigh surface chemistry.
Leaked iPhone Ultra renders suggest Apple has been closely watching Samsung
Apple's rumored iPhone Ultra could debut in September with a wider design, slim build, and a price tag exceeding $2000.
Colorado’s gamble on sports betting
A Denver Post special report examining how the legalization of online sports betting impacted addiction, water funding and athletes.
Which WAGs Will Win the Summer of Sport?
As NBA finals celebrations kick on and the World Cup gets underway, Vogue Business breaks down the wives and girlfriends brands should be watching in the stands.
The Science Behind Lionel Messi’s Viral Moment of Tears
After watching the soccer icon tear up following a historic goal, we try to understand the science of why human beings wait until the moment of triumph to let it all out.
People are betting on elections. Congress is watching
As prediction markets stir debate over betting on politics, the Los Angeles mayoral race raised a new question: What happens when people wager on elections?
Kayshon Boutte precedent could help Brendan Sorsby avoid a suspension
With quarterback Brendan Sorsby intending to apply for the NFL's supplemental draft, some are watching and waiting to see whether the NFL will welcome him to the ranks of professional football.
Health sleuths are watching for disease threats during the World Cup
Health officials will be on high alert for germs as millions of soccer fans gather for World Cup matches
The Crossword, June 15: I Need Some Space
Aren’t you happy to see our Monday crossword? This week’s puzzle was constructed by Patrick Maher, and edited by Hoang-Kim Vu. Patrick is a software engineer and sporadic crossword constructor who lives in Manhattan. His hobbies include having two young children and doing whatever they want. He still plans on watching the Jets this year for some reason.…
Indiana takes on powerful hospitals by capping prices they charge employers
Tired of watching its employers struggle to afford the cost of healthcare, Republican-controlled Indiana is trying a traditionally liberal tactic to control costs: setting government price controls on hospitals.
What investing pros said about SpaceX's first day of trading
SpaceX's stock closed 19% higher than the target price, indicating strong investor demand. Here's what investors said they're watching now.
Opinion | Dennison: I’ll fight for responsible spending, reducing unnecessary regulations and help small business and more if elected
Like many Coloradans, I’ve grown increasingly frustrated watching Washington become more focused on partisan gamesmanship than solving real problems. Families, workers, retirees and small business owners across Colorado are facing challenges that politicians love to...
Why is Tupac headlining an upcoming video game?
Gamers and influencers watching Summer Game Fest mostly expressed shock and confusion at the inclusion of the influential American rapper and political activist who died in 1996.
Where are you watching Game 5 of the NBA Finals? Check out these local deals.
These native New Yorkers are bringing a taste of the big apple to the Queen City.
Final Fantasy 7 Remake Director Calls Streams A Crisis For RPGs
He fears some people won't bother playing a game if they think they can get the same experience from just watching it
Political parties succeed when understand people
One of the more revealing political developments of recent years has been the Democratic Party’s growing concern about its declining support among male voters. After years of watching men drift toward the political right, many Democrats have begun asking a simple question: Why are men leaving? The answer may be simpler than party strategists would […]
Opinion | Dennison: I’ll fight for responsible spending, reducing unnecessary regulations and help small business and more if elected
Like many Coloradans, I’ve grown increasingly frustrated watching Washington become more focused on partisan gamesmanship than solving real problems. Families, workers, retirees and small business owners across Colorado are facing challenges that politicians love to...
Opinion | Dennison: I’ll fight for responsible spending, reducing unnecessary regulations and help small business and more if elected
Like many Coloradans, I’ve grown increasingly frustrated watching Washington become more focused on partisan gamesmanship than solving real problems. Families, workers, retirees and small business owners across Colorado are facing challenges that politicians love to...
Why Watching Sports Makes People Happy
Watching sports of all kinds, both in-person and on a screen, can have positive impacts on well-being.
How health sleuths are watching for threats like measles during the World Cup
While millions of soccer fans cheer or groan over World Cup matches spanning North America, health officials will be on high alert for germs.
What AI-herding scientists can learn from watching ‘sheepdog YouTube’
Controlling a small group of “noisy” sheep holds hints for computer algorithms
United States World Cup 2026 Odds, Predictions & Best Bets
The World Cup 2026 is on home soil, the squad is named, and the nation is watching — but can the United States turn home advantage into a genuine deep run, and are the outright odds worth a punt?…...
Health Sleuths Are Watching for Disease Threats During the World Cup
WASHINGTON (AP) — While millions of soccer fans cheer or groan over World Cup matches spanning North America, health officials will be on high alert for germs. A heat wave may be the most obvious health threat. But infectious diseases can spread in a crowd, and experts are set to scrutinize ...
Staying heart healthy and low-stress amid NBA Finals
Dr. Shaline Rao, Chief of Cardiology at NYU Langone Hospital-Long Island, gives tips on staying healthy while watching the Knicks.
New OMB rule could break science in the United States
The drug that saved your mother. The treatment your doctor recommended. The clinical trial that bought someone you love more time. None of it was inevitable. It required a system built to operate outside politics and sustained over decades, because science doesn’t operate on the timeline of a politician. That system is now under direct threat. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has proposed a new rule to regulate all federal grants, not just science, but housing, education, defense, NASA and everything in between, that would fundamentally change how research is conducted in the United States. There have been a lot of fires in the past 16 months, and if everything is an emergency, nothing is an emergency. But this is a very big deal. These rules would strip away the independence that has kept science from becoming a political tool. The good news is there’s still something we can all do. How the grant system was designed to work When I was a new faculty member, I was full of millions of ideas, so I sat down and wrote an NIH proposal. I worked on it for months and thought it was so good. Then I sent it to my mentor. It came back covered in comments. Places where my reasoning wasn’t as airtight as I’d thought, methods that could be stronger, gaps in my thinking that I had been too close to the work to see. It stung, as honest feedback always does, but peer review almost always makes the work better. In fact, it’s the backbone of how American science has functioned for generations. At NIH, submitted proposals go to a panel of scientists who have experience in the field. These are the people who can read research methods and spot their weaknesses, who understand when an experiment is designed well and when it isn’t. Applications are scored rigorously, and often only the top 3-20% of proposals receive funding. The people making funding decisions are required to justify them based on these reviews. To be clear: this is not a perfect system, and good science still goes unfunded more often than any of us would like due to limited resources. There is also criticism that peer review may undervalue bold ideas that are risky but could have high payoffs. But the peer review system is nonetheless a meaningful part of the grant selection process. While thoughtful and careful changes could improve the system, the changes being proposed by OMB will not make things better. The rule that could change everything Through this OMB proposal, the system that helps decide what gets funded is being dismantled. There are many troubling elements buried in this proposal, but three provisions stand out in particular. Each would be damaging alone. Together, they would change what kind of science gets done in America, and who it serves. 1. Political appointees would decide which science gets funded, and peer review would be explicitly sidelined or ignored. The guidelines your doctor follows, the standards that determine what’s in your air and water, the drugs that get approved for your family: all of it starts with a funding decision. Right now, that decision is made by scientists who can evaluate whether the work is actually sound and whether it could move the needle forward. Under this proposal, funding decisions could be made by political appointees. The careful, expertise-driven review process that shapes grant funding would be effectively sidelined. That means that a poorly designed study could get funded simply because someone in a political office liked the sound of it, while rigorous, important work doesn’t get funded because it no longer aligns with the administration’s priorities. In other words, critical work that benefits all of us could now be missed just because it has become politically inconvenient. 2. Grants could be canceled at any point, without warning, in the middle of ongoing work. Say your tax dollars have been paying for a cancer study for two years. The grant was awarded for five years, so the team is mid-experiment. There are three additional years’ worth of answers that could change how the disease is treated for hundreds of thousands of people. With this new rule, the federal government could cancel the remaining funding tomorrow, walk away from the commitment it made with your money, and have no legal obligation to finish what it started. This is a huge waste of money. There are rarely other sources of funding for this work, which means the team, the graduate students, postdocs, and research staff who have dedicated years of their careers to this project could lose their jobs. Patients who have contributed their time to studies may not see it turn into useful learnings for others. Every hour of work already completed could result in nothing useful. Science can take decades to get to tangible outcomes. It needs a stable funding system to flourish. 3. Researchers would have a harder time communicating their findings without pre-approval from the federal government. There is a saying from Sir Mark Walport: “Science isn’t finished until it’s communicated.” Science is no use to anyone if it is kept locked away in the labs that produced the data. The proposed rule could make communicating research findings harder in a number of ways: Make it harder for scientists to widely share their findings in scientific journals. Publication costs, including journal fees that allow for broad public access, could not be paid for by federal funds which is often how scientists pay these costs. Restrict researchers from engaging publicly about how their findings should inform policy or public health guidelines. This would restrict scientists from doing the work that transforms years of lab work into decisions that actually affect people’s lives. Make it harder for scientists to attend conferences. Conferences would now need to be approved by the federal agency at the time of grant award. This disadvantages conferences or publications that are not politically aligned. Conferences are a key way in which scientists learn about work happening in their field so they can collaborate and build on each other’s findings. What good is science with a muzzle? The long-term impact These changes could (and hopefully would) be reversed under the next administration. But by then, damage has been done. Once projects are halted or denied funding by political appointees, people leave their science careers for other paths or even leave the country to do their amazing science elsewhere. You cannot pause a scientific study the way you pause a subscription you decided isn’t useful anymore. You cannot freeze a research team that depends on salaries to feed their families, causing a scramble for replacement funding that, in most cases, simply does not exist. When the money stops, everything stops, and all the work in progress and its potential are lost. Despite all of the language about reducing waste, fraud, and abuse, this new proposed rule increases the administrative burden tremendously. Every researcher watching this unfold will make a rational decision: don’t start anything that will take a decade to finish. This includes not building a team around funding that could vanish, or asking the big questions that need patience and stability to answer. The most consequential science, the kind that produces the treatments and the breakthroughs that reach your doctor’s office twenty years from now, is exactly the science that would be abandoned first. This is still a proposal, so we can all do something Some worry this rule is already a done deal. But by law, OMB is required to open a public comment period. Those comments matter because they inform members of Congress, they can be used in litigation, and they create a public record. So here’s what you can do: Submit a public comment. The public comment period on this proposed change is open until July 13. Anyone can submit a comment, and OMB is required to respond to substantial ones. Each comment must be different to count as distinct; identical comments will be counted only once. Comment as an individual, not on behalf of your organization. Here’s a full resource to help you, with useful examples, but in general: Share a story about how science or federal funding has benefitted you or is involved in your work. Are you or someone you loved a cancer survivor? Do you know someone with Alzheimer’s? Have you received NIH/NSF or other federal funding? All of these can be stories you use to highlight why you care. Explain why you’re worried about these proposed changes. You can use the wording found here or in other resources to help you. Ask them to withdraw this proposed rule. Contact your elected representatives. Congress allocates money to federal agencies to spend, and it has oversight of how that process works. You can let your representatives know this proposed change concerns you and ask them to intervene. There are levers they can push that can help at this moment. Let others know why federal funding matters. This isn’t just about science, but ALL federal grants, including for education systems, defense projects, and more. The process, including the importance of federal funding, is invisible to many. We can all make it more visible by sharing how science benefits us and why we value it. You can also share this article, or any of the resources linked here, to help spread awareness! Bottom line We are quickly losing ground in scientific research in the U.S. More changes, like the proposed rule by OMB, would decimate our ability to conduct research here, leaving us all worse off: fewer treatments for pancreatic cancer, less research on pollution impacts, fewer answers for patients with rare disease, and more unaddressed health needs. The impact will be very real for all of us, regardless of where we stand politically. Using our voices for science is more important than ever. Love, LM Big thanks to Dr. Megan Ranney for reading this over and providing brilliant insights, as always. Dr. Liz Marnik, PhD, is Executive Director of The Evidence Collective at YLE and a science communicator and immunologist working at the intersection of public trust, science, and public health. You can find her on Substack, LinkedIn, Instagram and Threads. Your Local Epidemiologist (YLE) comprises a team of experts, ranging from physicians to immunologists to epidemiologists to nutritionists, working together with one goal: to “Translate” ever-evolving public health science so that people are well-equipped to make evidence-based decisions. The YLE suite of newsletters reaches over 475,000 people across more than 132 countries. This newsletter is free to everyone, thanks to the generous support of fellow YLE community members. To support the effort, subscribe or upgrade below: Subscribe
Perplexity stays course on 2028 IPO amid OpenAI, Anthropic IPOs
Investors are closely watching whether OpenAI and Anthropic can justify their lofty valuations.
Nevada governor’s race will reflect national political environment
Nevada is among a handful of states with a gubernatorial race worth watching after Tuesday’s Primary Election.
From measles fears at the World Cup to heart-healthy walks: Here is what health experts are watching
Trump trashes the NBA. So why will he attend Knicks-Spurs finals game?
A presidential historian says the president loves the attention, both in the arena and, especially, when millions of people are watching at home.
'Male football fans told me to get in the kitchen'
Two women share their experiences of misogyny for simply watching the sport.
Trump Greets Farmers in Wisconsin, but Says He Could Be Home Watching TV
President Trump was in Wisconsin to reassure farmers who have been stung by his tariff policies and rising fuel prices from the war in Iran.
Resident Evil Veronica Announced, Coming 2027
Capcom has revealed a Resident Evil: Code Veronica remake, delighting fans of the franchise watching this year's Summer Game Fest livestream.
Update: What We’re Watching, June 4, 2026
This update covers the latest federal health policy news and its potential impact on Kansas.
Trump-endorsed Feenstra concedes to MAHA-backed Lahn in GOP governor primary upset
Zach Lahn’s surprise win over Trump-backed Rep. Randy Feenstra sets up a November matchup with Democratic State Auditor Rob Sand in a race both parties are watching closely.
How Science Works
The 2nd Weather and Climate Livestream is now underway. It is organized by a group of early-career researchers concerned about declining funding for the field and eager to demonstrate how weather and climate research makes a difference in our lives. Last year’s event was a great success, drawing terrific press coverage including a piece in the NY Times. This year features a strong lineup of talks aimed at a general audience — I highly recommend tuning in. Share I gave a talk yesterday about How Science Works in Three Steps. You can see the short presentation here (I’ve appended a transcript below): And please tune into the livestream here. It runs through tomorrow at 6 pm ET. Thanks for reading The Climate Brink! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work. Subscribe Cleaned up transcript: Thank you, and thanks to everyone tuning in. I want to talk about something I think a lot of people don’t really understand: how science actually works. Arguments over any scientific topic — climate change, vaccines, you name it — revolve around competing claims. For climate change, the claims are: Is the Earth warming? Are humans to blame? What will the impacts be? Over the last 150 years, the scientific community has developed a remarkably robust method for sorting out which claims are true and which aren’t. That method is what I want to walk through. So how does science generate knowledge? If you ask a high schooler, they’ll give you the version they learned in ninth grade: an individual scientist forms a hypothesis, runs an experiment, and draws a conclusion. That’s more or less what happens at the individual level, though in practice it’s more iterative — you design, test, and refine all at once, landing on a slightly different idea each time until you reach a conclusion about whatever hypothesis you’ve ended up with. But this isn’t science. It’s only step one. Any individual scientist can make mistakes — scientists are human. Maybe there’s a bug in the code, maybe there’s an error in the experiment. Just because someone ran an experiment and reached a conclusion doesn’t mean it’s right, and scientists don’t treat a single result as settled truth. Step two is peer review, the first layer of quality control. The scientist writes up what they did and submits it to a journal, which sends the paper to other experts in the field. Those experts judge whether the methods are sound, whether it properly references prior work, and whether the conclusions actually follow from the data. Ask any scientist and they’ll tell you peer review is miserable — the comments come back brutal, often harsh, and you have to revise and resubmit, sometimes multiple times, before an editor finally accepts the paper. Peer review catches an immense amount of bad science, but it can’t catch all of it. Reviewers get sloppy or overworked, they miss obvious mistakes, and they can’t catch hidden errors — a bug in the code, a misread instrument. So a peer-reviewed paper making it into a journal doesn’t mean the paper is right. Nobody treats a single paper as the final word. That’s where step three comes in: the crucible of science. Important results get retested by the broader community. If you publish something interesting, it gets dissected. Sometimes people try to reproduce your work directly but more often they test its implications. If someone claims X is true, and that implies that Y is also true, then scientists will go check Y. If a claim survives this gauntlet long enough, it becomes accepted. That’s how we generate knowledge. Let me give an example: the ozone hole. In 1985 — and I doubt many people watching were around then, but I remember it well — Joe Farman and his colleagues published observations from Antarctica showing that a huge chunk of ozone was disappearing every year. This was shocking because most atmospheric chemists had expected ozone loss to occur at mid-latitudes and high altitudes, not over the South Pole. When scientists see something they don’t understand, they rush to explain it, and several competing hypotheses quickly appeared in the peer-reviewed literature. One pointed to chlorine chemistry from chlorofluorocarbons. A second blamed nitrogen chemistry, possibly driven by solar proton events — meaning the sun was responsible. A third argued it wasn’t chemistry at all but dynamics: winds were carrying naturally low-ozone air from the lower atmosphere up into the stratosphere. Then the community went to work testing which theory could survive the crucible. Aircraft flew into the ozone hole and found no nitrogen, ruling out the nitrogen theory. Measurements showed the air in the polar vortex was descending, not rising — which would bring high-ozone air down, eliminating the dynamics theory. Meanwhile, those same flights measured enormous amounts of chlorine, strongly correlated with exactly the regions where ozone was being destroyed. That became known as the “smoking gun” paper, and it established that chlorine chemistry was the cause. Through this process, a consensus emerged. And it’s worth being clear that this consensus is organic. There’s no vote, no poll, no meeting where it gets decided. Scientists go to conferences, talk to one another, and independently arrived at the same answer. It’s the ultimate free market of ideas. After the consensus was established, the peer-reviewed literature doesn’t even mention the rival theories — it simply takes chlorine chemistry as given. That’s what a consensus looks like. It doesn’t mean every single scientist agrees, but it does mean there’s no longer any legitimate debate. So where can you see what scientists actually think? It’s all in the peer-reviewed literature, which contains the entire historical record of the argument: the discovery, the competing theories, the debate, the testing, and finally the community coalescing around one answer. But there’s a lot of room for misrepresentation. You can dig up an old paper claiming the ozone hole was caused by dynamics and wave it around as if there still was a debate about the cause of the ozone hole — without mentioning that the idea was disproven long ago and that even its own authors no longer believe it. There’s a bigger problem, though: the peer-reviewed literature is written in a language I call “nerd.” It’s extremely hard to read — honestly, some of it is hard for me to follow. It takes graduate students years to work through the literature in a single field, so we can’t expect policymakers or ordinary people to do it. This is where scientific assessments come in. The most famous is the IPCC — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The job of an assessment is to read and summarize the peer-reviewed literature, synthesizing what’s settled, what’s been disproven, and what remains genuinely debated. To ensure the assessments accurately summarize the peer-reviewed literature, assessments are written by large teams, which are far less prone to bias than individuals and which dilute the influence of any one scientist with an axe to grind. The teams are deliberately assembled to avoid stacking the deck, and the reports themselves go through multiple rounds of peer review. That rigorous process is exactly why you can trust them and why people consider the IPCC to be the gold standard of what we know about the climate system. An assessment produced through a different process may well not be credible. You can even watch the consensus evolve across assessments. Take the attribution of warming. The 1990 IPCC report said the observed warming was broadly consistent with model predictions but also comparable to natural variability — in other words, we don’t know whether humans are responsible. By 1995, it concluded that the balance of evidence suggested a discernible human influence — a sentence only a committee could write, and one that barely commits to anything. By 2001, most of the warming over the previous 50 years was judged “likely” due to greenhouse gases; by 2007, “very likely”; by 2013, “extremely likely.” The 2023 report says essentially the same as 2013 — there’s not much stronger language available. So, to wrap up: science is our ultimate tool for deciphering the universe — the most successful method we’ve ever developed for determining what’s true and what isn’t. Our understanding is written into the peer-reviewed literature, so if you want to know what scientists think, that’s where to look. And for those of us who don’t speak nerd, scientific assessments are the Rosetta Stone — they translate nerd into English. Let me open the floor to questions. Thank you.
Miami Dolphins mandatory minicamp: 5 things we're watching
The Miami Dolphins are holding a three-day mandatory minicamp in Miami Gardens. All eyes will be on Malik Willis, Caleb Douglas and Chris Johnson.
How aid cuts are hampering the front-line response to the Ebola crisis
Aid workers in Uganda are watching an Ebola crisis unfold in neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo. They're doing what they can to prepare for an uptick in cases, but foreign aid cuts aren't helping.
New revitalization committee aims to foster new business, community spirit in Harrison
Carly Deskins grew up in Harrison in the late 1990s, when she remembers it as bustling. She remembers the Heights Plaza when it was “the place to be.” “I experienced firsthand the benefits of a community built on strong local businesses,” Deskins said. “After watching that vibrancy deteriorate, I want
Mosquitos arrived early in Colorado. Here’s what health officials are watching.
The state says it’s too soon to predict how severe mosquito season will be, but Colorado remains a national hotspot for West Nile virus.
How aid cuts are hampering the frontline response to the Ebola crisis
Aid workers in Uganda are watching the Ebola crisis unfold in the neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo. They're doing what they can to prepare for an uptick in cases, but foreign aid cuts aren't helping.
Fantasy Baseball Winners and Losers from Week 9 2026
Jacob Misiorowski set a record that probably should not be possible. The week that was in fantasy baseball featured a 451-foot exclamation point from a man who had been making contact with the baseball at an elite level while somehow watching all of it stay inside the park, a 26-year-old pitcher who threw 57 pitches at 100 miles per hour or faster in a single game — a number that had never been achieved in the pitch-tracking era — and a Saturday afternoon at Citi Field that produced two of the purest moments of the season in the same box score.
Trump Says He’s Not Watching the Clock on Iran—but Voters Are | Council on Foreign Relations
Trump’s sagging poll numbers and the surging support for Democrats suggest that Republicans will likely pay a price for the war in November.
The PSG paradox: Football’s most beautiful team are also the sport’s most successful state project
Watching the reigning European champions can be such a joy but it is hard to separate the football from the club's ownership
Social media erupts after Jill Biden reveals she was 'horrified' watching Joe's disastrous debate
Jill Biden recalled fearing Joe Biden was having a stroke during his 2024 debate against Trump, sparking criticism from conservatives and media figures.
25 intriguing Eagles to watch at 2026 OTAs and minicamp
Here are 25 Eagles we’ll be watching this week as Eagles kick off their Organized Team Activities.
PAID POST: When Every Dollar Counts, Even Entertainment Gets Reimagined
As rising costs strain Connecticut households, many families are rethinking how they watch TV, and what counts as essential entertainment.
Dropout curious? Here's where you should start watching.
From "Dimension 20" to "Game Changer" and beyond, we tell you the best launch points for this streaming comedy platform.
Update: What We’re Watching, May 22, 2026
This update covers the latest federal health policy news and its potential impact on Kansas.
Nvidia delivers earnings beat. See the key numbers.
Wall Street is closely watching Nvidia's fiscal year Q1 2027 earnings for signals on wider AI demand and the chipmaker's China business.
Cows can tell humans apart, new study finds
Domestic bovines watching videos of humans will stare at unfamiliar faces longer than faces they know.
Oronde Gadsden II is the Chargers’ best-kept secret
I think I can, without a doubt, say that second-year tight end Oronde Gadsden II is one of the most exciting Chargers fans are looking forward to watching in 2026 after a great rookie season. He became a dangerous weapon for Justin Herbert once he cemented himself in the team’s starting lineup and will once […]
Early voting underway as Johnson and Allred battle for District 33
As early voting gets underway in Texas, we're closely watching the race in Texas Congressional District 33, a newly redrawn district in Dallas County.
Inside the U’s baby science research lab, a look at how the world learns
The University of Minnesota Child Brain and Perception Lab explores how infants and toddlers make sense of the people around them. MPR News spent a day recently at the lab watching one of the “pilot babies” discover their world.
My 8-year-old calls his friends to make playdates himself
My son arranges his own playdates by phone, and watching him do it has changed how I think about independence.
Trump returns from China with no Iran breakthrough — and a decision to make
As Donald Trump grew increasingly frustrated with diplomatic efforts to end the war with Iran, administration officials were closely watching whether the president’s trip to China — a nation with close ties to Tehran — would yield a significant breakthrough.
Cursed Children’s Entertainment: A Reading (and Watching, and Gaming) List
I’ve spent the last two decades trying to smuggle darkness into your brain under Spider-Man sheets. It’s the theme of my writing career: Give you something fun, strange, and frivolous, then rip the…
Chartbook 449: Voldemort on Threadneedle street. The Bank of England and the "haunted house" of English politics.
Imagine the scene: In some Harry Potter version of 21st-century London, a group of deathless UK Treasury officials gathered from across the last century huddle over warm pints and glasses of Chardonnay. Around the table there are officials from the 1920s, the 1930s, the 1970s, 2022 and today. Inevitably, in May 2026, the subject of conversation is the disintegration of the current Labour government. Despite its huge majority in parliament, it has been reduced to tatters by catastrophic local election result. These exposed the fact that rather than having a government with a clear popular majority, the UK is like most other modern societies divided into 5 segments each of which commands between 26 and 16 percent of the vote. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the leadership at Nos 10 and 11 Downing Street - where the Prime Minister and the Chancellor (Treasury Secretary) work - seem paralyzed. They are caught between mounting discontent over unfairness and the cost of living, and tough fiscal strictures that push them into making unpopular spending decisions. In the London pub, the Treasury officials from across the ages, can barely hide their satisfaction at the latest display of democratic politics caught in the vice-grip of financial logic. “Remember the mur d’argent and the banker’s ramp?” “Just like yesterday!” There are smirks around the table. Then the representative of 2026 pipes up: “One thing you have to say about the current lot (referring to the latest hapless Labour government), you don’t have to teach them about the bond market!” There is a murmur of ascent from the Treasury Mandarins. The trauma of the fiscal crisis of September-October 2022 sits deep. Back then, in the final stages of Tory decay, a ‘mini budget’ that challenged fiscal orthodoxy led to a brief but fierce panic in one of the oldest government bond markets in the world (aka gilt market). Now all you have to do is to mention the “bond market” to hush debate. [ Paul Mason@paulmasonnews In the name of public service, and as ex-economics editor of BBC Newsnight, I offer to do a zoom call, tonight, with any Labour MP who wants to understand why bond markets do not "fall into line" with governments. 1/ 3:57 PM · May 12, 2026 · 466K Views 224 Replies · 674 Reposts · 3.93K Likes ](https://x.com/paulmasonnews/status/2054229532404519082?s=20) “And the funny thing is”, the young man in the huddle continues, “they don’t even want to talk about … ”. There is a sudden hush. Significant looks are exchanged around the table. About? One of the senior figures puts down his glass with a decisive “clink”. He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named has entered their thoughts. Meanwhile, a few miles away in a grubby pub in Bloomsbury, two conspirators from the camp of Critical Macrofinance huddle over cans of low-alcohol IPA. They look at each other and blurt out loud: “The Bank!” “Everyone in the bloody Labour party is talking about the bond market. But why aren’t they even mentioning … the Bank of England!?” “Why is no one talking about Voldemort?” In Paul Mason’s blogpost, after much chest-thumping about basic fiscal logic, the basic point about the Bank of England is buried in the fine print at #3 in his list of suggestions as to what a radical Labour government might actually be able to do! [ Conflict & Democracy Down with the bond market! Down with gravity! It may seem unfair to focus on Labour MP Paula Barker for her off-the-cuff assertion that the bond market would have to “fall in line” with Andy Burnham, should he replace Keir Starmer as prime minister. But Burnham himself told the New Statesman that Labour had to “get beyond this thing of being in hock to the bond markets… Read more 2 days ago · 100 likes · 3 comments · Paul Mason ](https://htsf.substack.com/p/down-with-the-bond-market-down-with?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web) Back in Bloomsbury they shake their heads and ask: “Didn’t we learn anything from the Eurozone crisis?” Meanwhile, as if summoned to the conversation by some higher force, the “pink pages” announce: “The days of ultra-cheap government borrowing have come to an end” and Martin “Whizzard” Wolf publishes the graph of the season Look at the UK in 2026, perilously positioned on the upper edge of the pack. No wonder no one in London needs any lessons about the “bond market”. But, look again. Imagine how they feel in Rome. What is London’s nightmare in 2026? The nightmare is that you end up like Italy in the early 2010s during the Eurozone crisis. Once comfortably situated in the middle of the pack, watching with horror as your ten-year yields explode to 7 percent and “spreads” become a national nightmare. One of the largest economies in Europe, a founding member of the euro, stigmatized. But the message of the Italian experience is ambiguous. After all, the stigma didn’t last. In 2026, Italy borrows at rates lower not only than the UK but the US. The US, which, as everyone knows, enjoys the “exorbitant privilege” of being the issuer of reserve, safe asets. What kind of magic is this? How did Italy, in the space of fifteen years, go from being good, to bad and back again? Which brings us back to our dissident friends in their Bloombury boozer and their memories of the Eurozone crisis. Italy never was Britain - with its ongoing fiscal deficits. Without interest payments, on primary balance, from 2000 to 2020 Italy ran a tight fiscal ship. Even in 2008 it barely went into deficit and when it was being put on the rack in the early 20210s its primary surplus matched that of austere Germany. So, what happened? How did it end up stigmatized? Of course Italian politics didn’t help. Berlusconi was at the helm and he had legal issues. But amongst friends in the Bloomsbury pub, Berlusconi is a sideshow, the name we whisper to each other is “Trichet”. From 2004 to 2011 the ECB was headed by Jean-Claude Trichet, ex of the French Treasury, more German than the Germans. After 2009 as the news of the Greek fiscal disaster broke, the European bond markets wento into panic mode and Trichet began a brutal game of cat and mouse. Between 2009 and 2011, Trichet intervened in the bond market to help, only when he thought he had compliance with austerity. When he thought they were uncooperative, he withdrew. In the summer of 2011, he even made direct suggestions to his Italian counterparts in Rome, as to how Italy should be governed. It was this cat and mouse game that drove the bond markets crazy and exposed Italy to a violent squeeze. When Mario Draghi took over the ECB at the end of 2011 and declared “whatever it takes”, the pressure on Italy, gradually eased. It is that starring role that has made Draghi into the towering figure in European politics that he remains today. So now you see why voices in London hush when it comes to the Bank of England. “The bond market” isn’t an irresistible objective force like the weather or an avalanche. It can appear like that. But that depends on the way it is being handled, or not handled by the central bank. Which is why the silence about the Bank of England in London right now is so significant. If you think this all sounds a bit fishy, coming from a left-liberal Keynesian like myself, well, let me introduce you to Robin Brooks, who, to put it mildly, plays on a different quidditch team to me. Here, from the position of a fiscal hawk is Robin’s celebratory account of the Bank of England’s role since 2022; In October 2022, at the height of the bond market blow-up in the UK, something incredible happened. Governor Andrew Bailey told British pension funds the Bank of England would end its support program for the country’s fragile gilt market, drawing a line under how much help the central bank was willing to give to exposed pension funds and - implicitly - the government. By the end of that week, Kwasi Kwarteng - the finance minister - had resigned. Prime Minister Liz Truss would soon follow. This episode is so incredible because it contrasts with what happened in the Euro zone earlier that year. Bond markets in Spain and Italy were under pressure amid high inflation and rising interest rates. In the middle of this, Mario Draghi - Italy’s Prime Minister - resigned, compounding pressure on bond markets of high-debt countries on the Euro periphery. Unlike the Bank of England, the ECB caved. It bought Italian and Spanish government bonds in an effort to cap yields and introduced a new tool that signaled to markets it might do such caps more frequently going forward. Faced with pressure on bond markets, the ECB capitulated to political pressure from high-debt countries like Italy and Spain. The Bank of England stood its ground and toppled the Truss government. This kind of thing has long-lasting consequences. It means markets price a higher probability of yield caps in the Euro zone, which keeps Italian and Spanish yields artificially low, while markets feel free to push up UK yields without fear of central bank intervention. As I flagged in yesterday’s post, this means you really can’t compare UK yields to those of other high-debt countries. The UK looks worse, but only because its central bank isn’t interfering with markets. There’s more to this than just that 2022 episode. The Bank of England has also been much more aggressive in its quantitative tightening (QT) than other central banks. If one motivation for quantitative easing (QE) is to lower bond yields - especially longer-dated ones - then it stands to reason QT pushes yields up. The left chart above shows a four-quarter moving average of UK government debt issuance (black line) in percent of GDP and which sectors absorb this issuance, including the Bank of England (blue bars). The right chart above compares the Bank of England’s accumulation or run-off of government bonds (blue line) with that of other central banks, where this blue line is the same as the blue bars in the left chart. The Bank of England was quicker and more aggressive than other central banks in downsizing its bond holdings, so UK yields will have risen more than elsewhere also for this reason, not just because of Governor Andrew Bailey’s remarks in October 2022. Back in October 2025, after a conversation in New York with friends in British politics, my sense of dysphoria was such that I raised the issue of the Bank of England openly in the FT Since 2008, the UK has slid into a deep economic and political predicament. Growth has stagnated to a degree far worse even than in the 1970s. The Tory leadership’s wager on the Brexit referendum spectacularly backfired, leaving the UK isolated from Europe and at the mercy of its special relationship with the US, many of whose political class regard the UK as a basket case. After years of austerity, the Labour party lurched to the left and then back to the centre. The Tory party has been eclipsed by the populist nationalism of Reform. Any British government should be worrying first and foremost about how to restart growth. Instead, Keir Starmer is beset by shades of the gilt market panic triggered by the Liz Truss government in 2022. The debt level is higher than in recent years, but there is no cause for panic. UK debt is at far from critical levels and of long duration. Whether you want to “take back control” or launch progressive economic policy, a democracy dogged by fear of bond market vigilantes is unhealthy. In a country that is a monetary sovereign, this climate points to one thing: a disconnect between the government and the central bank. Since 1997, the independence of the Bank of England has become a sacred cow. But independence is what you make of it. And in the wake of the gilt market crisis of September 2022, relations between the Bank of England and the UK government need a reset. In normal times, there is no doubt that an inflation-targeting independent central bank can serve a country well. But since 2008, the UK and other advanced economies have not had the luxury of such simple problems. To their credit, central bankers around the world have not stood on orthodoxy. After 2008, the US Federal Reserve rescued the global banking system and, through quantitative easing, it stabilised the Treasury market in the face of huge deficits. In Europe, things were trickier. Both the Bank of England under Mervyn King and Jean-Claude Trichet’s European Central Bank played cat and mouse with national governments. This was a high stakes wager that between 2010 and 2012 escalated bond market tension and triggered a disastrous turn to austerity. Shaken by the impact of those shocks, their successors, Mark Carney and Mario Draghi adopted a more protective stance (assuming you were not the government of Greece). Recall that Draghi’s legendary slogan, “Whatever it takes”, was uttered to face down the City of London’s bond vigilantes. In 2015, Draghi launched QE — financial repression by another name. In 2016, Carney used the authority of the Bank of England to stabilise markets following the vote for Brexit, an exemplary demonstration of how central banks can underpin democratic choice, even when those choices are wrong headed. All these were independent central bankers steeped in the best practice of the 1990s, who recognised that historic crises demanded radical action. It was the price surge of 2021-2023 that poisoned the atmosphere. Though the shock came mainly from the supply side, central banks ended up in the dock. Nowhere more so than in the UK. The Bank of England reacted with aggressive normalisation. Faced with a cost of living crisis, the governor called for workers to accept real wage cuts. In early 2022, as gas prices were at record levels and Russia’s army was poised to invade Ukraine, the Bank adopted a stringent programme of quantitative tightening, elevating interest rates. When the Truss government got itself in trouble, the Bank took almost a week to come to the rescue. Rather than enacting a charade of normality, it is time to recognise that in 2025 the UK faces a period of historic transition. To meet this challenge, what is needed is a new concordat with the Bank. This should not ignore inflationary pressures or the long-run trajectory of debt, but should affirm the priority of reviving investment-led growth. One could follow Donald Trump in demanding interest rate cuts. The Bank could shadow the ECB in its commitment to capping Eurozone yields. But the top priority should be to lay the ghost of September 2022. The Bank’s slowing of QT last month was a concession. An immediate and complete end would send the right signal. Such a concordat will not by itself restore sanity to politics, solve the housing problem or rebuild the NHS. But it would help to lift the fear of bond market crisis, which is paralysing the effort by democratic politicians to answer the fundamental questions facing the nation. Now, that call for a new concordat between government and Bank of Englands seems more urgent than ever. The problem is that in October 2025, Starmer still had some authority. Today the government is in tatters. And when you are the “under the harrow” - to echo a phrase of Montagu Norman’s from the 1920s - it is the worst possible time to consider institutional change. To make general arguments at a time of crisis can only seem like special pleading rather than a general argument for long-term change. The same, unfortunately, is also true for the other basic institutional reform that Britain urgently needs i.e. the abolition of the out-dated first past the post electoral system and its replacement by a moderated form of proportional representation. And thirdly - whilst we are saying the quiet parts out loud - Britain needs to reopen the question of EU membership. What the local election results of 2026 show is that this remains a key issue. And what they also show is that there is a clear majority that would favor a return. Until these basic features of Britain’s political economy are addressed the country will carry on its politics as though in a haunted house, governed by governments that lack actual majorities, conjuring up false constraints whilst ignoring the real ones. This one is for DG and MI. I love writing the newsletter. If you enjoy it too and fancy buying me a coffee once a month, you know what to do. Click below! Subscribe
Donovan Mitchell turns ankle on photographer’s shoe vs. Pistons
The Cavaliers went from watching Donovan Mitchell rearrange franchise postseason marks to watching him land awkwardly.
After watching his brother battle for a state title, a St. Charles shortstop gets his chance
Dax Pregeant watched from the bleachers when older brother Cade Pregeant played his final game in a St. Charles Catholic uniform while competing for a state championship.
Can The Jumper Be Hacked? Inside Basketball's Next Arms Race
In the summer of 2024, during the WNBA’s Olympic break, several Atlanta Dream players who weren’t competing in Paris had gathered for a midseason training camp of sorts. Anyone watching would have seen what looked like a typical 3-on-3 scrimmage. In reality, it was anything but. The Dream weren’t playing in any ordinary gym, but…
Digital Dividends: How Maryland’s Entertainment Scene is Embracing New Currencies
Maryland has always been a hub for high-stakes excitement, from the historic tracks at Pimlico to the modern floors of the state’s six major land-based gaming destinations. However, a quiet shift i…
Knicks, fans feel right at home with sweep of 76ers in Philly
Droves of Knicks fans took over Xfnity Mobile Arena yet again Sunday, watching their team sweep its way into the NBA's final four with a resounding, record-setting 144-114 win over the 76ers on Sunday.
Game 40: Twins at Guardians
First Pitch: 1:10 pm CDTTV: Twins.TVRadio: TIBN / WCCO 830 / The Wolf 102.9 FM / Audacy Forty games of baseball is probably “enough” games of baseball to feel like you have a sense of the team you’re watching. After 40 games, my sense is roughly the same as it was after 34 games, when I remarked that […]
Fiery hearing over Louisiana redistricting shows historic stakes: ‘The country is watching’
Over the course of more than eight hours, dozens of speakers urged legislators not to redraw maps to eliminate two majority-Black districts.
Why is watching the NBA playoffs at a bar harder than it should be?
Two writers walk into a bar and ... no joke, can't find an NBA game on TV at the establishment. We tried to find out why.
David Attenborough Has Inspired Countless Scientists. To Mark His 100th Birthday, Here Are Ten Living Things They've Named After Him
Researchers around the planet grew up watching documentaries hosted by the English broadcaster and naturalist, which sparked their love of the natural world. Now, their discoveries become tributes to his legacy
World Cup dream job! FOX Sports, FOX One & Indeed offer chance of a lifetime
What's better than watching the 2026 FIFA World Cup this summer? How about getting paid for it?
Sen. Baldwin proposes ‘For the Fans Act’ to make watching sports games easier
Leagues would be required to offer a single, free service for fans to watch all the teams in their home state.
Baldwin introducing bill aiming to stop sports blackouts, cut streaming costs
The rise of streaming services have made watching games difficult for some sports fans.
Fallout Co-Creator Says Some Players Watch Influencers So They Can Be Told What to Think About Games
Fallout co-creator Tim Cain has shared his fear that some gamers are watching influencers just so they can be "handed an opinion from the online channel they're watching."
Thoma Bravo is hunting software bargains amid selloff pressure
The Chicago firm is closely watching for any “motivated selling” among business-development companies that have been beset by a wave of investor redemptions.
Be afraid, death as entertainment is back
After public hanging was banned in 1868, watching someone die became rare and shameful — but social media is reversing that
Rising sports streaming and ticket prices impact DePaul students and faculty
The price of watching sports has become an increasingly frequent complaint from fans. Between the rising fees of streaming services and the small fortune that tickets now cost, many fans have had to cut back on watching games, according to a survey of 3,500 by Deloitte, published in March 2026. At DePaul, students and professors...
1 city, 3 teams, 8 hours: A running diary of a Philly sports marathon
Watching Philly sports all day is work, but someone had to do it.
Cleveland Browns news (5/3): What are you watching today?
The latest Cleveland Browns news and notes from around the NFL in the Sunday Dawg Chow.
Your Roku TV is watching you — 3 settings to change right now
The hidden Roku settings that are snitching on your viewing habits
Who’s running for Congress in California? These races could determine the majority
Ballots are in the mail for California’s primary election. These are the congressional races CalMatters is watching closely — and the candidates fighting for their political lives.
She Was an Architect of Obama’s Iran Nuclear Deal. Now She’s Watching Trump’s War in Horror.
Wendy Sherman knows better than almost anyone that this didn’t have to happen, and that a better future was possible.
Lance Stroll: F1 still "miles off" from proper cars
Aston Martin Formula 1 driver Lance Stroll says watching videos of old Formula 1 cars made him "sad" about the current regulations
A non-controversial public health policy? The UK’s gradual ban on smoking has been a PR success
The world will be watching to see how the ban for anyone born after 2009 works out. So far it’s been a win with smokers and non-smokers alike, says public health academic Prof Devi Sridhar
Dementia risk rises with common food type millions eat every day, study suggests
A new study from Australia links ultraprocessed food consumption to lower attention scores and higher dementia risk, even among those who follow otherwise healthy diets.
Meryl Streep tears up after receiving message from actress who played her daughter in 'Sophie's Choice'
Meryl Streep's eyes welled with tears when watching a current-day video of Jennifer Lawn Lejeune, the actress who played her daughter over four decades ago in 'Sophie's Choice,' showering her with praise.
Aamir Khan tears up watching Junaid Khan's acting, praises Sai Pallavi at Ek Din event: 'Best actress in our country today'
Aamir Khan was seen getting emotional at a special event for his upcoming production Ek Din in the city on Sunday. The actor attended the event along .
How Birdwatching Changes Your Brain, According to Science
I often like to remind readers that correlation does not equal causation. Just because scientists find a link between X and Y doesn’t mean X causes Y, especially when the study is small and needs way more follow-up before anyone should treat it like gospel. That said, as a birder and the husband of an […]
The Science of the Times: A Project Hail Mary Commentary
Nothing beats sitting at the cinema watching a movie for the first time and thinking to yourself, “Wow, this is why I love movies.” Project Hail Mary did that for me.
The Foldable iPhone Is Basically an iPad Mini That Folds in Half
Watching videos and playing games is going to be so much more immersive.