SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " ml " 4,727 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Retiring Tigers Star Justin Verlander Makes Financial MLB History
The Hall of Fame career for Detroit Tigers pitcher Justin Verlander came to a close late last month, as he made one final start wearing the Old English D in front of a packed house at Comerica Park. Verlander, who returned to the Tigers last offseason with a one-year contract, announced that the 2026 MLB […] The post Retiring Tigers Star Justin Verlander Makes Financial MLB History appeared first on HEAVY.
Trump rallies in Ohio to boost Jon Husted in a tight Senate race against Sherrod Brown
Saturday's rally is just outside Dayton, Ohio, where he'll stump for key candidates in competitive races for the House, Senate and the governor’s mansion in Columbus.
Search warrant served at another Butler County business in ongoing illegal gambling investigation
An illegal gambling investigation in Butler County, Missouri continues.
South Texas Health System (@stxhealthsystem)
1 likes, 1 comments - stxhealthsystem on October 3, 2026: "A Gathering of Compassion, Commitment & Community: The Texas Association of Healthcare Volunteers (TAHV), a statewide organization dedicated to supporting, training and connecting healthcare volunteers, recently held its District 3 Meeting at South Texas Health System Edinburg. Volunteers from across South Texas and the Coastal Bend gathered to learn, share ideas and strengthen the vital role they play in supporting patients, families and healthcare teams throughout their communities. The Auxiliary to STHS (@auxiliarytosths) is made up of more than 350 student and adult volunteers who help enhance the patient experience across the health system. To help make this year's event a success, auxiliary members from hospitals throughout the Rio Grande Valley came together to plan, coordinate and host the annual meeting. We extend our heartfelt thanks to everyone who attended and contributed to this inspiring event. Your dedication, compassion and service make a lasting impact in hospitals across the Rio Grande Valley and beyond.".
VB Health Launches Public Seven-Part Supplement Quality Standard
DENVER, Oct. 03, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- VB Health, a Denver-based dietary supplement company co-founded by a U.S.-licensed physician, launched...
Full Saturday slate of baseball as Division Series begin
Four playoff games stacked back to back as the MLB playoffs continue in earnest!
MLB playoff games and schedule today: Quadruple-header on deck
Opening day of MLB Division Series brings a quadruple-header.
29 businesses honored at Bowling Green Chamber’s Targeted Business Awards, AKFA named Business of the Year
The Bowling Green Area Chamber of Commerce celebrated 29 businesses Thursday during its annual Targeted Business Awards, presented by Pinnacle Financial Partners, at the Knicely Conference Center.
America.gov: New AI Tool Streamlines Government Navigation for Small Businesses - Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council
By Karen Kerrigan – For small business owners and those entrepreneurs just launching businesses, a frustrating aspect of dealing with government is often trying to figure out the rules and navigating websites to find the right information. A new federal AI-powered tool, America.gov, could make that process significantly easier. Launched on September 29, America.gov is […]
ABS-CBN News
1Z Entertainment is holding its first music festival, One Zone Fest, bringing together the agency’s roster of artists for a two-day event on October 24-25, 2026. More details in the comments section.
Mets Morning News: Carson Benge makes his case
Your Saturday morning dose of New York Mets and MLB news, notes, and links.
Former Toronto Blue Jays Farmhand Led MLB in Hits in 2026
Otto Lopez began his career in the Blue Jays organization before getting designated for assignment in 2024.
Brutal weather in store for Dodgers-Braves MLB playoff series
Things are heating up in this MLB postseason, and the Los Angeles Dodgers are back at it, with a chance to win the World Series.
Pat Murphy identifies Brewers’ biggest challenge before Padres NLDS
The Milwaukee Brewers will meet the San Diego Padres in the NLDS after Milwaukee posted the best overall record in MLB during the regular season. San Diego enters the series after finishing the year on a strong note and knocking out the Chicago Cubs in the Wild Card round. A major part of the Padres’ [...]
Saturday Sports: Major League Baseball playoff time; WNBA
NPR's Scott Simon and sportswriter Howard Bryant discuss the WNBA and MLB playoffs.
Will rookie slugger take MLB playoffs by storm? Players who could decide division series
Breaking down MLB's best-of-five Division Series and the players who will impact the games.
MLB playoff schedule: Four Division Series Games 1 on Saturday
LOS ANGELES — After two days of four playoff games during the wild card round, Saturday gives us one more day full of baseball on Saturday to start the Division Series round in both the American League and National League. The Dodgers will start Tarik Skubal in Game 1 of their NLDS against a potential […]
Dodgers continue quest for World Series three-peat
The Los Angeles Dodgers will begin their MLB play-off campaign on Saturday, with the defending champions playing in a double-header live on the BBC.
Trump, Putin, Ukraine and an Oil Deal: 5 Takeaways
A proposal to bolster relations with the Kremlin through the purchase of Russian energy assets is striking even for an administration that regularly mixes personal business interests with foreign policy.
FNF Week 5: Jesuit dominates Holy Cross, 33-6
The Holy Cross Crusaders took on the Jesuit Blue Jays on Friday night at Tad Gormley Stadium.
Politics Unusual: Governor's race, NY consent laws
In this episode of Politics Unusual, FOX 5 NY's political reporter Morgan McKay speaks with Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman about his campaign for the governor's office. Also, a conversation with NYS Assemblymember Catalina Cruz about New York's consent laws.
This week in health care policy: September 28 – October 2, 2026
Drug pricing CMS finalizes GLOBE pilot. On September 30, CMS finalized the Global Benchmark for Efficient Drug Pricing model, a program that ties Part B drug rebates to prices paid in 19 countries. It will cover physician-administered drugs in randomly selected communities throughout the US, representing about 25 percent of Part B beneficiaries. It runs […]
Studying Science in an Anti-Scientific Time
This Chronicle Review Deep Cut was first published in 2025. By Julianne Werlin Thanks for reading The Chronicle Review! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Subscribe The last two decades have not been kind to science studies. Already bruised and battered by the “science wars” of the 1990s, by the 2000s sociologists of science — who had long argued that science had to be understood in its human context — were encountering the funhouse-mirror version of their own views in right-wing critiques of climate scientists. It was enough to give some prominent scholars pause. “Was I wrong to participate in the invention of this field known as science studies?” asked Bruno Latour, the most famous sociologist of science in the world, in 2003. “Should we apologize for having been wrong all along? Or should we rather bring the sword of criticism to criticism itself and do a bit of soul-searching here: What were we really after when we were so intent on showing the social construction of scientific facts?” In response, Latour proposed a change of method and attitude. Science studies, now chastened and contrite, would no longer seek to strip facts of their authority, but to enrich and enhance them. What this meant in practice was never fully clear. But his diagnosis of problems resonated, even if his solutions did not. Latour’s exercise in public hand-wringing signaled a shift in mood. By 2016, with the first election of Donald Trump, the idea that skepticism of science was a right-wing position, not a left-wing one, had become a commonplace, discussed eagerly in The New York Times. For liberals, vaccine denial during the Covid era and Trump’s second-term attacks on the funding of scientific research, covered extensively in these pages, added a new urgency to the defense of science on both practical and principled grounds. There was little appetite for a sociology or philosophy of science that emphasized the messiness and missteps of the scientific process rather than its integrity and triumphs. The distinguished historian of science Peter Dear’s new book, The World as We Know It: From Natural Philosophy to Modern Science (Princeton University Press, 2025), which seeks to tell the story of 18th- and 19th-century science for a general public, may seem comfortably remote from these bitter contests. In its 16 short chapters, Dear draws swift, sure sketches of major discoveries from Newton to Einstein, ably guiding the reader through debates on stellar nebulae, animal taxonomy, atomic chemistry, evolution, and other flashpoints in the history of science. But though a work of history, Dear’s book must still negotiate our polarized present. In a blurb on its back cover, the historian of biology Lynn K. Nyhart alludes to the “present moment, when scientific knowledge is being swamped by misinformation and its institutions are under siege.” Dear himself, in his conclusion, refers to the “yard signs” and “bumper stickers” that proclaim “Science Is Real.” One antidote to both anti-science propaganda and to reductive slogans in science’s defense is a robust history and philosophy of science: exactly what Dear’s scholarship has long offered. But his new book illustrates how difficult such work has become. Dear, an emeritus professor of history at Cornell University, is best known as a creative and philosophically minded historian of the Scientific Revolution. His edited volume The Literary Structure of Scientific Argument (1991) analyzed the rhetoric of Galileo’s thought experiments to brilliant effect. Discipline and Experience: The Mathematical Way in the Scientific Revolution (1995) was a major contribution to the analysis of scientific experiments in early modern Europe and beyond, while Revolutionizing the Sciences: European Knowledge in Transition, 1500-1700 (2001), now in its third edition, remains one of the best overviews of the profound epistemological upheavals of 16th- and 17th-century science. But Dear has also ventured into later periods. Nearly two decades ago, in The Intelligibility of Nature: How Science Makes Sense of the World (2006), he turned to the 18th and 19th centuries to sketch a history and theory of scientific knowledge. Aimed at a generalist audience, Dear’s simple prose belied serious philosophical ambitions. Science, Dear argued, has two aspects: “natural philosophy,” the quest to understand the true nature of the universe, and “instrumentality,” the applied skills and technologies that allow us to manipulate the world for human advantage. Both strands are ancient, but the innovation of the phenomenon we call “science” was to yoke them together. As Francis Bacon wrote, “Human knowledge and human power meet in one; for where the cause is not known, the effect cannot be produced,” an insight typically abridged to “knowledge is power.” Or, in Bertrand Russell’s characteristically blunt phrase, science has two functions, “1. to enable us to know things, and 2., to enable us to do things.” So far, so conventional. But Dear took issue with this familiar story in one respect. Bacon’s formula implied that theory and practice could be fused in a single method. In fact, Dear argued, the quest to understand nature and the desire to manipulate it were coupled only loosely. They could come together, but they could also pull apart. Focusing on natural philosophy, the “knowing” half of the scientific circle, he used a series of case studies from cosmology, taxonomy, chemistry, electromagnetism, and quantum theory to show how theories changed over time, in dialogue with practice, but never reducible to it. Take the case of matter, the basic substrate of the physical world. In the 18th and 19th centuries, scientists not only disagreed about what it was, but also about how well it could be known. In 1789, the chemist Antoine Lavoisier dismissed speculation about the atomic composition of chemicals as “discussions entirely of a metaphysical nature,” as he sought to orient chemistry away from philosophical abstraction and toward laboratory results. But in the 19th century, atoms returned with a vengeance in the atomic chemistry of John Dalton, who wanted to explain the underlying structure of nature. It was not just that Dalton and Lavoisier had a different set of experimental results, or even a different theory, Dear showed. What counted as an explanation had changed. In arguing that scientific theories depended on their intelligibility to human beings with complex arrays of beliefs and commitments, Dear was in sympathy with science studies. Key figures such as the sociologist Steven Shapin emphasized the importance of psychological mechanisms like trust in the formation and acceptance of scientific ideas. But in focusing on the scientific pursuit of knowledge, not its politics or economics, Dear resisted the more cynical perspective of some of his colleagues. The Intelligibility of Nature strikes a very different note than Shapin’s collection of a few years later, Never Pure: Historical Studies of Science as If It Was Produced by People With Bodies, Situated in Time, Space, Culture, and Society, and Struggling for Credibility and Authority (2010), to name just one example. Walking a very fine line, Dear depicted science as driven at once by complex social dynamics and by the intellectual power of real discoveries. It was a testament not only to his own acumen but also to the vitality of the field that he was able to do so. Nearly two decades later, The World as We Know It returns to the questions broached in The Intelligibility of Nature. Like Dear’s earlier study, it begins with the Newtonian cosmos and ends with debates between Einstein and Bohr on quantum physics. Beyond its terminal figures, many of the same characters appear in both studies, including the naturalists John Ray and the Comte de Buffon; the chemists Étienne François Geoffroy, Antoine Lavoisier, and John Dalton; as well as Charles Darwin and Michael Faraday, among others. Its subject is nearly identical: As in The Intelligibility of Nature, The World as We Know It considers natural philosophy as opposed to instrumentality, here defined as the “desire to create a picture of what the world is really like — the world as God knows it — rather than simply having instrumental or operational control over it.” The two books also overlap in insights — and sometimes even in language. The reader who has learned in The Intelligibility of Nature that Buffon’s method of classifying animals “reflected his belief in the importance of the senses and empiricism in learning about nature (a doctrine associated with Newton and the philosopher John Locke)” will experience a sense of déjà vu on reading, in The World as We Know It, that the classification “reflects Buffon’s commitment to the epistemological stance of Newton and his philosophical underlaborer John Locke, who stressed the role of the senses in creating natural knowledge.” Later in the passage, we read that, “because of its stress on understanding the ways of life of animals in their environments, Buffon’s approach could almost be labeled (anachronistically) as ‘ecological.’” And again, “an anachronistic way of putting it would be to say that Buffon recommends an ecological mode of understanding.” Likewise, in The Intelligibility of Nature we read of Dalton that he was initially drawn to meteorology, and that: He did a bit of experimental work on these things, especially having to do with the water-holding capacity of gases, but his real interest lay in understanding what, at an underlying natural-philosophical level, was really going on physically.” Whereas, in The World as We Know It: He did experimental work on these things, especially concerning the water-holding capacity of gases — although not at a very refined level quantitatively — but he was continually trying to develop a theoretical conception of what was happening physically. The final full chapter of each book closes on the same resigned note. Intelligibility: These days, most serious work on the natural philosophical underpinnings and implications of quantum mechanics is performed not by physicists but by philosophers of science. Among scientific practitioners themselves, Bohr’s attempt to use instrumentality as sufficient grounds for a respectable science has met with a high degree of success. And again, in The World as We Know It: Bohr’s and Einstein’s concerns are now questions that are mostly discussed by philosophers of science rather than by physicists themselves. The marginalization of these sorts of questions amounts to the demise of natural philosophy, at least in physics, in the 20th century. Quantum mechanics “works,” and that’s good enough for most scientists who encounter it. Examples could be multiplied. When handling the same subject matter, some echoes are inevitable. Scholars should not feel that because they have written “Isaac Newton died in 1727” in one book, in the next they must describe him as perishing, expiring, or meeting his maker. But the repetitions of language and arguments (not to mention six reproduced images) threaded throughout The World as We Know It are more extensive than that. They should have been caught by Princeton University Press or its reviewers, and revised. Because the two books have so much in common, it is easy to see where they diverge. The World as We Know It is a less theoretical work than its predecessor. The sociology of knowledge that organized The Intelligibility of Nature has been reduced in scale and folded into readings and examples. The taut interplay between history and theory, which gave the earlier study so much interest, is there, but it is subtle. In the earlier book, the case studies demonstrated theoretical claims about the character and development of science. In the later work, each narrative of discovery is an end in itself. Insights emerge from the history, but they do not control the organization of the study. With the theory muted, it can be hard to understand the logic uniting Dear’s sprawling history of more than two centuries of scientific knowledge. The 16 brisk chapters cover an enormous amount of material. But the closer the volume edges to comprehensiveness, the more obvious the missing elements become. A chapter on “Institutions and Pedagogy,” describing the birth of the research university, illustrates the problem. Inserted roughly halfway through the book, the unnumbered chapter is designed as an “entr’acte,” in acknowledgement that it does not fit the study’s organization around scientific discoveries. Yet as Dear is well aware, no general history of the development of modern science can bracket its 19th-century institutionalization and professionalization. It was the 19th-century university, after all, that gave us the “scientist,” a term coined by the Cambridge philosopher William Whewell. Dear’s history of scientific discoveries implies a wider social and institutional history, but it remains largely subterranean, only occasionally extruded under the pressure of the narrative. It must be said that the balance is not all on the side of the earlier study. There are some advantages to the more historical, less theoretical organization of The World as We Know It. Dear’s accounts of paradigm shifts are remarkably lucid, no small accomplishment given that they span fields and centuries. He makes excellent use of the wealth of new scholarship on Darwin and his influences, to which he has himself contributed. It is satisfying to see puzzle pieces from Buffon’s natural history, Georges Cuvier’s animal taxonomy, Thomas Robert Malthus’s demography, and Charles Lyell’s geology recombined seamlessly in the Darwinian jigsaw. Likewise, Dear’s discussion of stellar nebulae, divided between chapters two and 15, shows vividly how Newton, Kant, Herschel, and Hubble reimagined insights and observations as they sought to discover whether the diffuse light that filtered through early telescopes was a glowing, gaseous substance or discrete but distant stars. Yet despite such pleasures, the book remains a more modest work than The Intelligibility of Nature. Dear has clearly not changed his views about the history of science. But in the two decades that have elapsed, the discipline and the world around it have changed, making it harder to write a sociologically and philosophically ambitious history of science for the general reader. That is a shame, because in the age of Silicon Valley and biotechnology, both the reciprocity and the tensions Dear identified between the epistemological and instrumental ambitions of science are more evident than ever. In recent years, some of the most exciting new books on the history of science in early modernity have focused precisely on this pressure point. Important studies such as Pamela H. Smith’s From Lived Experience to the Written Word (2022), James Poskett’s Horizons: The Global Origins of Modern Science (2022), and Vera Keller’s The Interlopers: Early Stuart Projects and the Undisciplining of Knowledge (2023) all shed new light on how early modern science negotiated the relationship between its instrumental and epistemological ambitions, or in Russell’s phrase, knowing and doing. There is every opportunity for a philosophically informed approach to draw new insights from this wealth of material. Dear, unfortunately, has not done so in The World as We Know It. But for future scholars of the history of science, his body of work over nearly four decades may provide just the model. Julianne Werlin is an associate professor of English at Duke University. Thanks for reading The Chronicle Review! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Subscribe
MLB Division Series Preview: Braves-Dodgers, Yankees-Rays, Padres-Brewers & White Sox-Guardians
Weekly Rundown: Duke University launches digital twin program; Welldoc unveils AI-powered care loop
Stay up to date on the latest in health tech, digital health and health AI news with this weekly brief. Read below for news from the week of Sept. 28 to Oct. 2. | The latest news from Yosi Health, Grindr, K Health, Welldoc, Duke University and more.
Friday Open Thread
This is a slow time of year for baseball news, if your team isn’t in the playoffs. MLB doesn’t like teams to make news during the playoffs, because they want the focus to be on the playoff teams, which is fair. Jameson Taillon is going to have elbow surgery next week. He’s had Tommy John […]
Everything Paramount will own as Skydance
What brands and IP are impacted by the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger?
Scientists Untangle the Biology of an ‘Undruggable’ Cancer Gene
Found in 70 percent of cancers, the gene is seen as a grand orchestrator but has been surprisingly difficult to stop.
Don't let the adorable AI agents fool you
Just because they look harmless doesn't mean you should be irresponsible with your data.
Shohei Ohtani Injury Concern Gets Major Update Before Dodgers’ NLDS
The Los Angeles Dodgers are the reigning World Series champions, and they have their sights firmly trained on becoming the first team since the New York Yankees over a quarter century ago to win three straight rings.And one of the key pieces of their lineup is star Shohei Ohtani, who had a recent stay on […] The post Shohei Ohtani Injury Concern Gets Major Update Before Dodgers’ NLDS appeared first on HEAVY.
Skip the Wait. Microsoft's 26H2 Update Fixes the Parts You Hate Most About Windows 11
From a movable taskbar to Bing-free search, Windows 11's 26H2 update unlocks the features Microsoft's slow rollout has kept from your PC over the last year.
MLB Ends Grand Teton Game Talks After Wyoming Officials Object
The early-stage consideration generated heavy pushback.
How Phillies' finish-line stumble set up their latest October demise
Don Mattingly always preached “better baseball,” but the Phillies couldn’t close out September — and carried the consequences into October.
Islanders News: Darche on summer, Duclair on target
Good morning and happy Friday, the New York Islanders are last in the Metro. Islanders News Elsewhere Last night’s scores included the Jack Hughes getting the Devils the win in overtime after he objected to a mid-game question from AJ Mleczko about bubble wrap and plastic utensils (he was reportedly injured during a team dinner […]
Health Care Workers Are Tired of Cleaning Up Palantir’s Mess
A hospital giant and radiology network turned to Palantir to streamline scheduling, but nurses and other staff say the new software is causing errors, burnout, and frustration.
Euro 2016 memories aplenty - but O'Neill focused on future
Ukraine against Northern Ireland is a fixture which brings up plenty of memories, but Michael O'Neill is firmly focused on the future.
Olivier Martinez granted temporary restraining order against Halle Berry after accusing her of abusing their son
Olivier Martinez has been granted a temporary restraining order against ex-wife Halle Berry. He’s accused her of abusing their 12-year-old son, Maceo.
MLB playoffs 2026: Division series preview, X-factors, predictions and more for Braves-Dodgers, Padres-Brewers, Yankees-Rays and White Sox-Guardians
Eminem and Kid Rock Prioritize Friendship Over Politics on New Track: 'We Hope That Sets an Example'
Eminem and Kid Rock have teamed up on a new track that they hope will set a good example for friends with differing politi...
Phillies' season ends with the pain of another early postseason knockout
Aaron Nola and Zack Wheeler gave up a combined five runs on two homers. Atlanta advances to the Division Series. The Phillies go home.
MLB playoff bracket: See the 2026 ALDS and NLDS matchups
Michael Harris II sent the Braves into a division series against the Dodgers. Here's every ALDS and NLDS matchup as the MLB playoffs move on.
Salmon season brings business boost to Pulaski
The Salmon River in Pulaski is full of salmon and fly fishers, and that means business is booming in the village.
Ten bucks says you’ll love this community science project
Today marks the first day of Rut Watch 2026 With another season of Deer Spy in the books thanks to community scientists like you, biologists are now on a mission to pinpoint the peak of the white-tailed deer breeding season in Maine. Every observation of deer breeding behavior and sign helps define the timing of the rut, and this project uses the power of community science to collect deer data all fall long. Hunters, hikers, and wildlife watchers - Rut Watch pairs well with any outdoor adventure you have planned this season. It’s a perfect excuse to slow down and connect with nature as you look for clues. So get outside, rack up that deer data and submit rut reports from now through December 1. The online form is science made simple: Location Date and time Breeding behavior observed Submit a Rut Report What to watch for Active Breeding The most obvious breeding behavior to observe is a buck mounting a doe, but that is a rare sight as it only lasts a moment. You are more likely to witness a buck “tending” a doe, following closely, chasing, nuzzling, or pawing at her rump until she is receptive. Sparring After bucks shed their velvet, sparring helps sort out who is who in the dominance hierarchy. Early season matches are often less intense than later season matches between similar sized bucks. Most sparring is complete by the time breeding begins. Rubs Don’t just look for deer, pay attention to the trees. Rubs are marks made by bucks when they rub their antlers on trees, removing bark and leaving their scent calling card in the process. Scrapes Look to the forest floor for this sign of breeding season behavior. Scrapes consist of two parts - a licking branch, and a patch of cleared earth. Bucks break a low branch around head height, then paw at the leaves below to expose the dirt. Covered in scent, a scrape tells does and other bucks, “I’m here!” Learn More More information What’s next for deer community science: Northern Maine Wintering Deer Survey Other active community science projects: Fish Tag Reporting Maine Golden Eagle Study Maine Amphibian & Reptile Atlas Project Maine Deer Management: Maine’s Big Game Management Plan Game Species Conservation & Management Report The Benefits of Hunting: Supporting Wildlife, Conservation, and Community Subscribe Share Leave a comment
Rogers Completes Acquisition of Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment
Will invest to build championship-calibre teamsWill invest to deliver world-class experiences to fans and customersBecomes global communications, ...
Torey Lovullo to stay with Arizona Diamondbacks after uncertain future
PHOENIX – Torey Lovullo is back with a new two-year deal per MLB. com writer Steve Gilbert.
SupplySide Global Brings Together Ingredient and Supplement Ecosystem for Discovery, Education and Business Acceleration
LAS VEGAS, Oct. 01, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- SupplySide Global , the world's leading trade show and conference for the supplement, food, and bev...
Feds probe Adam Kinzinger’s Kalshi bets on Biden pardons
Kinzinger allegedly made the trades in December 2024, betting that he would receive a pardon from then-President Joe Biden.
Rogers Completes Acquisition of Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment
Will invest to build championship-calibre teams Will invest to deliver world-class experiences to fans and customers Becomes global communications, sports and entertainment leader TORONTO, ON (October 1, 2026) – Rogers Communications Inc. announced today that it has completed the acquisition of Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment (MLSE), increasing its ownership […]
Rogers Completes Acquisition of Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment
Will invest to build championship-calibre teamsWill invest to deliver world-class experiences to fans and customersBecomes global communications, sports and entertainment leader TORONTO, Oct. 01, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Rogers Communications Inc. announced today that it has completed the acquisition of Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment (MLSE), increasing its ownership of MLSE to 100%. Rogers acquired the remaining 25% ownership stake in MLSE from Kilmer Sports Inc. for C$4.35 billion. “We’re pr
Apartment developer Newstreet joins conversion boom with deal for Gold Coast office
Though the deal will be the firm’s first office-to-residential conversion, it joins a string of similarly sized deals by other developers capitalizing on rental demand.
UTA Streamlines Film, TV and Talent Units, Promotes Matt Rice
UTA has streamlined the leadership of its film, TV and talent departments under a new Filmed Entertainment unit led by agency veteran Matt Rice.
'This is what happened with Claude and me': AI's failed attempt to crack the Riemann hypothesis led mathematician to a breakthrough
An attempt by Anthropic's Claude failed to prove the Riemann hypothesis, but it did produce something genuinely useful: inspiration.
Joey Porter Jr. Trade Gives Steelers Fresh Start
Former Pittsburgh Steelers head coach Mike Tomlin always said he wanted volunteers and not hostages. It turns out general manager Omar Khan and current head coach Mike McCarthy feel the same way with the Joey Porter Jr. trade news that broke just after 11:30 P.M. Wednesday. The Steelers acquired a 2028 2nd-round pick and a …
How Washington Funded the Politicization of Science
Over the last half-decade, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on projects designed to influence academic policies, both in the sciences and other disciplines. The aim was to foster a progressive conception of social justice in these fields. In pursuit of this end, the foundation earmarked nearly a million dollars for a project titled “Creating Inclusive Scientific Societies through Policies and Practices,” over a million for a project on “Faculty Online Learning Communities for Gender Equity,” and over $2 million to foster “racial equity focused departmental change.” Through a public records request, I’ve obtained the proposals and progress reports for dozens of NSF grants designed to promote social justice. Although funding for these grants was eventually halted by the Trump administration, the projects illustrate an important facet of recent higher-education policy. Many of the university policies that promised “social transformation” didn’t arise in a vacuum. They were actively encouraged by outside funders—often by the federal government itself. Subscribe Accreditation—the peer-review process which enables universities to receive federal grants and student loans—has recently become a policy battleground, with accreditors wielding significant power over both universities and academic disciplines. In 2020, when Oregon Health and Science University’s medical school issued an extensive diversity action plan—which promised “consequences” for employees who failed to support “DEI, anti-racism and social justice”—it specifically pointed to the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME), the medical-school accrediting body, to justify the overhaul. The NSF actively promoted DEI-focused accreditation policies. The proposal for a $1.2 million program on promoting “community engagement” in STEM, which I obtained through a records request, notes that the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology was exploring changes to its criteria “that would incorporate JEDI [justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion].” The proposal promised to “support broader JEDI efforts in the general criteria for engineering.” Another grant funded a conference designed to “identify and share best practices and strategies to integrate IDEA principles in accreditation criteria”—referring to an acronym that stands for “inclusion, diversity, equity, and accessibility.” Scholarly societies have become another flashpoint in debates over higher education. Critics argue that many of these societies, which have the power to shape entire disciplines, have become increasingly politicized. Again, through its giving, the NSF played a role in promoting this politicization. In one million-dollar grant that received funding in 2024, a group of psychologists proposed a series of social-justice reforms to the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues. The proposal, which I obtained via a records request, asserts that “[r]edistributing resources (such as moving different people into leadership roles) is not enough” and that the society’s “governance structures do not yet reflect its stated values of diversity, equity, and inclusion.” Its solution: review and rework the society’s criteria for leadership development, academic awards, conferences, and publications. Adjusting review criteria informed by “intersectionality” designed to fight “epistemic exclusion” is an easy way to introduce de facto ideological litmus tests into the peer-review process. For many of the grants I obtained, such litmus tests seem to be the point. “Academic departments are racialized social systems that produce and sustain the byproducts of systemic racism,” a proposal for a $2.7 million project funded in 2024 asserts, promising to develop “departmentally-focused change efforts that cultivate values, assumptions, and behaviors that advance racial equity.” The University of Illinois Urbana Champaign’s million-dollar “I-ADVANCE” project, which effectively created a small DEI bureaucracy on campus, promised to Embed 28 ADVANCE faculty fellows in STEM departments” to amplify its equity goals. Another $1.2 million project promised to create “faculty online learning communities,” made up of scientists at universities around the country, that would eventually build department-level diversity action plans. “Ultimately,” the proposal asserts, perhaps more perceptively than its authors realized, “both organizational change and intersectionality frameworks deal with power.” Indeed, such grants confer a great deal of power to administrators and scholar-activists, who can even use the mere availability of funding as a tool to advance their causes. That history is worth remembering amid today’s debate over federal involvement in higher education: Washington has been shaping university priorities for years, including by financing efforts to instill progressive ideas about race, gender, and equity into academic institutions—and many of the policies those grants encouraged remain embedded within universities long after the federal money has stopped flowing. John D. Sailer is the director of higher education policy and a senior fellow at Manhattan Institute. Share
Padres complete sweep of Cubs, advance to NLDS
News to know about your San Diego Padres and MLB for October 1, 2026.
Amazon introduces a completely redesigned Kindle family
The all-new Kindle, Kindle Paperwhite, and Kindle Colorsoft are thinner and lighter with a new display stack and seamless edge-to-edge color across the lineup.
Tributes to 'dedicated' former Manx politician George Waft
Former MLC George Waft is praised for his commitment to the community following his death at 89.
Good science requires much more than evidence
Empiricists believe that scientific theories are true only if they make correct empirical predictions: if we can't verify these predictions, then there is no reason to expect that they tell us anything about reality. However, Professor of Philosophy at King's College David Kyle Johnson argues that this is mistaken. In response to Bas van Fraassen, who has written on this subject for the IAI, he argues that we have many reasons for believing a theory to be true, such as it being parsimonious and having large scope — qualities which have been used throughout the history of science as criteria for judging theories. In 2024, Princeton philosopher Bas van Fraassen wrote a short article for IAI News entitled “Science Does not Describe Reality: The Limits and Benefits of Explanation.” At the time, I was working on two projects (a science book and a Great Course) that, when completed, would (among other things) defend science’s ability to describe reality. I wanted to write a response to van Fraassen, but the projects demanded too much of my attention. But now that those projects are complete, I am in a position to explain the objections to van Fraassen’s thesis. Summarizing van Fraassen’s argumentIn a nutshell, his argument is this: What scientists do is make predictions based on theories and then invite others to test to see whether those predictions are borne out. “If theory T is right, result R should happen in experimental condition C.” Many think that running an experiment that shows that R happens in condition C is proof that theory T is true (and should be believed). But, van Fraassen argues, that R happened in condition C is only a reason to think that R happens in condition C. That’s the only observable, or empirical, result we can actually see, so that is all that we are really justified in believing. (The underlying theory that made that prediction still may or may not be true.) That is why he calls those who accept his position “empiricists.”Before I explain what is wrong with this position, let me explain what it gets right. What van Fraassen Gets RightFirst, a theory correctly predicting the results of an experiment is not, strictly speaking, “proof” that the theory is correct. The basic line of reasoning is this:If the theory T is true, result R should happen. Result R did happen. Thus, theory T is true.In other words:“If T then R. R. Thus, T.”This is a deductively invalid, fallacious mode of reasoning, called “affirming the consequent.” Those premises do not guarantee that the conclusion follows. “If I am in Pennsylvania, then I am in the USA. I am in the USA. Thus, I am in Pennsylvania.” Clearly that argument doesn’t guarantee its conclusion; neither does the above argument.However, science is not a deductive method of reasoning; it is an inductive one. And inductive arguments merely try to raise the probability of their conclusion, not “prove” them for certain. Thus, the fact that an experimental result doesn’t prove a theory is true is irrelevant; it’s not supposed to. That is not what scientific reasoning is about.___If the hypothesis that something exists clearly provides the best explanation for what we can observe, then the belief that it exists is what is rational.___Second, it’s also true that a single experimental result doesn’t provide enough justification to believe that a theory is true. Scientists do not come to a consensus about whether a theory is true by looking at a single experiment; they look at all the evidence to determine where the preponderance of evidence points. The mere fact that I am in the USA raises the probability that I am in Pennsylvania, but not nearly enough to conclude that I am in Pennsylvania. However, if I am also regularly encountering people wearing Eagles and Phillies hats and seeing advertisements for Founding Father tours, I probably am. In the same way, a theory successfully predicting the outcome of one experiment is not enough to conclude that it is true; but if a theory makes a wide variety of predictions that are all vindicated by multiple experiments, performed by many different groups and people, all actively trying to prove the theory false (which is what good scientific experiments are designed to do)—that is a good reason to conclude that the theory is true. In other words, if you repeatedly try to prove something false but can’t, that is a very good indication that it isn’t. The problem of underdeterminationIn reply, those whom van Fraassen calls “empiricists” often point to the “problem of underdetermination.” For any given theory that makes successful predictions about what happens in experimental conditions, there are countless other possible theories that make exactly the same predictions—and since they do, the experimental evidence in question is just as much reason to accept any of those theories as it is to accept our original one. Thus, the argument goes, we have no way of knowing whether our original theory is true, or one of the other “predictively equivalent” theories is true. SUGGESTED VIEWING How Occam's Razor changed the world With Johnjoe McFadden As an example of underdetermination, philosophers often offer this example. The evidence of fossils seems to provide reason to conclude that the universe is quite old; ancient fossils are what the “ancient universe” hypothesis predicts. But it’s also possible that God created an ancient-looking universe 200 years ago, complete with a “fake” fossil record for us to find, to make it look old. The existence of fossils is what that theory predicts too. So, the argument goes, the fossil record can’t be used as evidence that the universe is ancient; the fossil record supports the “200-year-old ancient-looking universe” theory just as much. The problem of underdetermination points out that, for any theory with supporting evidence, we could invent another completely different theory that predicts exactly the same evidence, and thus undermine that evidence’s ability to support the original theory.But this “argument from underdetermination” betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what scientific reasoning is and how it works. To explain, let me use another rather strange (but very real and commonly discussed) philosophical thought experiment called “The Grue Problem.” The “Grue” ProblemSuppose I want to know what color emeralds are, so I observe a few, see that they all appear green, and form the theory that “all emeralds are green.” I thus predict that the next 100 emeralds I find will also appear to be green. And let’s say that happens, and so I thus conclude that my theory that all emeralds are green is true. Now, one might rightly point out that I don’t know for sure that all emeralds are green—I have not seen them all. Maybe some I haven’t found yet are blue. Fair enough. After all, we used to think that all swans were white, until we found some black ones. But let’s say that I go on a quest and collect every emerald in the universe—and, for the sake of the argument, let’s say I can do this, and can even know that I have every one of them. So, I collect them all, look at them all, and verify that they all appear green. Can’t I now rightly conclude that all emeralds are green?Inspired by the problem of underdetermination, a friend might argue that I cannot.Sure, they all appear green now—but there could be another kind of color called “grue.” Something is grue if it is green up to a certain point in time, but then spontaneously turns blue. And there could be an infinite number of “shades” of grue. Something that is one shade of grue will turn blue at noon today, but something that is another shade of grue will turn blue at noon tomorrow, etc. So yes, the emeralds appear green now; and since they haven’t turned blue yet, they are not some “past” shade of grue. But they might be some “future” shade of grue (e.g., they may turn blue at noon tomorrow). And since all future shades of grue are consistent with “being green up to this point in time,” the evidence you have is completely consistent with the notion that all emeralds are some future shade of grue, rather than green. Indeed, that they would appear green until now is what the “some future shade of grue” hypothesis predicts. So, we have just as much reason to conclude that all emeralds are some shade of grue as we do to conclude that they are green.You’re probably thinking “It’s not equally possible that the emeralds are grue; they are obviously green.” You are right! But explaining why your instinctive reaction to my friend’s argument is correct will help inform why van Fraassen’s “empiricist” is wrong and science actually does describe reality.The main mistake my friend makes is in thinking that the “empirical evidence” (of all the emeralds appearing green) is (or even should be) all I am using to draw the conclusion that all emeralds are green. It is not. I am also considering known facts about how colors typically work; things don’t usually change color, and when they do, they don’t do so suddenly, without cause, and all at once. So, even though the simple evidence of the emeralds all appearing green up to this point is consistent with them being some future shade of grue—that is even what the grue hypothesis “predicts”—it is still exceedingly unlikely that they are. The hypothesis that they are green is much more likely. Understanding science refutes the problem of underdetermination The misunderstanding about science that the “empiricist” pointing to “the problem of underdetermination” makes is similar to the one that my friend made. Science is not just about considering experimental evidence; in fact, it’s not even just about considering empirical evidence. As Ernan McMullin and many other philosophers of science have pointed out, the inference that makes science is “inference to the best explanation” (sometimes called “abduction” or “retroduction” by McMullin). While, depending on the circumstances, scientists use many different kinds of reasoning, science as a whole is, simply put, the process of considering multiple competing explanations and comparing them to certain criteria—explanatory criteria (the kinds of things explanations must be and do, by definition, to be a good explanation)—to see which explanation is the best.And these criteria do not deal only with empirical results. Yes, successful predictions raise the probability of a hypothesis, but it’s also the case that the more new assumptions a theory makes, the less likely it is to be true; every new assumption presents an opportunity for the theory to be false. (The fewer assumptions a theory makes, the simpler or “more parsimonious” it is said to be.) Likewise, the more existing evidence a theory contradicts, the less likely it is, because in order for a theory to be true, every piece of evidence it contradicts has to be somehow faulty. (The fewer established theories a new theory contradicts, the more “conservative” it is said to be.) And, obviously, the more something explains, the better explanation it is. (This is called having “scope.”) If a theory raises unanswerable questions, it’s not expanding our understanding, and thus is not wide-scoping. Scientists consider all these things when deciding which theory to accept, because the theory that adheres best to these explanatory criteria is most likely to be true.___the mere fact that a theory’s predictive success is why it “sticks around” or “becomes accepted” in the scientific community is not a reason to be skeptical about its truth.___The reason the grue hypothesis is no good is because it invents an entirely new kind of color—not just a new shade, but an entirely different category of color (a different way colors work)—and thus is not parsimonious. It raises unanswerable questions about how and why emeralds would just spontaneously change from green to blue (and thus does not have wide scope). And it contradicts what is already well established about how color works (and thus is unconservative).The theories that the problem of underdetermination points to do the same thing. Yes, the theory that God created an “ancient-looking universe” (complete with an ancient-looking fossil record) two hundred years ago is also consistent with the empirical evidence (of a fossil record) that presently exists; but that theory is monumentally unparsimonious (it requires many extra assumptions about infinite entities) and not wide-scoping (it raises unanswerable questions about why God would do such a thing). So, I can rationally conclude that it is false.Indeed, the history of science includes many examples of theories that were rejected because they lacked parsimony and/or scope, even before their falsity (and the truth of their competing theory) was confirmed by observation. As I point out in my book, geocentrism was rejected by the scientific community because it lacked parsimony, almost 200 years before the observation of parallax confirmed that the Earth moves around the sun. And the continuum theory of matter was completely rejected by 1860, because it couldn’t explain chemical reactions or organize matter into a periodic table, even though the experiments that eventually confirmed atomic theory weren’t even proposed until the 1870s. Solving the best of a bad lot problemIn response, the “empiricists” are likely to object, this time pointing to the “best of a bad lot” problem. “We have no reason to conclude that an explanation that has been shown to be better than others is true because we have no guarantee that the true theory was among those that we were considering.” If you have a “lot” (a collection) of poor explanations, even the best one is not true.The responses to this problem, however, are numerous. Peter Lipton argues that the set of hypotheses that scientists consider are not just randomly selected and thus unlikely to contain a theory that is true; they use existing knowledge to home in on what is most likely to be true. A doctor trying to explain abdominal pain is not going to bother wondering whether demons are causing it; they are going to stick with things like appendicitis and kidney stones, because they are most likely. Further, despite its name, inference to the best explanation is not just the process of comparing hypotheses and accepting the best one; we also want one that is a good explanation in its own right. If it’s not, we are going to keep looking until we find an explanation that is. And while that process does not guarantee that we will come across the exact truth, it’s very likely that the theory that emerges as the best will be at least approximately true, and thus we will be justified in believing it. And lastly, as I point out in my book, although many theories not based in scientific evidence (like geocentrism and continuum theory) have been completely overturned, science almost always progresses by the refinement of scientifically established theories—not their replacement. (Although our sun is not the center of the universe, heliocentrism was our first step in understanding the Earth’s true place in the universe.) So even if a theory we accept today may not be completely right, accepting it is a step on the journey toward the complete truth. The example of atomic theoryNow, it’s worth pointing out that most empiricists are not skeptical of all scientific theories; they are only skeptical of the ones that hypothesize the existence of “unobservables.” It’s not like they think that round Earth, heliocentrism, and germ theory are just useful (but untrue) “instruments” for making predictions about how to most efficiently navigate the seas, predict planetary motion, and treat diseases. They admit that the Earth actually is round, that the planets revolve around the sun, and that germs exist and cause disease. These facts and entities can be observed; the theories that suggest they exist are true. It’s only when theories start hypothesizing the existence of unobservables—like electrons, or quantum fields—that can’t be observed directly, that we should start doubting the theories’ truth. And to be fair to van Fraassen, in this published work, he doesn’t really say that we should doubt the truth of such theories. Only that scientific reasoning does not rationally force us to accept them as true. Skepticism, or agnosticism, he argues, is warranted. SUGGESTED READING Science is based in metaphor By Andrew Reynolds But the history of atomic theory throws a monkey wrench into that argument. Atoms used to be unobservable; again, scientists first accepted the theory that they exist because it had such grandiose explanatory power. But then atoms were seen with electron microscopes. They thus moved into the category of the observable. But this didn’t substantially change anything about what scientists were justified in believing; it certainly didn’t change any “atomic skeptics’” minds. It just confirmed what everyone already knew! If the hypothesis that something exists clearly provides the best explanation for what we can observe, then the belief that it exists is what is rational. The fact that the thing itself is not technically observable does not make doubting its existence rational.What’s more, the atoms were seen with an electron microscope. But electrons are themselves unobservable. How can an electron microscope reveal an atom if electrons are not real? This leads us to what is famously known as Hilary Putnam’s “miracle argument.” It’s (not) a miraclePhilosopher Hilary Putnam’s miracle argument is somewhat famous. Basically, he argued that a scientific theory being able to repeatedly make successful predictions—even about unobservables—without being at least approximately true would require a “miracle.” In other words, it would be such an improbable occurrence that it could not rationally be believed—the better explanation for why scientific theories about unobservables make the right predictions is because the unobservable entities and structures they hypothesize exist.Van Fraassen has addressed this argument. Indeed, in his original article, where he references Alison Gopnik’s point about orgasms not being “necessary for procreation” even though the desire for orgasm “drives the creation of progeny,” he is pointing to his own argument about how organisms are not naturally selected by evolution to get true beliefs; to the extent that belief-forming processes are selected for, the ones that are selected are the ones that are useful for survival—not the ones that produce true beliefs. In the same way, van Fraassen argues, scientific theories are accepted, not because they are true, but because they aren’t falsified; they make successful predictions; that’s what makes them “stick around.” So, the fact that they make successful predictions (and thus became accepted) is not a reason to think they are true.This argument is similar to C. S. Lewis’s “argument from reason,” which he used to argue against evolution: “The truth of evolution undercuts our ability to know that it is true.” Lewis’ argument famously failed; Elizabeth Anscombe, by Lewis’s own admission, demolished Lewis in a debate on the topic, and I have explained elsewhere why modified versions of the argument fail as well. In short, it’s because it fails to recognize that a belief-forming process can make an organism more likely to survive because it reliably produces true beliefs. It is therefore not the case that beliefs generated by naturally selected belief-forming processes are automatically false or unjustified.In the same way, the reason a theory “sticks around” could be because it’s not falsified, because it “makes correct predictions.” But the reason it makes correct predictions is most likely because it is true. (In pointing this out, I am echoing the arguments of Musgrave, Lipton, Psillos, and Kitcher, who refuted van Fraassen’s argument and analogy long before his 2024 article.) It would be a huge coincidence that it could do so without being true. And that is the point of Putnam’s miracle argument. Thus, contrary to van Fraassen’s suggestion, the mere fact that a theory’s predictive success is why it “sticks around” or “becomes accepted” in the scientific community is not a reason to be skeptical about its truth. ConclusionLet me close by saying something about the fact that empiricists don’t doubt the truth of all scientific theories, just the ones that hypothesize unobservables. In today’s society, this theory is dangerous to espouse publicly. The nuance between being skeptical about all of science, and just the highly technical theories about unobservables, is guaranteed to be lost to the average reader. And there is so much unjustified skepticism and doubt about the findings of science and experts that a headline like “Science Does Not Describe Reality” could easily fuel the anti-science movement, worsen climate change denial and cause the next pandemic.This is why I believe it was important to still respond to van Fraassen’s article, a full two years after he wrote it. Not only, as I have argued, does it represent a philosophically inaccurate view of how scientific reasoning works and what scientific reasoning can do, but it is a dangerous view to boot. It should thus be rejected.
Wyoming Officials Say Paying an MLB Game in Grand Teton Is an Error
Would a baseball game in Grand Teton National Park be a home run? A growing chorus of Republicans and Democrats in Wyoming have balked at the idea.
Global Health & WASH: October 2026 Funding Opportunities (26 new opportunities)
41 opportunities on the Global Health & WASH page this cycle, 26 of them new. The health money on this page is mostly research money, and much of it is aimed at people early in their careers. Funder after funder, from the TANGO2 Research Foundation’s Research Pathways grants to the South African Medical Research Council’s Early Investigators Programme to the National Ataxia Foundation and Alex’s Lemonade Stand Foundation, is funding early-career investigators and the institutions that host them, with a clear tilt toward researchers based in or from the Global South, from AMBSO in Uganda to Kenya’s CONNECT-VAX network to Ersilia’s AI Incubator for African drug discovery. The money is organized by disease as much as by need: narrow foundations, the Parkinson’s Foundation, NTAP for neurofibromatosis, the RUNX1 Research Program for an inherited blood disorder, each run their own grant, so the question for an applicant is less which health problem you work on than which foundation owns your disease. The largest European cheques go to consortia only, with the European Innovation Council putting up to EUR €4 million behind a single healthy-ageing project and UNITE up to EUR €1 million behind each cross-border digital health team. Water sits apart, almost entirely in applied utility research: the Water Research Foundation’s cluster of USD $250,000 to $500,000 projects, each built around a utility problem from sewer laterals to reuse treatment. And the biggest single pot is public: HRSA is renewing community health center service areas with awards of up to USD $10 million each. This post is for paid subscribers. This helps support the time and effort it takes to curate and organize these opportunities. Subscribe To keep this accessible to everyone who needs it, we’re happy to offer pay what you can rates. You can find more details here. Open Opportunities 2027 Building the Field of Health Advocacy Grant, Georgia Health Initiative. *New!* *Closing soon!* Georgia Health Initiative, a nonprofit private foundation focused on health equity, is opening its 2027 Building the Field of Health Advocacy Grant to strengthen the organizations that push for healthier systems across the state. The Initiative treats advocacy as infrastructure, backing one-year projects that range from urgent responses to shifting federal policy to longer arc campaigns on housing, behavioral health, care access, and food security. It wants coalitions that elevate community voice, apply an equity lens, and arrive ready to deploy concrete strategies, and it deliberately seeks variety in issues, communities, and organizational size. The optional webinar and required lobbying training signal a funder investing in a durable field, not one grant cycle. The strongest fits are Georgia nonprofits and public agencies ready to turn advocacy readiness into systems change. Geographies: United States. Who can apply: Tax-exempt 501(c)(3) public charities, state or local government agencies, or coalitions/collaboratives using a 501(c)(3) fiscal sponsor, that work in Georgia on behalf of Georgians and align with the mission, vision, and values of Georgia Health Initiative. Only one application per organization, though an organization may be listed as a partner or subcontractor on multiple applications. Funding amount: Organizations can apply for up to USD $80,000 per project; the Initiative anticipates investing a total of USD $1.36 million. Targeted Sectors / SDGs: Governance, Policy & Advocacy · SDG3; SDG10. Deadline: October 2, 2026. Learn more and apply here. TDD Research Pathways Grant, TANGO2 Research Foundation. *New!* *Closing soon!* The TANGO2 Research Foundation, working with a founding gift from Tango2UK, is opening its TDD Research Pathways Grant to fund early-career investigators anywhere in the world who study TANGO2 Deficiency Disorder. The foundation is using this money to seed pilot work and to build a research community around a rare disorder that few labs currently study. It wants to back emerging scientists, clinicians, and trainees who will stay with this field, not one-off projects, which is why it requires a committed mentor and real institutional support and asks each applicant for a plan for future contributions. The design rewards promise and persistence over track record. The strongest fits are students, residents, postdoctoral fellows, and new investigators ready to commit to TANGO2 research. Geographies: Global. Who can apply: Early-career investigators worldwide, including undergraduate, graduate, and medical trainees, postdoctoral fellows, residents, and clinical or research fellows. Early-career investigators must hold a PhD, MD, or equivalent doctoral degree and be within 10 years of that degree or within 5 years of initiating rare disease research, engaged in postdoctoral research at an academic institution, teaching hospital, or nonprofit research institute. Currently enrolled trainees and transitional PhD candidates beginning a postdoctoral appointment at a nonprofit institution by July 1, 2026 are also eligible. All applicants must identify a qualified mentor with relevant TDD or rare disease research experience and demonstrate institutional support. Funding amount: Up to USD $15,000. Targeted Sectors / SDGs: Innovation, Science & Technology. Deadline: October 2, 2026. Learn more and apply here. Call for Expression of Interest (EOI): AMBSO Impact Research Initiative, Africa Medical and Behavioral Sciences Organization (AMBSO). *Closing soon!* The Africa Medical and Behavioral Sciences Organization is inviting expressions of interest for its Impact Research Initiative, which funds early-stage pilot studies and proof of concept work on priority health challenges. AMBSO is a Ugandan research organization backing bold ideas that can grow into larger studies, and its tracks span antimicrobial resistance, epidemic preparedness, artificial intelligence for diagnostics, HIV prevention, climate and health, cancer, maternal and child health, and non-communicable diseases. The small award size and direct-cost-only rule point to a funder that wants evidence rather than overhead, and that favors projects able to attract follow-on money or use AMBSO’s own research infrastructure. Eligibility runs worldwide, welcoming researchers and institutions inside and outside Africa. The strongest fits are researchers with a feasible pilot that generates policy-ready evidence. Geographies: Global. Who can apply: Open worldwide to researchers, academic institutions, and research organizations whose work aligns with generating high-impact health evidence. Independent researchers are eligible if affiliated with an academic or research institution. Doctoral students are encouraged to apply as part of a research team led by a faculty Principal Investigator. Community-based organizations and other eligible entities may apply. Projects may be implemented inside or outside Uganda. Funding amount: Up to USD $10,000 per project, with no minimum funding threshold. Targeted Sectors / SDGs: SDG3. Deadline: October 2, 2026. Learn more and apply here. Entrepreneurs for Resilience 2027 (E4R27), Swiss Re Foundation. *Closing soon!* Swiss Re Foundation is opening the tenth edition of Entrepreneurs for Resilience, which backs healthcare social enterprises expanding affordable, quality primary care for low-income communities across low- and middle-income countries. The Foundation is using catalytic, blended funding plus multi-year advisory to take risk out of scaling, helping proven models reach more people sustainably rather than stay stuck at pilot size. It looks to back brick-and-click enterprises that pair physical care with digital tools and build affordability through savings, payments, or microinsurance, ideally integrated with public health systems. Requiring earned revenue, real customer scale, and gender-inclusive teams signals that this is growth capital for commercially serious ventures, not seed money. The strongest fits are established, revenue-generating healthcare enterprises ready to scale access for underserved populations. Geographies: Global. Who can apply: For-profit and hybrid healthcare social enterprises serving low-income and underserved populations in low- and middle-income countries, using combined physical and digital (brick-and-click) healthcare delivery models. Applicants must demonstrate measurable social impact, generate at least 50% of income through earned revenue, have been established no later than December 2023, already serve at least 50,000 people with potential to scale, and have at least 30% low-income customers. Preference for gender-inclusive enterprises with at least one female founder or at least 30% women in management. Funding amount: Pilot funding of up to USD $45,000 for the 6-8 shortlisted social enterprises; up to USD $1 million in blended funding (up to USD $600,000 unconditional plus up to USD $400,000 conditional) shared among 3-4 finalists over a two-year implementation period; total programme funding approximately USD $1.3 million. Targeted Sectors / SDGs: Innovation, Science & Technology · SDG3; SDG5. Deadline: October 4, 2026. Learn more and apply here. Horizon HealthTech 2026, IIITD Innovation & Incubation Center. *Closing soon!* IIITD Innovation and Incubation Center is opening Horizon HealthTech 2026, a nine-month MedTech incubation cohort run under the aegis of BIRAC EDGE for founders building medical devices, diagnostics, surgical and interventional tools, or remote monitoring. The center is backing teams that already hold a validated proof of concept and want to reach a tested prototype, pairing each founder with a named expert and clinical validation through a hospital partner. What they seek to back is Indian health technology that can survive real clinical scrutiny and regulatory review, not slideware. The structure, with lab access, CDSCO guidance, IP support, and investor connects, signals a program built to make startups ready for follow-on capital. The strongest fits are early-stage MedTech teams with defensible IP and a working path from bench to bedside. Geographies: India. Who can apply: Early-stage teams/startups with a validated idea/proof of concept (TRL 3 onwards) working on medical devices, diagnostics, surgical/interventional technologies, or remote monitoring, holding IP or with potential to generate IP. Funding amount: No cash award amount is stated on the official program page. Benefits are in-kind: prototyping lab and equipment access, clinical/hospital validation (Max Healthcare), expert mentorship, CDSCO regulatory guidance, IP filing support, workspace, cloud credits and tools, and investor connects. Run under the aegis of BIRAC EDGE and builds a path to follow-on Government/VC/Angel funding. Targeted Sectors / SDGs: Innovation, Science & Technology · SDG3; SDG9. Deadline: October 5, 2026. Learn more and apply here. OpenAI AI and Teen Development Research Grant Program, OpenAI. *New!* *Closing soon!* OpenAI is opening its AI and Teen Development Research Grant Program to fund independent studies of how generative AI shapes the lives of young people ages 13 to 17. OpenAI wants a stronger evidence base on how teens actually use these tools and what that use does to their social and emotional development, so that product teams, policymakers, and regulators can act on findings rather than assumptions. It seeks work on emotion regulation, relationships, belonging, and the safeguards that keep teens safer, welcoming interdisciplinary teams and any methodology. That it will fund research whose conclusions may not favor AI providers, and prioritizes studies touching ChatGPT, signals a genuine appetite for credible outside scrutiny. The strongest fits are research groups grounded in adolescent development, well-being, and AI safety. Geographies: Global. Who can apply: Researchers aged 18 or older who are affiliated with a research institution or organization, and/or have significant experience relevant to child or adolescent development, well-being, human-computer interaction, AI impacts, or a closely related field. Multiple institutions may collaborate. OpenAI is seeking to fund research rather than for-profit initiatives and will not prioritize for-profit organizations. Funding amount: Individual research grants up to USD $1 million, totaling up to USD $5 million; maximum 10% of each grant for overhead or indirect costs. Targeted Sectors / SDGs: Social Inclusion & Community Wellbeing; Innovation, Science & Technology. Deadline: October 6, 2026. Learn more and apply here.
October is already fun, plus poll results
The Pulse Newsletter 📣 | This is The Athletic’s daily sports newsletter. Sign up here to receive The Pulse directly in your inbox. Good morning! Extend your series today. Coming up: ‼️ A WNBA playoff thriller 📈 Three MLB teams advance 🔁 Late-night NFL trade We are in the midst of a beautiful time, and not just because it’s officially October (more on that in a bit). This week, we get to enjoy a three-game-playoff-series bonanza, in which every game really, really matters. The MLB and WNBA postseasons started days ago; multiple teams are already heading to exit...
Pittsburgh-Virginia Tech Preview
Pittsburgh(4-0, 1-0 ACC) at Virginia Tech(4-0, 1-0 ACC)Friday 7 pmLane Stadium/Worsham FieldBlacksburg, Virginia
An Agricultural “Island” in the Saskatchewan River Delta
Surrounded by wetlands, Manitoba's northernmost farmland near The Pas turns from green to brown over the 2026 growing season.
Tucson Now: Local business owner breaks skydiving record
Skydiver Niklas Daniel is hoping to defend his title of World Champion at the World Championships this October.
Player Availability Report: #SEAvSKC
Player Availability Report is SportingKC.com’s look at the latest status updates around the team ahead of upcoming matches and is presented by Saint Luke's. All details listed are from the league’s official Player Status Report that is submitted the day prior to the match. Sporting Kansas City is set for
MTV VMAs producer clarifies remark about ‘external’ influence leading to Taylor Swift’s new award
MTV VMAs producer clarified a colleague’s remark about ‘external’ influence leading to Taylor Swift’s new award, which she accepted Sunday, before the debut of her ‘Patient Zero’ music video.
If MLB streams it, baseball fans won’t watch
But maybe that was a blessing for Game 1 of the Wild Card round
‘Shortsighted’: Environmental Groups Sound Alarm on MLB Grand Teton Idea
The league received rare pushback about a potential special-event game.
Sorcerers of the Imperium coming to Invasive Weed Gallery
BELLOWS FALLS — Invasive Weed Gallery will present a special exhibition of Tom Swetland's Sorcerers of the Imperium – from Himmler to Hegseth, from Oct. 3 to Nov. 7. There
Ansonia FFA Attends Farm Science Review
LONDON, Ohio - On Tuesday, September 22nd, Ansonia FFA members had the opportunity to attend the annual agricultural trade show hosted by The Ohio State
MLB Wild Card Round day 2: Open Thread
Join us to chat about the Wild Card round as elimination stares four teams in the face.
‘DWTS’ pro Alan Bersten addresses rumors of tension with Giada De Laurentiis
Alan Bersten denied rumors of tension between himself and Giada De Laurentiis, following their ‘Dancing With the Stars’ elimination.
Asha Sharma Says 'Xbox Is Not For Sale' Amid Concerns Microsoft's Gaming Business Is Being Streamlined For A Spin-Off
Xbox is already looking very different than it did a year ago
Ex-Genentech, Meta, AWS AI leaders launch health AI lab with $500M backing
A new frontier artificial intelligence lab for healthcare launched with a $500 million commitment from Thoreau. | The AI startup, Ortet plans to build a full-stack platform for health, spanning compute and data infrastructure, frontier research and model development and deployment.
Making sense of ‘Sham FC’ and sports’ biggest financial scandal …ever? MoneyCall
This week's free sports business newsletter from The Athletic includes MLB dread, Northwestern stadium anticipation and two epic videos.
Melco Resorts & Entertainment (NASDAQ:MLCO) Sets New 1-Year Low
Melco Resorts & Entertainment (NASDAQ:MLCO) Reaches New 12-Month Low - What's Next?
MLB Playoff Openers Kick Off With Mixed Attendance
The Braves and Astros failed to sell out their playoff openers.
USA vs. Mexico: How to watch, stream international friendly
By MLSsoccer staffAfter opening the fall international window with victories over Peru and Chile, the United States meet arch-rivals Mexico on Saturday night.How to watch & streamEnglish: TNT, HBO Max...
18th Annual Mental Health Awareness Event Expands Learning and Access to Care
18th Annual Mental Health Awareness Event Expands Learning and Access to Care
Rays Built an October Contender Without Sacrificing Their Future
The Tampa Bay Rays won 98 games, captured the AL East and earned the American League's No. 1 seed without mortgaging their future. From Junior Caminero and Drew Rasmussen to trade additions Freddy Peralta and Liam Hicks, Tampa Bay built a complete MLB playoff contender.
Chicago Fire FC Sets a New Standard for Luxury Sports Hospitality at McDonald's Park
The city’s MLS Club unveils exclusive spaces and unprecedented VIP access as part of Chicago’s next-generation stadium experience CHICAGO (Sept. 30, 2026) — Chicago Fire FC today revealed its new luxury hospitality offerings for McDonald's Park, featuring only 600 seats across exclusive areas with unprecedented behind-the-scenes stadium access, designed to
MLB postseason turns to wild card Games 2 on Wednesday
The Dodgers could find out their National League Division Series opponent as early as Wednesday, with four more wild card games on the docket on the second day of the 2026 postseason. The Braves beat the Phillies on Tuesday at Truist Park in Atlanta thanks to a three-run home run in the eighth inning by […]
Tigers Finish With Second Most Blown Saves in MLB
Despite a potent run differential, Detroit’s postseason dreams withered as a volatile bullpen and league-high individual struggles transformed late-inning leads into a historic collection of heartbreaking losses.
Senate blocks measure requiring report on Israeli violence in West Bank
Nearly all Senate Democrats voted to require the State Department to report on Israeli settler violence in the West Bank.
⚾️ Y! Sports AM: Seasons on the brink
The Braves, White Sox, Yankees and Padres took Game 1 to open the MLB postseason.
High gas prices have voters switching parties and voting for the first time
Gas prices are reshaping voter attitudes in a longtime Republican Georgia county, with some backing Democrats while others remain firmly loyal to Trump.
A wild playoff day in 2 sports. Plus: NHL’s No. 1 pick debuts
Good morning! A lot happened yesterday. Inside: ⚾ Postseason = on 🏀 Top seed = out 🏒 Puck = dropped The Postseason: Six stats from a massive day October started on Sept. 29 this year. All four of MLB’s best-of-three Wild Card Series got underway yesterday. Here’s a key number from each of them: 71.5 percent: The Phillies’ win probability in Game 1 against the Braves when Austin Riley, the Atlanta third baseman who had the worst season of his career, came to the plate against lights-out reliever
Two of Red Wings’ top scoring threats have formed chemistry
Alex DeBrincat and Lucas Raymond will start the season on the same line.
Big Ten power rankings: Upsets and surprises reshape conference hierarchy
There's a new No. 1 this week.
Will his health allow Dodgers' Freddie Freeman to deliver another postseason signature moment?
Because of an ailing right knee, the Dodgers don’t really know what you might see out of Freddie Freeman this postseason.
When “DEI” research is cut, what happens to community health?
“I’m just going to run to the grocery store!” How many times have we said this without thinking about it? For most of us, it's usually an easy walk or a short drive to get the cheese we forgot. In reality, though, 13% of the U.S. population (about 39 million people) live in “food deserts,” which means living more than a mile from a grocery store in urban areas and more than 10 miles in rural areas. This was the case for people in Pittsburgh’s Hill District, where a quick run to buy food wasn’t an option. In the 1930s, federal maps marked the Hill as "hazardous" for lending, a practice known as redlining that steered investment away from Black neighborhoods. Decades of disinvestment followed, and residents went about 30 years without a nearby grocery store. This made it hard to keep healthy eating habits and contributed to chronic disease. When a grocery store finally opened in the area in 2013, researchers saw the opportunity and launched the PHRESH study, which initially compared the health of participants from the Hill district to those in the Homewood district. Over time, the study expanded to other factors such as brain health and Alzheimer's risk. Residents like Roderick Blair overcame initial hesitation to share their health data, trusting it would benefit their neighborhood. Then, in August 2026, the NIH abruptly canceled the study’s grant, citing that it was “subjective” and fell outside their scientific scope—an effect of the administration’s interpretation of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). Research like PHRESH can help determine what changes in a neighborhood actually improve health, so cutting it has left that question unanswered. Other canceled studies have examined health issues like maternal health, preterm birth rates, or sickle cell disease. Courts have reversed some of these grant cancellations, but not all of them. If we really want America to be healthier, research into why some communities get sicker than others is absolutely critical. The law that created the federal minority health research institute passed with bipartisan support in 2000. But these days, as evidenced by grant cancellations, the political shift in attitudes toward DEI means we often lose access to the health information we need to help all communities thrive. DEI vs. health equity vs. equality and the overlap (or lack thereof) The letters “DEI” evoke very different reactions depending on who you are in the U.S. DEI programs can address gender, disability, age, and other factors, but the fiercest debate centers on race. For some people, hearing DEI brings to mind policies that may have cost them a job or a college seat because they are white. Others see DEI as a matter of justice: a way to expand representation and opportunity for groups that have been historically marginalized. Both perspectives are rooted in lived experience, and both center on the same question: whether hiring and admissions practices are fair. Hiring and admission practices, though related, are not the same as health equity. Health equity is “the attainment of the highest level of health for all people.” It’s the recognition that some groups of people consistently experience worse health outcomes than others. For instance, black mothers die from pregnancy-related complications at three times the rate of white mothers, and rural Americans are more likely to die from issues such as heart disease and cancer. Equity is also often conflated with “equality,” which leads to misunderstanding of how to actually best support communities. Equality ignores the fact that we aren’t all starting life with the same resources or circumstances, whereas equity is about helping people get what they specifically need based on their situation so they have the chance to achieve the same outcome as anyone else. For example, if every household in Pittsburgh got a $30 grocery gift card, that would be equal. But during the decades the Hill District went without a grocery store, that card wouldn’t have helped much. Equity means making sure everyone can actually access a store in the first place. DEI policies can overlap with health equity in many ways. For example, they may help expand access to quality education and stable, well-paying jobs, which in turn can provide health insurance, safer housing, and improved finances—all of which can reduce health disparities. But to make that happen, we first need data to identify disparities in communities and to develop solutions that effectively address them. What we lose when the research stops Community data is important to health equity because: You can’t fix what you don’t see: Data show which communities are most affected by health factors such as infection, heart disease, and cancer. If we don’t know what is happening and where, then we can’t develop interventions to help. Poor health costs everyone: Chronic disease is expensive—both to the individual person and to the overall economy. Understanding what groups of people are most at risk allows us to develop interventions that can save everyone money. Disparities exist for many communities: Health equity includes disparities that exist due to a whole host of factors, such as family background, race and ethnicity, rural vs. suburban residence, gender and sexual orientation, veteran status, disability, and lower income. This means many Americans can benefit from research into differences in health outcomes and how to improve them. Trust is easy to lose: Some participants in the PHRESH study were initially vocal about their concerns about participating. But that trust was earned because the researchers kept their promises and centered their work on the community. When projects are canceled mid-cycle, researchers have no choice but to leave behind communities they had promised to help. This hurts trust in the long run. It’s also a very inefficient use of resources, and it will take significant time and effort to redo the work when the government realizes this work is important again. How should we talk about health equity? This is hard because the words “equity” and “DEI” are currently very politically charged. So whether you’re a public health professional, teacher, or friend, how we talk about this topic matters. The right framing can help people who might otherwise be skeptical see why health equity research is important and deserves funding. Here are some suggestions to help your conversations: Choose your words strategically: Who are you trying to reach with your message? Are they likely to be resistant to terms like “diversity” and “equity”? If so, find alternative words to use to still get the message across. It is frustrating to be in that position, but the goal of improving health is too important not to try to make inroads. Sometimes simply reframing can help the message reach those who need to hear it. Focus on the problem: The terms “health equity” and “DEI” are abstract. Make it more specific. For example, discuss differences in maternal death or ways to improve health outcomes in rural communities. These still have equity at their core but will likely be better understood by those you’re talking with. Focus on systems: Disparities exist, but if they are communicated poorly, people can mistakenly think the issue is the individual’s fault. Disparities are largely driven by failures of the system—such as lack of access to health care and a long legacy of racism. When discussing the disparities, frame them around these systemic issues to ensure blame isn’t placed on the individuals impacted. Tell stories: Personalize these policies by using stories from those impacted that connect to the data you’re trying to convey. This helps make the policies and outcomes more concrete and meaningful. Bottom line Some communities end up sicker than others. That’s just the facts. We can argue about the best way to do that research, but canceling it simply because it may be linked to DEI doesn’t make anyone healthier. It just leaves communities like the Hill district behind. And in the end, it causes us all to move backward in our efforts to improve health in this country. Love, EM Big thanks to MacKenzie Isaac & Legairre Radden, who reviewed this piece and generously shared their expertise and lived experience to help improve it. Dr. Liz Marnik, PhD, is Executive Director of The Evidence Collective and a science communicator and immunologist working at the intersection of public trust, science, and public health. To discuss communication training on topics like health equity and storytelling, email Liz at liz@yle.health or learn more on our website. 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: Your Local Epidemiologist is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe
This Stat Explains Exactly How Rays Won 98 Games
The Tampa Bay Rays won 98 games by dominating close situations, going 25-4 in one-run games and 61-35 in games decided by three runs or fewer. Elite pitching control, MLB's lowest strikeout rate and a versatile offense could make Tampa Bay dangerous in the MLB playoffs.
Sen HELP Committee Votes on Nominations for Surgeon General & Other Public Health Officials
The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee votes on the nomination of Nicole Saphier to Surgeon General, as well as other public health officials.
U.S. Senate Candidate James Talarico (D-TX) Speaks at Hispanic Business Council
U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico (D-TX) sits down for a conversation with the United States Hispanic Business Council in Edinburg, TX.
Beijing warns of retaliation if Europe imposes curbs on Chinese businesses
China must "respond firmly" if the EU introduces restrictions on Chinese businesses or products, the Commerce Ministry said, according to a CNBC translation.
Tuesday’s chaotic TV schedule proves that it’s harder than ever to be a sports fan
On its face, Tuesday was an awesome day for sports fans to sit back, relax, and watch compelling action all day long. All four MLB Wild Card series began with Game 1, staggered across the day beginning at 2 p.m. ET. We had two elimination games in the WNBA playoffs, with Game 2 of both…