SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " goti " 100 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Sign in to save shuffle history.
Payer-provider disputes increase amid federal cuts, inflation
After months of contract negotiations this year, Sentara Health and Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Virginia weren’t close to an agreement, foreshadowing
Detroit Pistons: Langdon Draws Zion Williamson Comparison With Jalen Duren
Despite an offseason filled with negotiation, Jalen Duren still hasn’t signed a contract with the Detroit Pistons
Belarus to release 25 more prisoners as US eases sanctions
Belarus will release 25 more prisoners under an interim agreement with the United States, while Washington plans to lift sanctions on two Belarusian companies and pursue broader negotiations.
Joel Klatt says Big Ten-SEC football challenge is imminent
The Big Ten and SEC run college football, but as the sport tries to chart its future, the two sides haven’t found much in common. Until now? After an exhausting period of negotiations, brinksmanship, and fan unrest, college football is moving towards a 24-team College Football Playoff. The Big Ten had held out against the…
No new attack on Iran before the midterm elections, Trump says
The president has acknowledged sometimes using public statements about negotiations and military planning to keep adversaries off guard.
Venezuela’s Machado tops poll as US-backed negotiations resume
María Corina Machado holds a commanding lead in presidential voting intentions in Venezuela even as she remains sidelined from U.S.-backed negotiations between the government and opposition aimed at restoring democratic
The ego has invaded American politics
We need to replace egotistical leaders with leaders who will work for the benefit of all.
Sundar Pichai: Google’s Frontier Imperative, Compute Scarcity Dilemmas, Future AI Products and Businesses
Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai has little patience for doubts about Google’s willingness or capacity to compete at the frontier of AI. His company’s latest Gemini 4 Argon model — long-promised and recently delivered — beats OpenAI and Anthropic’s latest public models on coding, math, science, and knowledge-work benchmarks and has placed Google’s AI back among the world’s best. Amid chatter that Google was fine with good-enough lightweight ‘Flash’ models, Pichai pushed back hard against any suggestion that company is limiting its research ambitions. “We won’t do it any other way,” he told me in a Big Technology Podcast interview recorded this week at Google’s Mountain View headquarters. Pursuing cutting-edge research is costly for Google, requiring compute and chips that otherwise could be sold at a high markup by its cloud business. But Pichai said allocating resources to frontier AI development is “ground zero” for Google. “Our cloud business is at any given moment in time forgoing short-term revenues because we are making compute trade-offs to support frontier AI development,” Pichai told me. In our conversation, we discussed Argon (which Pichai says processed three times as many tokens as Gemini 3 in the 72 hours after launch), AI’s role in developing better models, the AI interface of the future, competition with OpenAI, Google’s partnerships with Anthropic and Apple, data centers in space, and the nature of his optimism. You can read the full conversation, lightly edited for length and clarity, below, or listen to it on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or your podcast app of choice. Alex Kantrowitz: Google is back at the frontier with Gemini 4 Argon, which beats OpenAI’s and Anthropic’s public models on benchmarks spanning coding, math, science, and knowledge work. The conventional wisdom was that Google had given up on the frontier to focus on fast, good-enough models for its products. That was wrong? Sundar Pichai: Very wrong. Look, we are so committed to being at the frontier. It’s in our DNA. We won’t do it any other way. We’ve been thinking about the AI frontier for well over a decade now. The frontier is very dynamic. It’s very competitive. It’s very exciting. I couldn’t be more pleased with how Argon has come together. We took our time with it. We made sure we tested it safely and deployed it carefully. We took a bit longer than our other models, given its capabilities. Across the board, be it for agentic work, knowledge work, coding, creative tasks, Argon is one of the really good frontier models. The first 72 hours since we launched, it’s almost up to 25 trillion tokens used, which is about three times what Gemini 3.0 had in the first 72 hours. And we are capacity constrained as we are serving it. Excited, but there are always areas….. You know, the frontier is very dynamic, and you have to keep evolving the models. There are areas which we can see we need to improve as well. We’ll be at work on all of that as well. Which areas? On any given model, Argon would be across the board better at everything if you just look even two months back. But the space is so evolving. Even on coding, for example, there are pockets where we know we need to do better, and there’s clear feedback. We’ll make it better. The argument for standard models is that they’re already good enough to build great products, with the frontier valuable only for certain tasks. Meta built Muse with good models rather than the best, and Google could put standard models into Maps, Gmail, and Search. Why isn’t that sufficient? It’s definitely not how I have thought about it at all. We are deeply committed to driving the state of the art and actually pushing where this technology can go, all the way from transformers. That’s a journey we’ve been on. You will see us continue to do that. When you’re at the frontier, you get an earlier look into the emerging capabilities, earlier than others, which helps you better prepare for the future. We are fortunate to have a wide set of opportunities across consumer and enterprise. Some of our cloud customers, for sure, want the model at the frontier. The frontier models will be better at developing the next set of models in an era of recursive self-improvement. I would argue it matters there. Internally, we have definitely seen a steep point of inflection by deploying Argon to our developers. It definitely tackles problems which our previous models could not do. Being at the frontier puts you at the innovation frontier and helps you drive that as well. There is room for models of all sizes and capabilities. That’s why we did Flash, Flash-Lite, etc. I agree with you that you can develop very good product experiences with not necessarily the most frontier model, because they tend to be slower and more expensive too. But we care about the Pareto frontier, and we’re committed to doing all of that. You said developing frontier models gives you a look at what’s coming. What do you see on the horizon? What makes this moment so exciting is you build something which you think is a culmination of months of work, and you put it out. You already see clear headroom ahead. We’ve all been working on these agentic, long-horizon capabilities, but clearly the frontier is going to have multiple of these agents working together to do things. That’s an example of an exciting paradigm underway. It’s also clear to me that users, both in consumer and enterprise, will have access to some multi-agent framework for them, working all the time doing things. It feels like a moment of infinite possibilities. Sergey Brin said one of Argon’s core innovations was relying more on the model to help develop the model. Yet incidents involving OpenAI’s bots breaking containment and Google’s bots accessing a site they shouldn’t have suggest these systems still aren’t perfectly aligned. Isn’t there reasonable cause for concern about accelerating toward recursive self-improvement? There are three parts to your question. Let’s first talk about RSI itself. You’re right, Sergey mentioned RSI being a critical contributor as we are developing Argon. But to be very clear, today, in a continuum, we are pretty far from the end state of RSI or something like that. The right way to describe it is you have RSI loops along with AI researchers in various aspects of model development. You almost have agents helping AI researchers in some automated way work together to build these models. It’s good to at least understand where we are today, and it’s super exciting. I expect that continuum to keep making progress as we go into next year. The second question is around safety. Security comes from defense in depth. You’re talking about alignment, obviously. We all are doing a lot of work to make sure the models are as aligned as possible. But it’s an active area of research, and there are clear gaps. That’s not the only thing we rely on. You have the work you do on alignment, but beyond that, we put a lot of effort into real-time monitoring as these models are working. Making sure you have good telemetry into what’s happening so that you can intervene in real time if you see unexpected behaviors. How you do that, the architecture with which you do that, how you make sure it’s all sandboxed and isolated in a way that it can continue doing its job during real-time monitoring — these are all areas of investment. Obviously, when we deploy these models, giving customers, enterprises, control, both with real-time monitoring, but their ability to decide where they deploy, what type of data which models ever have access to, etc. All that work is very, very important, and we are doing a lot of that. As an industry, we need to constantly up our game and take the time to do all this stuff, including dedicating the compute required to make sure you can safely deploy these models. The third part is: Is it all enough? This is why there are a lot of conversations in the industry, and I think it’s reasonable to be worried. The right way to approach something you worry about is early on thinking about what more we can do. As an industry, you’re definitely seeing increased levels of work on alignment, testing for safety, etc., as we deploy these models. The next step would be developing better standards so there are cross-industry standards of how we do these things, including the ability to evaluate using independent evaluators. If you look at areas like financial controls, we have accounting standards, we have independent auditors. Those are all the next natural steps for us as an industry to work toward, and regulation will end up playing a role as we go through all of that as well. Google pursues both language models and world models, while some other AI companies like OpenAI have focused more heavily on LLMs as the path to AGI. Why is world-model research important to you? As humans, you obviously perceive the world around you, and you’re taking all those inputs. Making sure these models are able to understand the laws of physics, simulate the world in high fidelity. All that, I think, are key enabling blocks for intelligence. We are working across all possible applications of this. Take an area like robotics. It’s not an accident: If you look at embodied reasoning benchmarks, Argon is state of the art. That all comes from our experience building world models. Inherently, I would expect there will be architectures which will converge all of this in the future. But for us, we view this as, today, this jagged frontier that is intelligence. We want to be at the frontier of all the possible approaches, and that will help us both drive better research, better insights, and develop a much better AGI model, is how we think about it. Some people argue Google should focus on selling its computing resources rather than using them for AI research. Cloud wants to sell compute at a high markup, while researchers need a very big computer to build the best models. How do you balance those demands? Ground zero for us is making sure we are investing in the compute that’s needed to be at the AI frontier. In 2015, I set the company to be AI-first. AI is that key horizontal ingredient across everything we do, all the way from Search to Cloud to Waymo. That is ground zero for us, making sure both for research and developing the models that we have enough compute needed. Beyond that, we have these independent businesses which each have their own long-range plans. They’re using those long-range plans to project forward, and we plan for compute for all of them. The cloud team, they have a business and they have a projection and they have demand signals. They have committed contracts. With that help, we can plan on a long-term compute trajectory for them. We’re fortunate to have this wide set of opportunities. There’s no company in the world which isn’t making trade-offs at any given moment in time. But the first principles we operate on is making sure we have enough compute to invest in the frontier, and that’s non-negotiable, and everything else works on top. Remember, we are building our own compute, our own data centers. There are long lead times. The compute we have today is a function of decisions I made in 2024. Even if you think back to a year from today, last year the agentic coding takeoff hadn’t happened. Today, obviously, when you sit and look at anything, everyone is short—not just us, other companies—and everyone wishes you had two times what you had planned for. That comes with the territory. At any given moment in time, we are planning for what we would need two to three years out in the future. You’re going to find some decisions you make may look suboptimal two years out, depending on where the state of the art is. I don’t spend too much time thinking about it. The way I think about compute allocation is making sure Google DeepMind, both for research and frontier model development, is cutting edge in terms of compute access. After that, we plan for all our businesses. It’s great we can provide our compute to other people too, like we have done. It allows us to scale that up, get real tests for it in the widest application set possible, test it in the real world, and make sure we are at the cutting edge of technology at every layer of our AI stack as well. Ben Horowitz relayed on a podcast that Andy Jassy had said compute was sold out until 2028. Are you seeing the same thing? If today a customer is coming out and asking us for compute in ’27, that is incredibly difficult to do. Even last year we went out and leased some short-term compute to accommodate some customers and help them out. But yes, we are all dealing with similar timelines. Every major technology shift seems to involve overbuilding, from railroads to fiber. Do you think that’s happening here? It depends on the time frames you’re looking at. This level of build, if I take a long enough time frame, it makes complete sense to me. We are at early stages of the most consequential technology ever, and this is not like fiber. It’s not dark. We are using it. We are capacity constrained on a daily basis. The applications, the underlying technology is improving rapidly. But running a company, the way I work through the moment is you look at your demand signals. You look at your committed revenue opportunities that you’re getting in the form of contracts. You balance that with the underlying technical capability, or internally you balance how we are using it internally, the model trajectories. Based on all that, you take a disciplined approach—a confident, aggressive, but disciplined approach—to plan out compute. But when you talk about the broader economy as a whole, you’re having people operate with various levels of risk. I focus on what I can control as a company and plan through it. If your question is, can there be an overbuild? Yes, because you can have some constrained components. Remember, what matters is a set of everything you need to build out that compute. Memory, electricity, electricians…. Land. Like 2,000 components or more. You could get constrained at some point. There could be things which cause bottlenecks, and then you could have overbuilds. There could be external shocks to the economy. There are macro risks. All that is possible at any given time. But am I confident that the compute we are planning for, we will have uses for it given enough time? Absolutely, yes. I was in the room when you said AI would be as profound as fire and electricity. If you believe that, shouldn’t you give researchers the biggest possible computer, even at the expense of today’s cloud profits? We’re all doing some form of that. Our cloud business is at any given moment in time forgoing short-term revenues because we are making compute trade-offs to support frontier AI development. What you’re seeing is true already. But you want to be thoughtful. Even our AI researchers have some constraints, which are also good. That’s what inspires creativity. That’s what helps you come up with a more efficient algorithmic breakthrough, maybe to use less memory. What we are committed to is to invest what’s needed to stay at the frontier. OpenAI President Greg Brockman told me a few months ago that the ideal AI product might have no interface at all—just as natural as conversation. What do you think the interface looks like in the age of AI? Computing historically has been humans adapting to computing. With AI, it’ll be the other way around. The technology will adapt seamlessly to how humans live and go about their day-to-day life. You want to be able to speak to that AI when you want to. It has context. It can be persistently running somewhere, give you continuity. You’re not dealing with a lot of complexity. It’s natural. All that makes sense to me. That doesn’t mean it won’t have any interface, however. Nowadays, even on my phone, Gemini voice models are so good. I can just press the microphone button. I can just ramble. That’s why we call it Rambler. I can ramble. It intelligently corrects with my personal context. Even my friends’ names, weird names, it gets it right, even if it first guesses it wrong. It’s amazing. I’m not going in, backspacing, editing once I finish saying it. It’s remarkable how good it’s gotten. But there are going to be moments you will need an interface. You may want to entertain yourself. You may want to watch a video. You may ask your AI to create something, and you want to watch it, consume it. The way I think about it is, you want it to be as seamless and as natural as possible, and that you are not doing the hard work adapting to whatever the interface is. The technology is adapting to how you’re working at any given moment in time. When I asked Sam Altman about competition from Google, he argued that OpenAI was building AI-native products and implied Google was bolting AI onto existing ones. Do you accept that framing, and can a “bolt-on” compete with an AI-native product? First of all, it’s a very dynamic moment. We are all pushing each other. OpenAI has pushed us as a company too. This is not just we are doing something to them. Far from it. Yes, Google went into its own version of a code red too. In the AI moment, all of us have to respond with varying levels of urgency at any given moment in time. We are constantly building new products as well. Gemini was built from the ground up as a product—the Gemini app I’m talking about. Or tomorrow, as all of us are adapting to agents, are you bolting agents onto ChatGPT, or are they building it natively? How would you think about that? You can always put these questions back. I don’t think of it that way. I think of it as you want to build world-class product experiences that are AI-native and they are winning. Some of it is adapting products, some of it is rethinking new experiences. They will all be part of how you approach this moment. How do you expect to make money from these AI interfaces? If an agent recommends a product and I buy it, should it take a cut of the sale, even if that’s disclosed? I’m going to put enterprise aside. Consumers are going to increasingly value this technology. Take software developers today. Developers are willing to pay for these coding models because it really helps make them more productive. Nobody would want to code the way they were coding three years ago, or even the same time last year. When you’re delivering value, there’s value to be had. I’ve never seen examples where consumer products really scale to billions of users, where people are using it intensely, and haven’t had monetization to go along with it. If you’re providing value to people, there is inherent value to be had. The nature of it may change. You’re asking a scenario in which agents are doing stuff for you. At the end of the day, you will have commercial needs. The agents need to fulfill those commercial needs. The providers on the other side are going to see value in that. There’s going to be some mechanism by which it gets fleshed out. That’s what an efficient system does. But what matters is that you’re building those world-class consumer experiences. I promised myself one product feature request: Can you make Gemini-powered search in Gmail as good as searching Gmail through ChatGPT? What’s going on here? One of the exciting things we announced recently is the unified Gemini agent for enterprise, and we’re bringing that to consumers. These are persistent agents which run 24/7 in the cloud. We’re spinning up a micro VM effectively for every query, and from the runtime, the harness, the model—it’s all a headless service. It’ll work everywhere, and it has your context with you. You can address this agent whether you’re in Workspace, in Search, in Gemini. Agents are going to drive this unification from a customer experience, which people are looking for. When you have a broad product portfolio and you’re moving forward fast, there are always areas where you’re moving forward faster than some other areas. That’s valid feedback. But we are putting a lot of time and effort into making sure, as we build out our agentic experience, that unification and that capability works well across all these services. People have asked where Google’s equivalent of Muse or Dots is. Do you anticipate creating a new product to compete with them? Our goal with Gemini is to be a personal, proactive, and powerful assistant. That’s what we are working toward. You saw us describe the early versions of it at Google I/O this year with Spark. Effectively, already, if you open the Gemini app as a Pro or an Ultra user, you see Chat and Task, and they start giving you that agentic experience. With Argon now, that capability is dramatically accelerated. What we announced recently in our enterprise event, we are bringing that to consumers as well. Soon in Gemini, you will be able to ask something, and it’s a continuum. You don’t need to think about whether you’re asking a chat or an agentic task. It’ll just automatically do the right thing, and it can work persistently in the background securely and get things done for you. Already, empirically, when I look at what’s coming into Gemini in our app, last year you would have tagged them and most of them would have been chats. But a steadily growing percentage is already agentic tasks in Gemini. Yes, we are going to bring personal agents to our consumers. It’ll work in the Gemini app. It’ll work in Google Search. It’ll work in Gmail. You can address it, call it, etc. We want to make sure we’re getting it right. It’ll be powered by Argon, and we are very excited to bring it to our users. Google has invested and committed tens of billions of dollars to Anthropic. What do you see in Dario Amodei that makes you want such a deep investment and partnership? Very early on, when we looked at the founding team of Anthropic, it was very clear to us this was a world-class team which was involved in some of the earliest GPT models. We were quickly able to assess that they would be at the frontier. We’ve always tried to identify and partner with companies which would be at the cutting edge of technology. We’ve done that with SpaceX. We’ve done that with Anthropic. That’s what we saw, and we had a chance to partner. Is your partnership with Apple to license Gemini for Siri expanding, contracting, or standing still? For both us and Apple, that partnership was about translating the capabilities of AI into better experiences for users. I thought Apple has done a phenomenal job of incorporating—they customize these models and build it into Siri—and it’s been great to see the reception. We are committed to doing more. You’re going to do more with them? There’s nothing specific to comment, but it’s a partnership. It’s working well. What have you learned so far about the feasibility of data centers in space? It’s a very exciting project. Projects like this remind me—I still recall that moment in the desert for the DARPA Grand Challenge, watching the Stanley car compete in it, which ended up being the basis for Waymo. With all these technologies, you’re at a moment in time where it looks a bit like sci-fi, but 10 to 20 years down the line, it’s actually working in a meaningful way. I feel the same in space. We’ve always believed in betting big on these technologies. Quantum has been a great example of it. We’re probably 10 years into the journey. Waymo, we are almost 20 years into the journey. Space, we are two to three years into the journey. It’s clear to me that it’s an approach which will make a lot of sense in the future. Being in sub-synchronous orbits with 24/7 access to the most abundant form of energy we have access to will make a lot of sense for this exponential increase in compute that we are going to need. Having said that, this is a challenging project. The team has disciplined milestones. It was a super exciting milestone to send the TPUs up to space. Sometime, as we are speaking, we are expecting a “hello world” moment from them. I look forward to seeing that happen, and we’ll continue investing here too. You previously said 25% of the code written within Google was written by AI. What’s the number today? That number in our world today is meaningless in the sense that every part of what we now touch is influenced by AI deeply. What we are tracking with Argon, for example, it’s been a point of inflection. People are using Argon to really go tackle complex projects, including projects which affect millions of lines of code. In the four weeks since we have launched Argon, we have seen a 30% increase in CLs, and more importantly, almost a similar increase—a one-third decrease in rollbacks. People are writing code more productively and better code with it. We are tracking it with newer metrics now. How are you dealing with opposition to data centers? If you can’t build in the U.S. the way you want to, where else do you go? We’re very committed to building our data centers very responsibly. When I look at our largest data centers in some of the communities where we have been the longest, I visit them, I talk to people. There are people who come and tell us their kids have gone to college because of our investments in these communities, and we’ve grown in those communities. To me, this is about doing it right. Engaging with the communities early, doing it transparently. We are committed to making sure we are bringing incremental power, and we cover 100% of the cost of our power needs for these projects. It’s understanding the impact on neighborhoods and making sure you’re working thoroughly to address them. Done rightly, you can continue making progress. But we are constantly taking feedback into account. I do worry not everyone operates the same way. People have been surprised by data centers showing up in their backyard. Those are all important. As an industry, we should continue to do better. But part of the reason, in a 20-year time frame, we are thinking about things like data centers in space is making sure we are able to put these data centers where maybe the trade-offs will be different. What unproven area of AI is Google working hardest to crack? Is it continual learning—getting models to keep updating after release—or something else? There are multiple parallel paths. You saw with Argon we have a million output tokens. With our Gemini models early on, we had a one-million context window on the input side. These are all examples of breakthroughs we are constantly working on. How do you think about synthetic data? How do you think about continual learning? How do you think about more efficient architectures? We do dedicate a meaningful percentage of our compute to these research bets too. It always goes hand in hand, including our world models. Those are all bets we are placing. Sometimes, as part of these bets, there are ideas that emerge which just make their way into the mainline models. Maybe we don’t fully talk about it, but we have multiple steps in these areas. Working in technology requires optimism that building something will improve the world, but those bets can leave real consequences when they fail. I recently returned to a town in El Salvador where enthusiasm for Bitcoin had given way to unfinished construction and something resembling a ghost town. How do you maintain the optimism you spoke about in your Stanford commencement address while accounting for those risks? I genuinely have a deep conviction that improving technology and improving access to technology makes people’s lives better. It’s been my personal experience in my life, out of which comes that deep conviction, optimism. But with that, I’ve always felt humanity’s journey is always about working hard to harness that technology to make it work well for society. The optimism is not an optimism that you just build whatever you want, whenever. You work hard to make sure you’re building technology in the service of humanity, to make the human condition better. That’s got to be the defining goal as we are approaching it. With that framework, I’m very, very optimistic. We are in very early stages of the kind of progress that we are going to see on many areas. We’re all talking about areas like healthcare. A lot of the progress is ahead. The ability to make things in a fundamentally cheaper way on many things where things have been getting expensive for a long, long time, discovering new materials, etc., which really bend the curve—it’s tough to step today and understand the impact of all that, but they’re going to be very profound. I’m very optimistic, but we have to be rightfully concerned about all the ways this technology can go wrong. Sundar, I know you don’t do many of these. Thank you. Thanks, Alex. Appreciate it.
Kofane Delays Leverkusen Deal As Premier League Interest Grows
Negotiations for the striker’s bumper extension have stalled over signing bonus demands, leaving the door ajar for circling English giants to hijack the Bundesliga star’s long-term future.
Goran Sasic on NBA Europe: “There, it’s a lot about entertainment and here it’s about devotion”
The executive director of the EuroLeague Head Coaches Board talked about the negotiations between EuroLeague and the NBA
Shawn Horcoff Reveals Surprising Detail About Simon Edvinsson Contract Talks
Red Wings GM Shawn Horcoff reveals new details about Simon Edvinsson contract negotiations, including direct conversations and Detroit's flexibility.
What Does the Science of Climate Change Really Look Like?
Editor’s Note: This is the second in a three-part series on how the Right should think about environmental and climate policy. Read Chris Barnard on Reclaiming Environmental Policy from the Left. More than a decade ago, the world’s governments negotiated and signed the Paris Climate Agreement, committing to hold global warming well below 2 degrees Celsius. In the following years, climate had immense cultural power. Greta Thunberg emerged. Fortune 500 companies established net-zero plans. The U.S. got the Inflation Reduction Act. Then the pendulum swung back. President Donald Trump returned to the Oval Office, speaking of green energy as a “scam” and carbon footprints as a “hoax” and on all matters of international policy emphasizing bilateral engagement and power over globalism and cooperation. The technology companies that had been at the forefront of net-zero pledges and green leadership discovered the importance of all-of-the-above power to their visions for artificial intelligence and began quietly postponing or removing their targets. On the left side of the political spectrum, rising concerns about inflation and cost pushed climate lower down in the stated priorities of voters and stump speeches of politicians. The moment is ripe for a reset on the politics of climate change and for conservatives especially to chart a course that acknowledges and addresses the real challenges in plausible ways. So what should we think about climate change as we enter a post-peak climate era? If it is neither an apocalypse nor a hoax, what will hold up as a durable view of climate change? And how does it project onto the concerns and priorities of the right-of-center’s emerging coalition? New to Commonplace_? Subscribe below to get the magazine in your inbox._ Subscribe A Solid Foundation As the politics and economics of climate careened over the past ten years, the physics carried on regardless. In 2015, the year the Paris Climate Agreement was adopted, the world emitted 41.2 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide. By 2025, emissions had risen only 2.4%, to 42.2 gigatonnes, because falling emissions from land use offset increasing emissions from fossil fuels. But slow growth in annual emissions is not rapid decline, let alone net-zero, so carbon dioxide kept accumulating in the atmosphere, going from 399 to 426 parts per million. Global temperature kept rising too, from about 1.1 degrees Celsius above the 1850–1900 average in 2015, to 1.4 degrees above it in 2025. None of this should surprise anyone. Even most prominent skeptics, like the authors of the 2025 report commissioned by the Trump administration’s Department of Energy, accept the basic physics. Carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere at industrial volumes accumulates and traps heat that would otherwise escape to space. That heat warms the upper ocean and increases temperatures at the surface. Increased ocean heat and melting of land ice cause sea levels to rise. Changes in the climate become noticeable to us as subtle shifts in temperature and precipitation, seasons arriving early or late, changes in the surrounding ecosystem, and weather extremes. The much more meaningful debate is not about whether these things are happening, but about what it all means for human societies. (While it is a proxy measure of overall risk, no one experiences global surface temperature.) This debate invokes at least three interesting questions: how much today’s warming is showing up in regional climate trends, how much more warming we should anticipate, and how extreme weather events can be understood in the context of climate change. Recent scientific advances give us new insights into each of these, but there is still much to learn. This is the context in which the next generation of conservative leaders will be the first to deal with significant climate change as a fact, not a forecast. It will be with them for their entire careers. Our evolving scientific picture of climate change will come from weather and climate records stretching further into the past, new kinds of observations in the present, better modeling tools for the future, and simply more time to observe the emergence of climate signals and their tangible effects on ecosystems and communities in the United States and around the world. The policy landscape will be shaped by not only the impacts of changes in the climate, but also by the ways in which societies respond and by the emergence of new technologies for both altering the trajectory of emissions and adapting to new climate realities. Global climate records now show the fingerprints of warming in different phenomena around much of the world. The IPCC, in its most recent assessment report, documents warming trends over all land regions, even as natural variability adds substantial variance to local trends. And the highest temperature extremes have become more intense and frequent, almost everywhere, since the 1950s. Scientists are highly confident that these changes are attributable to human influence. But confidence in detecting trends and attributing them to human influence degrades across heavy precipitation events; drought trends are heterogeneous and not attributable to human activity with great confidence. For hurricanes, tornadoes, and other severe storms there is even less confidence in trends or their relationship to climate change. In general, a fair summary of the evidence is that for well-observed phenomena, like surface temperature or heavy rainfall, with a clear relationship to warming, our multidecadal observations are consistent with human influence overcoming natural variability over long time periods and extremes increasing. For regions that are sampled more sparsely, or phenomena with a higher noise-to-signal ratio, we will need to observe them longer to understand the magnitude of the climate signal or improve dynamical understanding using models and observations together. But for Climate For those who can’t wait, we also have new techniques that attempt to understand the role climate change has in influencing particular extreme events. When the climate is changing and disaster strikes, it is natural to ask whether that disaster was somehow “caused” by climate change. For scientists and policymakers acting in good faith, answering that question helps develop a more accurate picture of the problem, how it may be getting worse, and what preparations we should be making to respond to it. It may, at some point, give some weight to how liability is assigned by courts or adaptation funding is distributed by society. But how we ask this question is extremely important. It is easy to get the analysis wrong by discounting the role that meteorology plays. As meteorologist Theodore Shepherd explained in a clear 2016 review of climate attribution methods, “if a weather or climate event is truly extreme in the present climate, then perforce it requires unusual meteorological conditions, which means that climate change is at most a contributing factor.” Share Scientists have two ways to probe climate as a contributing factor, both of which have entered media coverage of extreme weather events. One asks a probabilistic question: How much more likely is a particular event (e.g., a temperature record over a particular area) amid global warming? The answer involves using historical records and computer simulations to estimate the likelihood of such an event in both a changed and a preindustrial climate. The findings are less about the specific event, and more about events of that nature. The other question is: How has the changed climate affected the specific event in question? Here, scientists try to understand what a similar event would have looked like in the preindustrial climate. This is sometimes called the storyline approach, where the story is the specific meteorological details of the event. These methods offer ways to test the intuition of scientists about real weather extremes. In late June and early July of 2021, a persistent high-pressure ridge, or heat dome, set up over the Pacific Northwest and an extraordinary heat wave affected the area from Oregon to British Columbia. For six days, it shattered temperature records across the region and hundreds died from heat-related causes, in an area where such high, and persistently high, temperatures were well outside of experience and many live without air conditioning. Scientists have studied its connection to climate change using multiple approaches. This specific event was created by a rare combination of meteorological factors, a strong high-pressure ridge created the conditions for extreme heat, which occurred on top of higher average temperatures in the region from global warming. Probabilistic analyses showed that climate change increased the likelihood of such an event by at least 8-fold to more than 100-fold. One standout example found that such an event had effectively zero probability of occurring in the preindustrial climate. The enormous range in these assessments reflects how hard it is to estimate probabilities of events at the tail of the historical record. Estimates of the effect on the temperature of the event are more clustered. A recent review paper documents how multiple methodologies have found a positive influence, roughly 1-2 degrees Celsius of an anomaly that exceeded 15 degrees, of climate change on the temperature magnitude of the event. Multiple studies have investigated and found some positive influence of climate change in other extreme events. Attribution studies found climate likely increased the heavy rainfall that accompanied Hurricane Helene in North Carolina and surrounding regions in 2024. The extensive fires that struck Los Angeles in 2025 illustrate how the causal chain can become messy, though. Studies do detect a positive influence of climate on the event’s likelihood, but while climate change likely contributed to underlying aridity, it would not have played a role in the heavy winds or land practices that preceded disaster. These event attribution studies will become more common for extreme, or damaging, weather events. They can be produced quickly, and often are reported before peer review. As the Pacific Northwest heatwave example shows, when multiple methods converge on a positive attribution, the finding should probably carry some weight even if you have to be careful about accepting the results from a single study. I expect that as climate change proceeds and the climate thus departs further from a preindustrial counterfactual, the influence will become more detectable across a variety of extreme events and more easily identified. This will be used to cast blame, but can also be used to inform how communities and society adapt to ongoing change. We May Still Be Surprised One positive development, insofar as less climate change is better, has been that our central estimates for future climate change should probably be revised downward. Mostly, that is because the high-end warmings that scientists regularly analyzed about ten to 20 years ago, driven by high emissions throughout the twenty-first century, now appear to be somewhere between unlikely and impossible. At one time, the upper end of mainstream climate projections extended well into 4 to 6 degrees Celsius of warming by the end of this century, which, models suggest, would have wrought enormous real-world damage. Current energy and policy trends now point toward 2.5 or 3 degrees. Damages and risks are commonly modeled as increasing steeply with more warming, so this is already a better-than-previously-expected outcome for the climate (which is independent of the physical response to emissions). But we should maintain a wide range for plausible outcomes and prepare for the possibility of being surprised. Emissions trajectories are subject to deep uncertainty, the physical climate response is still developing, and whatever change occurs in the climate will then be mediated through unpredictable economic, social, and political institutions. Over the past decade, the pace of warming surprised some keen observers and appeared to accelerate, though not yet outside the range of expectation provided by climate models. The reasons for that apparent acceleration are being actively studied (as was the apparent pause in warming from 1998 to 2012), but no single driver has emerged. Some blame it on the El Niño, variability which would have no bearing on climate. Some think it is a result of factories in East Asia and global shipping fleets cutting aerosol emissions, which in the strongest version of the argument would indicate higher climate sensitivity to carbon-dioxide emissions. Others are more measured, not yet ready to draw solid conclusions as to whether climate projections require revision. We will have to see. Long-Term Thinking Climate change asks us to think over long time scales. But the pace of human-driven warming is compressing a large global change into a century. Changing weather patterns and extreme events are already causing adjustment costs and damages and will do more. Adaptation will help, but it is not free. For some communities, these costs will erode livelihoods and well-being, and may force migration. Are we prepared for large-scale managed retreats in the United States? Thankfully, American wealth, geographical diversity, and moderate climates may leave us better prepared than many around the world. But wealthy countries can still suffer serious disruption from narrowly concentrated costs, even if they appear entirely manageable in aggregate. Readers of Commonplace are familiar with the challenges of rapidly adapting to economic forces. The displacement that came from the China Shock is barely perceptible in aggregate GDP and employment data, but it affected millions of people and those people were far less mobile than economic models tended to assume. Deindustrialization rippled through the nation with enormous effects for not only our economic vitality, but also our national security. The forces surrounding climate change may not be so different; the world gets richer and must accept some diffuse costs. Those may be modest overall, but cause all manner of unpredictable effects with which policymakers must cope. In the case of the China Shock, our faith in a growing pie served us poorly. We’ll need to do better on climate. Leave a comment
SMH and United Healthcare at odds on Medicare Advantage pact
Dispute does not affect traditional Medicare coverage or commercial contract negotiations
Val Booted Next DWTS Episode, Jenna Dewan Dance With Alan
“The well-being of everyone who works on 'Dancing With the Stars' is non-negotiable. Val’s social media post was inappropriate and does not reflect the values or standards expected of anyone connected with the show. As a result, he will not participate in next week’s show," BBC Studios said in a statement.
In the News: Kevin Sauter on the Role of Political Debates - Newsroom
Kevin Sauter spoke with KARE 11 about the role of political debates as Minnesota candidates negotiate debate schedules for the 2026 election.
The hostage deal that never was: Netanyahu's political calculations and the price paid
Analysis: A July 2024 hostage deal had the backing of both Israel and Hamas, but negotiations collapsed; as new details emerge, questions mount over Netanyahu's coalition maneuvering, political motives and the devastating cost to hostages and their families
Chicago renter ordinance votes delayed as Johnson, opponents seek compromise
Neither Mayor Brandon Johnson’s proposal nor a competing measure has enough support to become law as the two sides continue negotiations.
150 Allina Health doctors start four-day strike after contract negotiations fail
Introspection required if EU Inc fails, says start-up lobbyist
European start-ups have a new voice in Brussels. Startups for Europe, created from the merger of lobby groups Allied for Startups and the European Startup Network, is hoping to harness the momentum behind EU-Inc, a campaign that united start-ups and investors behind demands for a new pan-European company regime.At a launch event for the new association in Brussels on October 1, the mood was remarkably upbeat compared to a typical Eurobubble gathering, more Silicon Valley than Schuman roundabout.When asked whether this reflects a feeling that Europe is on the right track, chief executive Serena Borbotti-Frison said it’s a “scary” moment as the continent looks to boost its competitiveness amid a new technological arms race.“What is at stake is quite intense, and the way we can answer is by delivering, but also with hope,” she told Science|Business. “It’s what our industry does. It’s not about identifying a pain point and then saying it’s too hard.”For many in the start-up community, that sense of hope is dwindling. In March, the European Commission presented its proposal for EU Inc, naming its initiative after the grassroots campaign.EU Inc was meant to be a gamechanger: the ability to incorporate within 48 hours for less than €100 and scale up across Europe; a harmonised stock option regime enabling start-ups to compete for talent; and simplified insolvency procedures for innovative start-ups to reduce the cost of failure.However, haggling by EU governments has raised concerns that EU Inc will be stripped of the very features, including stock option harmonisation, that are meant to make it attractive for companies.“I fear we are proving to ourselves that the model doesn’t work,” Borbotti-Frison said of the policymaking process. “Everyone agrees we should have EU Inc. Everyone agrees it’s hard to scale and we need to scale to answer the competitiveness [challenge], and still we cannot deliver? [. . .] What does that say about ourselves?”The Commission has made EU Inc a cornerstone of its single market reform, and has agreed with the European Parliament and the Council of the EU to target an agreement by the end of 2026. However, several points are currently holding up an agreement, including national rules around employee participation in management decisions, and the provision that employee stock options always be taxed at the point of sale. Some EU governments have reportedly pushed back on the Commission’s choice of legal basis, contending that anything related to taxation requires unanimity in the Council.Trade unions have also protested against EU Inc, fearing it will be exploited by companies looking to undermine workers’ rights.“If this doesn’t work, it’s introspection time, on the way our institutions work, maybe the way our lobbies work, and maybe the way the cooperation between them works,” Borbotti-Frison said.“Is it in the national interest? Is it a gap between political will and technical ability to operate? Is it speed? I don't know, but something needs to be fixed.”Ahead of last week’s European Council meeting, EU-Inc campaigners tried a new strategy: appealing directly to EU presidents and prime ministers. In an open letter, they urged EU leaders to “step in and give your negotiating teams a clear mandate to change course and reverse their objections to the Commission’s original proposal.”Lessons from EU-IncLike its predecessors, Startups for Europe will represent national start-up associations, but it is also targeting investors. The founding sponsors are venture capital firm Atomico and EQT, the investor selected earlier this year to manage the €5 billion Scaleup Europe Fund.It also wants to harness the knowledge and cross-border experience of European success stories. “Take the list of the 100 biggest unicorns in Europe. We are speaking to all of them,” Borbotti-Frison said. The association plans to publish a full list of supporters following the Slush tech conference in Helsinki in November.Andreas Klinger and Simon Schaefer, two key figures in the EU-Inc campaign, are both on the board of the new association, and Startups for Europe wants to take the lessons from their campaign.What was unprecedented about EU-Inc was “how rooted it was, and how strong it was in bringing everyone on board behind one clear pain point and solution to fix it,” Borbotti-Frison said. “This is an inspiration for us, and then we need to turn it into something more systematic, more bridged in Brussels, more connected to the policymaking game, and to scale it.”If it’s possible to unite such a broad coalition, it’s because the European start-up ecosystem is now mature, she said. “Maybe it was not ten years ago. Maybe it was not five years ago. But now, it’s mature to speak with one voice.”Open and liberal EuropeThe association plans to campaign on files related to three “pain points,” Borbotti-Frison said: “start and scale in Europe, fundraise and invest in Europe, and making Europe the most innovative continent.”As well as EU Inc, she cited public procurement, the EU’s simplification push, the Savings and Investments Union, and files related to AI adoption and technological sovereignty as priorities for the coming months.What these files have in common is that they relate not to subsidies but to the framework conditions influencing the availability of mostly private, or in the case of procurement, public, funding.Related articlesEmployee participation disagreement delays MEPs’ vote on EU IncCommission urges EU governments not to water down EU IncEU’s ‘ultra-fast’ €5B scale-up fund is set up to win, says its fund managerThe budget dispute over the next Horizon Europe programme will also impact start-ups, which are supported notably through the European Innovation Council. But EU innovation funding is a drop in the ocean compared to venture capital and public procurement budgets.“If competitiveness and innovation are a priority, then the [EU budget] should reflect it,” Borbotti-Frison said. However, she added that the main question is not how much public money is invested, but “how do we create the right conditions for the market to solve the problem?”The Scaleup Europe Fund mixes both approaches, using €1 billion in EU funding to crowd in private investors and address Europe’s lack of large-scale, late-stage growth funds. “It’s a proof of concept. Ideally, then the market will do it itself,” Borbotti-Frison said.Startups for Europe is also focused on bringing an alternative political narrative. Amid competing visions for open, global markets on the one side and a protectionist Europe on the other, it wants to offer “a third voice, to say we can be proudly European and build a strong continent in a liberal economy, open to the world, and global.”It can be tempting, when thinking about how Europe can better support innovation, to look across the Atlantic. But while it’s important to compare statistics to see where Europe needs to catch up, that’s where the comparison should stop, Borbotti-Frison said. “On everything else, we need to do it our own way. We don't have the same history. We don't have the same political model. We don't have the same way of life.”Many of the key files that could benefit the start-up community, including EU Inc and the Savings and Investments Union, rely on closer integration within Europe, making it easier to operate across borders.While the Commission has made deepening the single market a political priority, support at national level is more precarious. The coming months will see pivotal elections in Spain and France, while the German government has also been coming under pressure domestically. In each country, far-right parties have been gaining ground.When asked if she was concerned the political situation could jeopardise this progress, Borbotti-Frison responded: “Of course. I would be lying if I said I wasn’t.” However, she continues to believe that cooperation is the only way forward. “Doing it alone is not the solution. It’s also not who we are, it’s not the model we are building, and it’s not the scale we need.”
Trump in address to world leaders at UN defends his decision to start Iran war
Trump accused Iran of stalling to make a deal to fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz and negotiate an endgame to the war until after the midterms
Iran says it ‘has no plans to negotiate with US’ despite Trump claims
Trump had told Axios he expected talks to resume a day after he rejected Iran’s proposal to reopen the strait of Hormuz
Livermore police responding to possibly armed suspect barricaded in business
The LPD advised the public to avoid the area and prepare for possible road closures as negotiators attempted to make contact with the suspect.
Putin proposes summit with Trump and Xi to discuss Ukraine deal, WSJ says
Oct 18 (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin has proposed a summit next month with US President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping to negotiate an end to the four-year-old Ukraine
MTA boss Lieber says agency’s targeting ‘kooky’ work rules, health insurance contributions in labor talks with transit union
In the MTA's contract negotiations with the union representing nearly 40,000 New York City Transit workers — Transport Workers Union (TWU) Local 100 — the
A data-sharing clause derailed US-Zimbabwe health talks. Now all funding ends this month
HARARE, Zimbabwe (AP) — The United States will end funding for Zimbabwe’s health programs at the end of September following the collapse of negotiations over a U.S.-proposed deal that Zimbabwe reje…
Year-long strike at Henry Ford Genesys Hospital ends as nurses ratify contract
The two parties will now begin to negotiate terms on when the striking nurses will return to work.
Protesters gather as Wake County commissioners set to vote on WakeMed-Atrium merger
Wake County commissioners are expected to vote on the proposed hospital merger after discussions about negotiated changes to the agreement.
Governor, health advocates push bill to lower drug prices for 23 medications
Under the proposed legislation, the state's Prescription Drug Affordability Board would have the authority to match the maximum fair price for prescriptions negotiated by the federal Medicare program.
Quintin Primo in talks to join stalled Michael Reese redevelopment team
Capri Investment Group's founder is negotiating for a substantial stake as City Hall presses the development team for a new plan.
NHL strikes local broadcast deal with Charter for four teams
The NHL has negotiated direct-to-distributor deals for four of its teams that were left without local media rights agreements this upcoming season following the collapse of Main Street Sports Group, the now-defunct owner of the FanDuel Sports Networks. According to a report by Alex Silverman in Sports Business Journal, the NHL has negotiated multiyear linear…
EU science policy wonks debate prospect of stronger ties with Canada
Europe’s research and innovation sector has started asking questions on how European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s offer to make Canada “the first associate member of the EU” would actually work in practice, and who will get to shape priorities in a transatlantic relationship that is getting stronger. The Commission says it wants “a new model of association” under which the EU and Canada will aim to develop “a shared space” to face ongoing challenges. “Working in close coordination with our member states and the European Parliament, we will aim to create a new form of partnership that has not existed until now, building the closest imaginable form of association with a partner outside Europe,” a spokesperson told Science|Business.Locked in an escalating trade war with US President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly talked of annexing Canada, Prime Minister Mark Carney has been looking east, but full EU membership was never in play. Taking the floor a day after von der Leyen’s proposal, he agreed to strengthen ties under “an alliance of the future” but reined in enthusiasm on the new label. He also suggested expanding Canada’s involvement in the Erasmus+ student mobility scheme, to which it currently has limited access, and the next iteration of Horizon Europe. Canada joined the present Horizon Europe in 2024, but only contributes to collaborative projects.Neither side has detailed the next practical steps in developing this new relationship. “I think nobody at the moment truly knows how this will work,” said Michael Browne, chief executive and founder of Crowdhelix, a global collaborative network that connects players in research and innovation. “It’s more of a statement of intent for closer collaboration, which requires legislative frameworks and approval processes, which have not started.”Kurt Deketelaere, secretary general of the League of European Research Universities, said von der Leyen’s pitch to Canada is “politically significant, but the legal content still has to be negotiated and constructed.”Mattias Björnmalm, secretary general of the Cesaer university group, agreed that she had only opened “a political door” to Canada, as “associate membership does not come with a predefined set of rights in the EU institutions.”Not only does this status not currently exist as a legal category in the two treaties that set up how the EU functions, but the Commission president cannot unilaterally create a new category of EU membership.According to Deketelaere, Article 217 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, which allows the bloc to make association deals with non-EU countries involving reciprocal rights and duties, is “the most obvious existing legal basis for building a much deeper EU-Canada relationship.”Getting universities involvedNo matter how this new cooperation takes shape, Liviu Matei, who heads the School of Education, Communication and Society at King’s College London, hopes to see universities involved in discussions from an early stage.“Its primary motivations, entirely justifiably, are political and geopolitical,” he said. “In the area of higher education, however, restricting the initiative to political and geopolitical considerations would limit the scope of cooperation and lead to distorted frameworks and counterproductive implementation.”It is all the more important since academic interests on the two sides of the Atlantic are “neither identical nor fully aligned,” Matei added. “This is not insurmountable; it simply requires work to articulate the details of this privileged cooperation, including its governance and funding frameworks, as well as its substantive content in education and research.”Related articlesCanada looks to deepen research and education links with the EUZaharieva hopes for a Horizon Europe deal in 2026Canada might participate in European Research Council schemes, for example, which was not on offer in the present Horizon Europe association agreement. But “there would have to be something in it for the EU,” Browne said. “They don’t want to be funding projects outside of the EU where intellectual property is going to sit outside of the EU. There has to be some kind of transfer of knowledge.”But access to funding will not by itself resolve all the practical difficulties of working together, said Björnmalm. “For researchers and students, these include visas and residence arrangements, recognition of qualifications and study periods, and the conditions for pursuing a research career across borders,” he said. “For universities, there is scope for more predictable access to shared laboratories, computing and research data, and stronger support for joint doctoral training and long-term institutional partnerships.”Linda Doyle, provost and president of Trinity College Dublin, said Europe should strive for the “closest possible expression” of this new political alliance. “If Europe is serious about recovering its voice and its place in the world, it needs to be strongly allied with countries who share its values and its vision for a stable, rules-based, peaceful world.”
Why Is the World’s Top Climate Science Body Struggling to Agree on Its Next Report?
The world’s leading climate science authority is facing an unprecedented deadlock over when to publish its next major assessment, raising concerns that governments could enter crucial United Nations climate negotiations in 2028 without an updated scientific assessment of global warming.
The Lateral Is Coming. Is the Business? How Law Firms Can Turn Lateral Hiring into Revenue
A lateral hire represents one of the largest growth investments many law firms make. Yet firms sometimes spend more energy negotiating the lateral’s compensation package than planning how the lawyer will succeed once inside the building.
Marty Weinberg, retired attorney, former city solicitor, and longtime political power broker, has died at 89
As Mayor Frank Rizzo’s city solicitor in 1972 and ‘73, he negotiated labor contracts, litigated tax disputes, reduced the number of city consultants, and juggled other thorny political issues.
The successes and sacrifices of balancing equestrian sport and motherhood
Riders have had to negotiate systemic roadblocks to return to the sport after giving birth.
Health Brief: Exclusive | Inside the new health price transparency rules
Plus: Trump’s checks to Medicare enrollees could complicate year-end health care negotiations,
'Academic Freedom Isn't Negotiable’: Stand Up for Science Counters Education Department with Own Vision for
New educational compact defends academic freedom; reaffirms purpose and benefit of knowledge and higher education in the U.S.
Explained: Keely Hodgkinson's speed suit, and the science she disagreed with
Keely Hodgkinson disagreed with the science in one "non-negotiable" aspect of her eye-catching Nike speed suit.
Unionized hospital doctors reach deal with Allina Health after historic 4-day strike
The union representing about 150 Allina hospital doctors announced on Wednesday a tentative agreement on a first labor contract covering wages and benefits. The agreement follows a four-day strike last week, believed to be the first by private-sector hospital doctors in U.S. history. It came after three years and more than 66 contentious negotiation sessions […]
The UTC program where students learn to sell — and land the job before they graduate - Gary W. Rollins College of Business
At UTC's John "Art" Phillips Sales Institute, students train in a filmed sales lab, practice with AI buyers and connect with vetted corporate partners — three of four land their first job with one.
Is the EU research budget actually increasing?
Is a Horizon Europe budget of €158 billion a 10% cut or a significant increase to the EU’s support for research and innovation? What would seem like a question of fact has divided opinion in Brussels since the Irish presidency of the EU Council presented its negotiation box on October 10. The answer depends on factors such as how you adjust for inflation, whether you account for increases in overall EU wealth and if you care about absolute or proportional figures. The €158 billion budget in current prices, proposed by the Irish presidency of the EU Council, was quickly criticised by university lobbies and rejected by the high-level expert group led by former Portuguese science minister Manuel Heitor. It was also decried by the four pro-European political groups in the European Parliament. “How can Europe close its competitiveness gap while cutting the European Competitiveness Fund by 13% and Horizon Europe by nearly 10%?” asked a joint statement by the European People’s Party (EPP), Renew Europe, the Socialists and Democrats and the Greens/European Free Alliance. Together, these parties hold 63% of seats in the Parliament.In stark contrast, Irish foreign affairs minister Helen McEntee said that the proposal “significantly increases investment in competitiveness, research and innovation,” Meanwhile, a presidency press release said that, compared to the current Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), the proposal would “double the volume of competitiveness related programmes.” So, who is right? That depends on how you make the calculation.Compared to the Commission figure or the previous budget?The first thing to notice is the difference in baselines. When the MEPs say the Irish presidency will cut Horizon Europe by “nearly 10%” they are using the European Commission proposal for the MFF from July 2025, which allocated €175 billion in current prices to Horizon Europe. However, when the Irish foreign affairs minister said the research and competitiveness budget is increasing significantly, she is comparing it to the 2021-27 MFF, which had a Horizon Europe budget of €84.9 billion in 2018 prices.Her point holds when accounting for inflation. Applying a 2% annual inflation rate, the calculation method used by the Commission, the 2021-27 Horizon Europe would have a budget of €97.5 billion in 2025 prices. In comparison, the Irish presidency’s €158 billion figure in current prices translates to €140 billion in 2025 prices. Does the ECF count?But there is more to the dispute. In its statements, the Irish presidency lumped the research budget in with the overall budget for competitiveness. The Parliament statement, however, kept the two separate. This matters because the next MFF includes plans to add a new European Competitiveness Fund (ECF) to fund programmes meant to boost the continent's competitiveness. The Irish negotiating box allocated €245 billion in current prices to this programme.When this is added to the €158 billion for Horizon Europe, as well as programmes such as the EU education programme Erasmus+, the total for “competitiveness, prosperity and security” in the Irish proposal becomes €514 billion in current prices. But it is still uncertain how big a share of this competitiveness budget would go to research. The Commission proposal of July 2025 for the MFF included clear links between the ECF and Horizon Europe, indicating some ECF money will go to research. At the same time, the structure of the ECF is still being negotiated, and a substantial part of its budget is expected to support non-research activities such as defence manufacturing, decarbonisation and digital infrastructure. Related articlesCouncil floats 9.6% budget cut to next Horizon EuropeResearch community to appeal to national governments over planned EU budget cutEU own resources ‘essential’ for future research budget, says leading MEPSo, it is by looking at competitiveness rather than research, or combining the two, that the Irish presidency can claim that its proposed budget will significantly increase investment in competitiveness, research and innovation.According to the Irish presidency proposal, Horizon Europe and other competitiveness-related programmes in the current multiannual budget received €221 billion in current prices. However, since this money is being distributed from 2021 to 2027, it is not directly comparable to the €514 billion in current prices which will be distributed from 2028 to 2034.Research as a proportion of the MFFBut the relative rise in competitiveness-related programmes points to another important distinction: whether you look at the research budget in absolute terms or as a share of the overall MFF. Here, too, the size of the research budget has risen, although only slightly. In the 2021-27 MFF, Horizon Europe accounted for 7% of the total budget. In the Irish presidency’s proposal, it amounts to 8.7%. The share for the total competitiveness envelope went from 17.7% in the current MFF to 28.1% in the Irish presidency proposal.This proportional share may seem irrelevant to universities looking for research funding, but it is becoming significant as budget negotiations between the Parliament, the Commission and the Council begin. On October 2, a group of 17 southern and eastern European countries sent out a statement calling for the EU agriculture and cohesion budgets to be protected. The Parliament’s co-rapporteur on the budget, Siegfried Mureșan of the EPP, has also said that the research envelope is likely to be cut disproportionately as the budget is slimmed down during negotiations.
Sentara ends negotiations with Anthem on health plans
Sentara Health ended negotiations with Anthem over certain plans amid an ongoing dispute over reimbursement rates.
Ubisoft plans cuts at German studios, adding to wave of workforce reductions
Ubisoft is planning to reduce its workforce in Germany, where it operates a trio of studios, by about 100 workers, Game File has learned. The company wants to offer employees buyouts to, should enough people accept, avoid having to lay anyone off. “In Germany, we initiated discussions with the Works Council last week regarding a proposed voluntary departure plan across Ubisoft Dusseldorf, Ubisoft Berlin & Ubisoft Mainz,” a company rep told Game File. A “works council” is a union-like group representing employees. “The voluntary plan is the primary measure being proposed to support the intended organizational changes,” the Ubisoft rep added. The company declined to confirm the scale of the potential headcount cut. Of the impacted studios, Mainz might be the best known to the public. It leads development of the Anno series and shipped the well-reviewed strategy game Anno 117: Pax Romana in November 2025. Berlin and Dusseldorf operate as support studios within Ubisoft’s creative network. Berlin recently supported the development of Rainbow Six Siege and the Rayman Legends Retold remake. Dusseldorf also contributed to those projects, as well as The Settlers and Ubisoft-branded escape rooms. Dusseldorf is the biggest of the three studios, with some 400+ workers, compared to just over 100 at the other two, a source familiar with the reductions and the teams told Game File. More than half of these new reductions of about 100 people are expected to happen at Dusseldorf. The planned cuts were announced at a town hall for the German studios on Tuesday of last week. In an email follow-up, the studio group’s managing director, Benedikt Grindel, said the cuts were intended to “best position our German studios for the future... with a clearer focus on their role, capabilities and organizational setup needed for the work ahead.” The email was an echo of the past. In January 2025, Grindel had emailed the Ubisoft developers in his region (or studio “zone”) to explain that a round of 185 cuts at the time, including about 65 at Dusseldorf, were “essential to improve our operational efficiency and ensure the long-term sustainability of our studios, the zone and the company.” A half-decade of continued job cuts Ubisoft has been aggressively cutting its headcount for years. At the end of September 2022, it had 20,729 workers. By the end of March 2026, that total was down to 16,590. Studio management is trying to trim costs as it grapples with a changing industry and a drought of releases, let alone hits. The company announced earlier this year that it had reduced its costs since 2022 by “nearly €325 million” ($362m) and planned to lower them through 2028 by another €180 million ($200m). In June the company said it was closing down its Winnipeg and Belgrade studios and cutting roles in its Barcelona team. Even commercial and creative success hasn’t spared studios from this ongoing company-wide contraction. As Game File was nailing down details around the proposed cuts in Germany, Ubisoft management was informing workers of cuts in its Singapore studio, which shipped a hit remake of Assassin’s Creed IV: Black Flag this past July. Some 70 positions in Singapore are being eliminated “to align the studio with upcoming production needs,” per a company rep’s statement to Game File. In early 2024, a large team in the Singapore studio launched the multiplayer pirate game Skull & Bones. It performed poorly but has been supported with regular content updates since. Many of Ubisoft’s studios around the world are heavily subsidized via regional grants and tax breaks. Singapore had been among them for years, but received no such local assistance in the 12 months ending this past March. News of the Singapore cuts broke today alongside word that Ubisoft is also proposing the closure of RedLynx, pending negotiations with officials. The Finnish studio behind the motorbike series Trials was founded in 2000 and sold to Ubisoft in 2011. As reported by VGC (and corroborated by Game File), Ubisoft management told employees it could not come up with a new, sustainable assignment for RedLynx. The 2025 workforce at Ubisoft Dusseldorf were straight-up cuts. This time, Ubisoft is hoping the reductions at its trio of German studios will largely come from workers taking a payout to leave. The company offered such voluntary dismissals at its Massive Entertainment studio (The Division) a year ago. For the German studios’ buyouts this time around, Ubisoft and the Works Council had discussed a formula that’d pay a worker’s monthly salary multiplied by 1.5 and by the number of years they’ve worked at the company, according to Game File sources. The formula is still subject to negotiations with the Works Council and has not yet been part of an official offer to workers. It could be adjusted up or down, and it could be supplemented with additional bonuses. Asked about the floated payout formula, a Ubisoft rep told Game File, “The terms of a potential voluntary departure program remain subject to negotiation with employee representatives. No final agreement has been reached, and we won’t comment on specific proposals while discussions are ongoing.” Game File is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe Item 2: Epic’s AI adventures Epic Games (Fortnite, the Unreal engine) is all-in on using AI to try to transform the way it makes video games and game-making tools. It’s leaders appear to be undeterred by any resistance among gamers and some game developers around generative AI—and instead emboldened by advances, particularly in AI-assisted programming. A recap of the last three days: On Monday, Bloomberg reported that Epic management told workers last week that development of an upcoming game combining Star Wars and Marvel characters would be “AI first.” Employees would be expected to use AI models such as Claude to code the game. A manager told Epic’s developers there would be “[n]o more hand-written code” and that art for the game would be “generated with full AI workflows,” per the outlet. Just ahead of that story running, Epic founder Tim Sweeney tweeted: “We have a huge pivot underway here at Epic, moving developers around to retool for maximum AI acceleration. The aim isn’t to do the same stuff with fewer people, but to enable everyone here to build MORE and BETTER stuff, and to bring the benefits to all teams using Unreal.” In a follow-up, Sweeney predicted that most game development processes would be at least three times faster a year from now than they were in January 2026, thanks to AI. To a person on X who told him he was failing to read the room, Sweeney said: “Much of the room wants it to be 2016 again, but it’s not. Our job, as the provider of tools and technology to much of the industry, is to design for the present that is and the future that will soon be.” On Wednesday, Epic announced it was releasing a faster launcher for its Epic Games Store marketplace. It did so by stating in a blog post as clear as could be that the launcher is an AI-enabled, vibe-coded project: Programming is hard. So, instead of doing that, we vibe coded a new Epic Games Launcher that’s way faster and more responsive than the current one, and has a new look. Programming is hard? That was unexpected phrasing from a company founded by a legendarily great programmer. Back in 2011, Sweeney told me that he’d picked up programming quickly as a kid and rejoiced at the power it gave him. “I could look at any program that anybody else had written and, with enough effort, build something cooler.” Item 3: The Xbox Labs experiment (and one of the people behind it) Microsoft’s Xbox division, which is flooding the zone with announcements lately, yesterday revealed a new internal tech-tinkering team called Xbox Labs. In the words of Xbox boss Asha Sharma Labs is “a small group of game makers, engineers and scientists whose job is to turn emerging ideas into things our players and developers can experience.” Conventional wisdom coming out of the announcement is that Labs is a team that’ll focus on ideas driven by generative AI. In her announcement, Sharma cited some of the dizzying achievements in tech and gaming over the past month as AI agents and other AI tools have been deployed to swiftly figure out how popular games work, then rebuild them and mix them up. She mentioned seeing ”games rapidly decompiled and rebuilt to run on hardware they were never originally designed to support” and said “[p]erhaps more surprisingly, we’ve seen many of the biggest games in the world have been remixed into the source code of another.” (Minecraft plus Elden Ring, for example, or Fortnite + Super Monkey Ball + Overwatch + Diablo + others.) Sharma also cited the work of Windows PC games being ported to run in browsers, a seeming reference to a recent AI-assisted fan port of Halo. Or perhaps Call of Duty or GTA. Sharma didn’t use the specific term “AI” in her memo, but she came close, citing AI “agents” and their potential for game-making tools that Labs could help craft: I think XBOX has an important role to play here. Coding became the first major workload for agents because they can write, run, and test software. Games share many of those same properties, and people spend more than 72 billion hours a year playing XBOX games, roughly five times the estimated time spent writing code worldwide. We’ve spent 25 years learning how to make great games, and I want our game makers to help shape what these new technologies make possible. As we learn, we’ll share the tools we build with developers across the industry, just as we always have. When I asked an Xbox rep if Labs was an AI-centric team, they said genAI was not the focus, describing it as having a broader mandate for using new tech in new ways in gaming. As an example, they pointed to Xbox’s recently launched disc-to-digital gaming usage rights program. Microsoft didn’t specifically name anyone involved full-time in Xbox Labs yesterday, but on social media and LinkedIn, I spotted Adrian Mato IDing himself as leading the creatio of tools at Labs and talking up the launch. Mato first caught my attention in late September, when he said on X that he was “starting to build a new team at Xbox focused on products and tools for how games get built and distributed as agentic tools become more capable.” At the time, he framed AI-based tools as a supplement to traditional game dev tools. “I don’t think we need to replace them,” he said. Since then, he’s publicly shown interest in AI and in games. He’s recently spent some of his X feed marveling at the power of AI agents and praising the lighting in the latest Gears of War. Following the Labs announcement yesterday, he enthused about the Xbox Labs’ stylish landing page. He wrote: “We built some fun tools to art-direct shaders in real time, experimented with interactive ASCII art, and sprinkled in lots of tiny details. “Move your mouse to leave a colorful trail that reveals the original footage, or interact with the video to trigger bursts of particles. “A lot of love went into making it all feel just right. “More to come”
Knicks Release Statement on Pending Contract Extensions: What It Means
The New York Knicks are in a difficult place with their contract negotiations.
Brooklyn Nets Could Steal Karl-Anthony Towns From Knicks
The future of Karl-Anthony Towns with the New York Knicks will be one of the top stories of the entire NBA season. Towns has made multiple public comments expressing unhappiness over the contract negotiations with the Knicks. It appears that both sides are extremely far apart, despite Towns willing to take a discount to stay […] The post Brooklyn Nets Could Steal Karl-Anthony Towns From Knicks appeared first on HEAVY.
Use This Emergency Brake On Climate Change And Air Pollution, Experts Urge Finance Ministers
They are urging climate negotiators at the upcoming Climate Change Conference in Antalya, COP 31, to create a formal roadmap to tackle air pollution and
“It is negotiation, it is business, but there has …
“It is negotiation, it is business, but there has …
Explained: Keely Hodgkinson's speed suit, and the science she disagreed with
Keely Hodgkinson disagreed with the science in one "non-negotiable" aspect of her eye-catching Nike speed suit.
Jalen Duren, Pistons agree to five-year, $200 million extension
After months of stall negotiations, Jalen Duren and the Detroit Pistons came to an agreement with a long-term deal late Thursday night.
Zambia says it is negotiating US minerals deal after 'decoupling' from health pact
Zambia is negotiating a critical minerals deal with the US government after "decoupling" it from a separate health funding agreement it signed on Thursday, its foreign minister said.
Disability concerns shape talks on healthcare worker assault penalties
Legislative negotiators working on solutions to address violence against healthcare workers offered a glimpse Wednesday into their discussions.
Pioneer of China NewCo model sued in US over trade secret misuse, double-dealing
A legal feud unfolding in New York is putting a spotlight on the work of a business development veteran who is credited for pioneering one of biopharma’s hottest dealmaking mechanism: the China “NewCo” model. In a lawsuit originally filed in New York state court and recently moved to federal court, China’s Lepu Medical Technology has alleged that biopharma business development consultant Su Zhang, who was hired to help shop its GLP-1 weight-loss candidates to Western partners, engaged in corporate double-dealing and trade secret leaks. According to the complaint, while acting as Lepu’s primary dealmaking liaison for a group of obesity and metabolic disease drug candidates, Zhang was secretly double-dipping as the acting chief business officer for a direct competitor, BrightGene Pharmaceutical. “She never adequately disclosed the role, never sought Lepu’s consent, and never proposed any safeguard,” Lepu alleged in its complaint, which was filed in July after Zhang’s consulting firm, CoDevCo, sought certain transaction-based success fees from its angry customer through an arbitration process in Singapore. Lepu, the parent company of Lepu Biopharma, has asked Zhang to pay back its $500,000 retainer and disgorge all benefits she received during the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, plus other damages and relief. The company has also requested the court grant injunctions to protect Lepu’s trade secrets. The ill-fated partnership officially kicked off in December 2024, when Lepu tapped CoDevCo as its “exclusive business development mechanism” to identify collaborators for the company’s drug candidates. According to Lepu’s complaint, Zhang personally negotiated and signed the agreement as managing director for CoDevCo, which used her home address. Before the Lepu deal, Zhang made a name following a short stint as the global head of business development for Hengrui Pharmaceuticals. It was during her tenure that Hengrui signed a landmark deal granting exclusive rights for a portfolio of GLP-1 assets to Hercules, which was at that time newly established by a group of private equity and venture capital firms. In addition to the regular upfront and milestone payments, Hengrui also gained an equity stake in Hercules, which later became Kailera Therapeutics. The Hengrui-Hercules deal opened a new paradigm, where a Chinese biopharma company spins off certain early-stage assets to investors for further development through the creation of a new company abroad. The “NewCo” model quickly came into vogue as it allows Western investors to access high-potential assets originating from China at an early stage while giving the Chinese licensors an opportunity to reap long-term benefits through equity stakes in the new firms. The NewCo model proved its value when Kailera staged a record-breaking $625 million IPO on Nasdaq this April, merely two years into the Hengrui deal. Related Kailera CEO 'knew we were in a good spot' before obesity biotech's record-breaking $625M IPO On her LinkedIn page, Zhang described her work at Hengrui as “[b]uilding team and capability from the ground up,” forming NewCo and major pharma partnerships worth billions of dollars. Lepu clearly wanted that kind of track record to help boost its own cardiometabolic portfolio, which includes a range of assets for obesity, Type 2 diabetes, fatty liver disease and muscle preservation during weight loss treatment. “Lepu’s pipeline is very valuable, but only if Lepu could secure the right international partner to expand into the overseas market during the available commercial window,” the company argued in its complaint. The Chinese biotech said it had little knowledge of U.S. laws, customs or business practices in the business development field, and therefore “needed to rely entirely” on the expertise of Zhang and her team as the firm’s first engagement of a U.S.-based BD consultant. “Zhang’s dominating influence on the business development strategy is further evidenced by the fact that she personally controlled the business-development communications on behalf of Lepu with potential partners,” Lepu said in its complaint. After entering the deal, Zhang introduced Lepu to her four associates. According to Lepu’s version of events, all of them were allegedly employed at different time points to perform similar jobs at other Chinese companies that Lepu described as its competitors, while having access to Lepu’s confidential information. As such, Lepu described Zhang’s team as “a roster of individuals whose primary professional loyalty, by virtue of their concurrent full-time employment, ran to Lepu’s competitors.” As well as the specific examples set out in the case, a look at Lepu’s deals over the period suggests Zhang may have been involved in at least one transaction. During their partnership, Lepu, through its subsidiary Shanghai Minwei Biotechnology, also out-licensed its GLP-1/GIP/FGF21 agonist MWN105 to a NewCo called Sidera Bio in the fall of 2025. The deal included an upfront and near-term payment of $35 million, up to $1.01 billion in milestones, and a 9.99% stake in the Danish startup. It seems likely that Zhang facilitated the Minwei deal given that Lepu is on record as having used CoDevCo as its “exclusive business development mechanism.” The big shock for Lepu came in the form of a news article on June 25, 2025. The article, reporting on phase 2 data for BrightGene’s GLP-1/GIP receptor agonist BGM0504, identified Zhang as acting chief business officer of the Lepu rival. Blindsided by her association with BrightGene, Lepu confronted Zhang in July 2025. “Lepu was given assurances that there was nothing to be concerned about and told that Zhang would explain the matter to Lepu,” Lepu alleged in its complaint. “Zhang never did.” Lepu claimed that Zhang had the motive and opportunity to steer potential prospective partners toward BrightGene or other competitors. Later, in February 2026, one of Zhang’s associates joined BrightGene as the vice president for global business development, according to the complaint. Around the same time, Lepu sent written demand letters asking Zhang to account for her BrightGene role, identify what confidential data were shared with the rival firm, and provide any conflict-of-interest or firewall policies during the engagement. According to Lepu, neither CoDevCo nor Zhang answered the questions in their responses. Related Novo vs. KBP: How a $1.3B deal turned into a fraud accusation and an international legal fight In a motion to dismiss filed with the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of New York on Sept. 4, Zhang’s legal team argued that Lepu’s agreement was signed with CoDevCo, and that an employee of the contractor does not owe fiduciary duties to the client. In its complaint, Lepu said: “That CoDevCo was the contracting entity does not insulate Zhang from personal liability for duties she personally undertook and personally breached.” Taking the argument one step further, the defending party argued that the consulting agreement “does not create a fiduciary relationship even between CoDevCo and Lepu; instead, it identifies CoDevCo as an independent contractor retained to market Lepu’s business to potential western partners.” Although CoDevCo was Lepu’s exclusive business-development contractor, there were no terms stipulating that the consulting firm should serve only Lepu, Zhang’s lawyer noted. As to Lepu’s claims that Zhang misappropriated trade secrets, the defendant argued that Lepu authorized the use of the information so Zhang’s team could perform their service per the agreement. In a rebuttal filed on Sept. 11, Lepu’s lawyer set out why they believe the Chinese biotech satisfied New York law’s misappropriation definition by alleging that the defendant used a trade secret “in breach of a duty or through improper means.” As an alternative to dismissing the suit, the defendant suggested the action should be stayed pending outcomes from the arbitration of a separate case in Singapore. While NewCo pioneer Zhang is defending her business arrangements, momentum behind the NewCo trend has continued unabated into 2026. Through August, Chinese biotech assets have spurred 15 NewCo deals this year, according to local trade publication PharmaDJ.
Blazers' Tom Dundon Meets the Man Betting Big on Portland
As Tom Dundon navigates high-stakes arena negotiations, the Blazers owner finds an optimistic ally in a real estate mogul wagering $250 million on downtown Portland’s recovery.
Small Businesses Skip the Cross-Border Plumbing Big Companies Can’t Escape
Conventional wisdom says large corporations should dominate cross-border payments. They have global banks, treasury teams, negotiated FX rates,
Pandemic Agreement Negotiator Warns Against Losing Momentum
As countries continue negotiating the unfinished WHO Pandemic Agreement, one of the original accord's architects warns that delays could put the process
Minnesota Wild Blame Cable Network for Failed Negotiations
The Minnesota Wild regular season has officially started but many cable and satellite customers still cannot watch games. Guess who the Wild are blaming...
Paramount, California AG discuss concessions including $1.5 billion investment, WSJ reports
Sept 20 (Reuters) - Paramount and California's attorney general have discussed a range of concessions in advanced settlement negotiations, including a $1.5 billion investment in production in the
Mount Nittany Health, union hospital workers reach tentative contract agreement
After months of frustration and more than a dozen rounds of negotiations, the union employees at Mount Nittany Medical Center have reportedly reached a tentativ
Jiang Feng: The Unravelling of German & European Politics
A state election in eastern Germany has become a revealing test of the changing political landscapes of Germany and Europe, writes Jiang Feng, Professor and Chairman of the Council of the Shanghai Academy of Global Governance and Area Studies (SAGGAS) at Shanghai International Studies University. His analysis follows the decisive victory of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) (which has been classified as right-wing extremist by German authorities)in the state of Saxony-Anhalt on 6 September, in which it finished far ahead of its mainstream rivals. Jiang previously served as Minister-Counsellor at the Chinese Embassy in Berlin. The following article was published on 8 September 2026 on huanqiu.com, the online platform of the Global Times. On 6 September, the results of the state election in Saxony-Anhalt, Germany, were announced. The Alternative for Germany (AfD), classified as far-right by German authorities, made history by becoming the largest party in the state parliament, winning 43.8 per cent of the vote — twice its share in the previous election. The Christian Democratic Union (CDU), which had governed the state continuously for 24 years, won just 17.2 per cent, its worst result ever in Saxony-Anhalt. On the night the results were announced, the atmosphere at the CDU gathering was unusually calm. There was neither shock nor argument, as if the defeat had long been expected. Several veteran party members who had spent years working in the state government said: “Defeat is not a bad thing. It is time to make changes.” This state election has not only upended Saxony-Anhalt’s political landscape, but also laid bare the deep tensions between Germany’s traditional party structure and model of governance, on the one hand, and an increasingly polarised society on the other. Its repercussions are already being felt at the federal level, making Saxony-Anhalt a useful case study of the broader trend towards political polarisation and realignment in Europe. Governing Difficulties after Electoral Victory The most immediate consequence of the election is a historic setback for the mainstream party order that took shape in post-war Germany. In Saxony-Anhalt, the AfD has leapt from a peripheral party to the largest political force in the state. Its electoral base has expanded beyond the traditional category of “marginal protest voters” to take on the characteristics of a cross-class coalition. The party has not only consolidated its support in rural areas, but also attracted many middle-class voters and even members of the social elite with stable jobs, their own homes, and substantial incomes. It has thus evolved from a “protest party” into one with the potential to govern. Despite its commanding lead in the vote, however, the AfD faces an institutional obstacle to governing the state: the mainstream parties’ long-standing “firewall” against it. Neither of the two potential routes to forming a government appears likely to break the current political deadlock. The first would be a coalition of establishment parties, led by the CDU and bringing together the Social Democratic Party (SPD), the Greens, the Left Party (Die Linke) and the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) in a cross-camp government. In terms of parliamentary arithmetic, such a coalition could prevent the AfD from forming a government and preserve the outward stability of the traditional political order. Yet these parties are fundamentally divided over key issues including immigration, the energy transition, economic management, and cultural and education policy. Coalition negotiations would therefore be extremely difficult, and even if a government could be formed, it would most likely prove short-lived. More importantly, an alliance of establishment parties aimed at keeping the largest party out of government would play directly into the AfD’s narrative that “political elites are suppressing public opinion”. It could deepen perceptions of political unfairness, further strengthening the AfD’s political capital, and creating a dynamic in which “the more it is suppressed, the more people vote for it”. Ulrich Siegmund, the AfD’s candidate for state premier, has said that if efforts to form a government fail because other parties refuse to cooperate, the AfD will push for a fresh election, which he believes could deliver the party an absolute majority of seats. This points to more intense political battles ahead. The second option would be a coalition between the AfD and the BSW. Together, the two parties would command a simple majority in parliament, making this, on paper, the quickest route to forming a government. The BSW is the only elected party that has not ruled out cooperation with the AfD, and the two parties share some common ground, including on policy towards Russia. There is therefore a degree of political basis for cooperation. Were such a coalition to materialise, Germany would see its first state government jointly formed by a party defined as far-right and one with a far-left background, creating what might be called a “bipolar anti-establishment alliance”. Such an outcome would fundamentally break with the ideological boundaries of post-war German party politics. It is worth noting that even if the AfD ultimately fails to enter the state government, its roughly 47 per cent share of parliamentary seats would give it a powerful blocking minority. Without its consent, major decisions requiring a two-thirds majority — including constitutional amendments, significant budgetary adjustments, and state-level institutional reforms — would be extremely difficult to pass. Therefore, whoever ultimately forms the government, the AfD will be an unavoidable force in Saxony-Anhalt politics, with a direct influence on the state’s legislative process. Systemic Failures in Germany’s Governance Model The Saxony-Anhalt election result reflects a systemic failure of Germany’s post-war mainstream-party model of governance to adapt to rapidly changing socioeconomic conditions. It stems from multiple, mutually reinforcing structural tensions and highlights the existing political system’s difficulty in adapting to “an increasingly polarised society First, collective anxiety has replaced individual material hardship as a central driver of political mobilisation. The rise of the AfD can no longer be explained simply by poverty or social marginalisation. Its increasingly cross-class electoral base suggests that what is driving voters towards the party is, above all, concern about the broader direction of society. This anxiety about the future of the political community goes beyond individual gains and losses. In political discourse, economic anxiety has become closely intertwined with immigration, while immigration and refugee issues are, in essence, questions of social fairness. This perception turns conflicts over the distribution of social resources into negative assessments of governing parties, providing a broad social basis for far-right political narratives. Second, regional disparities and East German identity have undermined the strategy of addressing eastern Germany’s structural challenges at the regional level. More than three decades after German reunification, eastern states such as Saxony-Anhalt have experienced periods of economic growth, but their underlying economic structures remain weak, and household incomes and wealth remain significantly below those in western Germany. At the same time, they continue to face population outflow, an ageing population, labour shortages, and other structural challenges. At a deeper level, historical experiences — including the collapse of the former East German economic system, mass unemployment during the transition, and the westward shift of decision-making power over major issues — have left some residents with a sense of being “second-class citizens” and of being excluded. For years, the German government treated the “syndrome” of reunification as a regional problem to be gradually addressed at the local level. That approach is becoming increasingly unsustainable, as regional development disparities emerge as a core structural factor shaping national politics. Third, the erosion of institutional trust is perhaps the most decisive factor. AfD supporters tend to distrust establishment institutions, including parliament, government, and the mainstream media. Their concerns about economic security, pensions, and social fairness are significantly greater than the social average. Increasingly, their support for the AfD reflects not an expectation that the existing system can be improved, but a search for an alternative to the current political order. Such a systemic deficit of trust will be extremely difficult for the traditional parties to repair in the short term. Fourth, a generational shift in political mobilisation has amplified political polarisation. Unlike traditional parties, which rely heavily on offline rallies and mainstream media coverage, the AfD has developed a social-media mobilisation strategy built around “raising an issue — identifying who is responsible — offering a simplified solution — building a shared identity”. It turns complex social tensions into concise political narratives, rapidly channelling public sentiment into political support. The contrast on the eve of the election was particularly telling. The establishment parties, together with trade unions and churches, organised an offline march attended by more than 10,000 people, but its reach was largely confined to those present and to traditional media coverage. The AfD held a much smaller indoor event, yet livestreaming on TikTok, YouTube, and other platforms, combined with the involvement of online influencers, gave it a reach and mobilising capacity far beyond that of the march. The contrast illustrates how the traditional parties’ methods of political mobilisation are increasingly struggling to keep pace with a political environment transformed by changes in media technology. A Microcosm of Structural Political Change in Europe The shockwaves from the Saxony-Anhalt election quickly travelled beyond the state to the federal level. Calls for political accountability followed immediately after the results were announced. The governing CDU and SPD are now under enormous pressure, while Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Vice Chancellor Lars Klingbeil face an unprecedented test. Political polarisation in Germany is no longer simply a regional phenomenon. The post-war model of multiparty government by establishment parties is breaking down and being reshaped. Viewed in a broader European context, the Saxony-Anhalt election is part of a continent-wide wave of party polarisation, mainstream-party decline, and rising right-wing forces. Far from an isolated phenomenon, it is a microcosm of the structural political changes unfolding across Europe. Weak economic growth, cultural tensions over immigration, and declining trust in institutions are fuelling the rise of right-wing forces in several countries, challenging the liberal internationalist order established in post-war Europe. As a core member state of the European Union, Germany’s ability to adapt its political system and the direction of its politics will have profound implications for both European integration and the evolution of the international order. Subscribe [ Pekingnology China’s Germany watchers take stock of Berlin’s uneasy turn On 7 December 2025, nearly 50 Chinese scholars and policy researchers gathered in Beijing for the 2025年德国形势年终研讨会 “2025 Year-End Seminar on the Situation in Germany… Read more 9 months ago · 31 likes · 1 comment · YIRUI LI and Yuxuan JIA ](https://www.pekingnology.com/p/chinas-germany-watchers-take-stock?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web&embedding_publication_id=1151841) [ Jiang Feng on Germany's 2025 and beyond: no easy exit ](https://www.eastisread.com/p/jiang-feng-on-germanys-2025-and-beyond) Yirui LI and Yuxuan JIA · Jan 24 The following is an op-ed by Jiang Feng, published on 29 December 2025 at Shanghai Observer 上观新闻, the digital platform of Jiefang Daily, the official newspaper of the Shanghai Municipal Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC). [ Read full story ](https://www.eastisread.com/p/jiang-feng-on-germanys-2025-and-beyond)
"I don't think it's worth any amount of money" - Controversial real-life GTA 6 advertising campaign passed by City of Miami, but brand can only appear "discreetly"
A City Commission Meeting for Miami Beach has approved negotiations with Rockstar Games for an upcoming marketing campaign set in the seaside locale.
Karl-Anthony Towns Expresses Disappointment in Knicks’ Contract Decision
Karl-Anthony Towns reacts to the New York Knicks tabling negotiations.
AP | A data-sharing clause derailed US-Zimbabwe health talks. Now all funding ends this month
The US will end funding for Zimbabwe’s health programs at the end of September following the collapse of negotiations over a US-proposed deal.
Bellevue announces plans for next phase of entertainment district
The city of Bellevue has signed an exclusive negotiation agreement to develop the next phase of the Bellevue Bay Entertainment District.
Catapult Books is being sold and its L.A. authors are mourning
Catapult Books has sold its assets to an undisclosed buyer, leaving the future of 16 scheduled titles uncertain as staff negotiate a severance package.
WHO joins Pre-COP31 to advance climate action that delivers for people’s health
The World Health Organization (WHO) is joining Pacific leaders, governments and partners at Pre-COP31 in Fiji from 5 to 8 October to advance health priorities in climate action and strengthen the Pacific voice ahead of the 31st Conference of the Parties (COP31) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).COP31, to be held next month in Antalya, Türkiye, marks an important step for global climate and health action. Health is one of the 10 priority themes of the COP31 Action Agenda, “Dynamic and Resilient Health Systems”, and a dedicated Health Day will take place on 9 November, the first day of COP31. The inclusion of health reflects growing global recognition that climate action and health are closely connected. The climate crisis is affecting population health globally. Across the WHO Western Pacific Region, which includes Pacific island countries and areas, the consequences of climate change include extreme heat, cyclones, floods, rising sea levels, food and water insecurity, infectious diseases and disruptions to essential health services. The Pacific in particular faces additional challenges. A recent review of 76 hospitals in 14 Pacific island countries found that 62% of health facilities are located within 500 metres of the sea or a river, leaving them particularly exposed to flooding, storm surges and sea-level rise.Bringing Pacific priorities to the global climate agendaThe Pacific Pre-COP31 provides an important opportunity for Pacific countries and partners to consolidate regional priorities and bring the experiences and leadership of Pacific communities into global climate discussions.Pacific countries have been advancing practical approaches to protect health in a changing climate, including strengthening climate-resilient health systems, improving preparedness for extreme weather events, building resilient health infrastructure and mobilizing climate finance for health. “This Pre-COP is an important moment for the Pacific, bringing global climate discussions to a region that has long been at the forefront of the climate crisis. It provides an opportunity for Pacific countries and areas to set their priorities, experiences and leadership on the global stage, and to ensure that the realities of Pacific communities are genuinely reflected in the decisions made on climate action,” said Dr Saia Ma’u Piukala, WHO Regional Director for the Western Pacific.Throughout this week, WHO will co-convene and participate in high-level discussions and events focused on climate and health, climate resilience, adaptation, financing and implementation. “Climate finance is essential for resilient and healthy Pacific communities,” emphasized Dr Mark Jacobs, WHO Representative to the South Pacific and Director of Pacific Technical Support. “We must ensure that financing reaches the people, communities and essential services most exposed to climate risks, supporting locally defined priorities and investments.”WHO will work with partners to strengthen the integration of health considerations across climate policies and investments, including national climate plans and resilience initiatives.Health as a driver of climate actionAmid the risks to health and pressures on health systems, well-strategized and implemented climate action can deliver significant health benefits. Investments in clean energy, sustainable transport, resilient infrastructure, food systems and nature-based solutions have proven to reduce health risks while contributing to climate mitigation and adaptation.“Climate action is truly an investment in health. Cleaner energy, healthier food systems and climate-resilient health services can protect lives while building stronger communities. We now need to turn these opportunities into action and make health a core part of climate investments,” said Dr Sandro Demaio, Director and Head of Office, WHO Asia-Pacific Centre for Environment and Health in the Western Pacific Region. “These benefits demonstrate that climate action is not only about reducing future risks. It is also an opportunity to improve lives today while building healthier, safer and more resilient societies.”At COP31 next month, WHO will also support the Health Pavilion, which will bring together the global health community and partners to advance health and equity within climate negotiations. With COP31 poised to move health higher on the global climate agenda, WHO will continue working with countries and partners across the Western Pacific Region and globally to strengthen climate-resilient and low-carbon health systems, and ensure that climate action protects and improves people’s health.____________________Media contactsElizabeth Bennett, WHO Asia-Pacific Centre for Environment and Health in the Western Pacific Region, elizabeth.bennett@who.intJulia Dongwhan Shin, WHO Asia-Pacific Centre for Environment and Health in the Western Pacific Region, dong.shin@who.intWHO Western Pacific Communications, wprocom@who.int
Explained: Keely Hodgkinson's speed suit, and the science she disagreed with
Keely Hodgkinson disagreed with the science in one "non-negotiable" aspect of her eye-catching Nike speed suit.
Zambia says it is negotiating US minerals deal after 'decoupling' from health pact
LUSAKA, Oct 8 () - Zambia is negotiating a critical minerals deal with the US government after "decoupling" it from a separate health funding agreement it signed on Thursday, its foreign minister s...
Trump Negotiators’ Business Ties Collide With Multibillion-Dollar Russian Oil Deal: NYT
Trump’s negotiations with Russia about Ukraine reportedly now include an oil deal involving business figures connected to Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.
EU membership bid gives boost to Moldova’s fledgling R&D landscape
Moldova’s push to join the EU is having the spillover effect of helping to improve the country’s R&D landscape, which in recent years has suffered from fragmentation, decreasing personnel and a lack of research infrastructure.The country became an EU candidate country in 2022, alongside Ukraine, and officially began accession negotiations in 2024. With a pro-EU government, Moldova has been actively carrying out reforms to align with EU standards. This has helped accelerate the development of R&D, said Igor Chiosa, acting head of the Research and Innovation Policy Directorate at Moldova’s Ministry of Education and Research. “Our R&D landscape is moving up, and we are more and more involved in the European Research Area,” he said. “The support we receive from the EU is very important, not only financially, but also because of incentives, consultation and capacity building.”The R&D landscape in the former Soviet republic is still relatively underdeveloped, despite attempts at improvement going back to a 2004 law on science and innovation and later reforms in 2017 and 2018. But the system remains in a “precarious situation” and “in the process of contraction,” according to an assessment carried out by the government for the current National Programme for Research and Innovation, which runs from 2024 to 2027. The analysis highlights in particular the declining number of researchers and PhDs, which has been continuously falling, as well as limited research funding. This is around 10 times lower than the EU average and “insufficient to maintain a level of research activity that supports higher education and meets the needs of the economy.” The mechanisms for allocating research funds are also described as inefficient, as well as the general fragmentation of the landscape, with research and innovation activities being carried out in 67 different places. The lack of strategic vision for research infrastructure is also noted. The strategy sets out to address these issues and is being fuelled by reforms linked to EU accession. Moldova now has a regulation on open science and gender equality. There is also a new support mechanism for technology transfer offices and a business-academia roadmap. In 2025, the country also became the first Eastern Partnership country to approve a Smart Specialisation strategy, which will coordinate its R&D efforts to focus on strengths, within a European context. “We’ve done a lot in terms of normative acts,” Chiosa said. Horizon Europe successMoldova is also seeing more success in the EU’s flagship R&D programme, Horizon Europe. The country has now won nearly €15 million in funding, already double the amount won under the previous programme, Horizon 2020, and more than the €10 million target set by the government. Chiosa said the priority has shifted now to winning more research-centred projects, rather than those related to support and capacity. Moldova is also targeting further involvement in large European projects. Last year, it joined the EuroHPC Joint Undertaking giving Moldovans access to Europe's supercomputing network. The country is also a member of Danubius-RI, a European research infrastructure focused on river and sea research. Despite these efforts, Moldova’s research capacity is still shackled by its limited R&D budget, which equates to 0.23% of its GDP. This is around half of what its neighbour Romania spends, which is the lowest in the EU. According to Chiosa, the research budget is increasing year-on-year, jumping by €6.34 million between 2024 and 2025. But this doesn’t show up when looking at it as a proportion of GDP. “Of course, it’s difficult,” he said. “That is why we are putting more emphasis on collaboration between business and academia, as well as participation in Horizon Europe, to try to diversify our sources of funding.”A World Bank loan of €30 million, plus a grant of €7.8 million, was agreed in 2025 to support the modernisation of Moldova’s universities. As part of this, a call was launched this year to provide universities grants of up to €900,000 to develop their research infrastructure. Moldova is also collaborating closely with Romania, with which it shares a common language, funding 100 joint projects in 2023 and 2024. This support has been instrumental. “They are helping with sharing their expertise, inviting us into consortia, and lots more,” Chiosa said. Looking forward, Moldova is eagerly anticipating joining the EU. “We are looking closely at what the EU is doing and will shape our future national programme in research innovation accordingly.”EU accession “blocked at a technical level”Moldova is aiming to join the EU by 2028, but despite its swift and eager efforts to meet the accession criteria, there remain obstacles outside of the country’s control. For a country to join the EU, it must have certain legislation in place and meet specific standards in various areas. This is categorised into six thematic clusters containing 33 chapters. Moldova and the EU have so far opened two of the clusters, numbers one and six. The first covers fundamental laws, such as the judiciary, security and financial legislation. The sixth covers external relations. The remaining four clusters are still unopened. This includes the third cluster, on competitiveness and growth, which contains the chapter on science and research.Related articlesQ&A: Albania’s ambition to become a ‘moderate innovator’Data corner: Horizon success rates are droppingThe European Commission has confirmed that these clusters are ready to be opened, with an official saying that the Commission is encouraging EU governments, who have the final say, to move forward on the matter. However, both clusters two and three remain blocked by the EU Council’s working party on enlargement and countries negotiating accession to the EU, a different official, representing the Council, confirmed.This working party is set to meet several times in the coming weeks, with a Council meeting scheduled for mid-October in which enlargement, and Moldova’s bid, will be discussed. But there is no certainty that these talks will lead to progress. According to the Council source, it is “completely impossible to foresee if and when the file will be unblocked,” citing the sensitivity of the matter. Moldova’s situation is particularly complicated. One factor is that it borders Ukraine and is increasingly embroiled in Russia’s war, with drone incursions occurring more often on its territory. Another is Transnistria, a Russian-backed breakaway state that lies within the territory of Moldova. It is unclear how the EU would be able to accept Moldova into the bloc while this situation remains unchanged. While there is no direct reason to delay opening cluster three with Moldova, as it covers matters unrelated to security, it could be that the EU is reluctant to speed through accession negotiations without first resolving broader, geopolitical issues.Chiosa is confident that, if and when the chapter on science and research is opened, Moldova will be able to finalise it quickly. It doesn’t require any legislative changes and is only a matter of proving certain standards, which Chiosa believes Moldova is well prepared to do. “We hope that chapter 25 on science and research will be one of the first chapters opened and closed,” he said.
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
Michigan Jewish leaders launch "nonnegotiable" petition for Democrats
Zambia signs US health aid deal after disputes over data-sharing
The US will provide $1.5bn (£1.1bn) under the deal that was negotiated after Trump cut USAID funding.
Negotiations the Knicks have discussed extensions …
Negotiations the Knicks have discussed extensions …
How political tensions over Trump family crypto ventures derailed Clarity Act
President Trump and his family’s sprawling empire of cryptocurrency businesses cast a long shadow over efforts this year to negotiate a bill regulating the industry. They arguably weighed down bipa…
Barcelona open talks over key contract renewal
The brass at La Liga giants Barcelona have early this week moved to tie a leading member of the club’s attacking ranks down for the long term. This comes amid confirmation of negotiations being held...
Jaguars and WR Parker Washington Have Ended Contract Negotiations
Jacksonville and emerging star Parker Washington were not able to reach a deal on a contract extension before the beginning of the season.
Allina Health doctor strike: Union, hospital officials announce tentative agreement
Allina Health reached a tentative agreement with the Doctors Council-SEIU following three years of negotiations and a four-day strike last week.
Trump open to Iran sanctions relief for ‘concrete progress’ on nuclear issues, White House official says
President Donald Trump is willing to give Iran sanctions relief and release frozen funds for “concrete progress” on a nuclear deal, a US official told CNN Monday, as mediators try to bring both countries back to the negotiating table.
Napoli must separate McTominay contract negotiations from their midfield plan
Scott McTominay’s reported contract discussions have brought Napoli’s approach to retaining important players back into focus.The immediate temptation is to read every negotiating position as a pr...
How Israel votes: A Guide to Knesset, political parties, and coalition governments
Israel uses a system called proportional representation, which helps explain its many political parties, complicated coalition negotiations, and frequent early elections.
Where These Three Knicks Stand in Contract Extension Negotiations
As the season approaches, the Knicks have three players they may extend soon.
Business Leaders Urge Congress to Maintain Workforce Funding
As federal lawmakers negotiate spending levels for fiscal 2027, a nationwide coalition of 96 businesses and business associations, including
Jeld-Wen secures $135 million in capital, extends debt maturities
Jeld-Wen Holdings has negotiated with creditors a $135 million capital infusion and an extension of 2027 and 2028 debt maturities, giving the Charlotte-based window and door maker a liquidity cushion to sharpen operations in the persistent housing slump. Jeld-Wen said earlier today it expects to extend the maturity of 2027 senior notes and 2028 term […]
Hospital workers' union files labor grievance against UF Health amid contract talks
The AFSCME Local 1328 and Local 1781 filed an Unfair Labor Practice grievance against UF Health following stalled contract negotiations.
The science gap fueling Africa's water wars
As countries across Africa face growing pressure over shared water resources, USC water scientists argue that one of the most powerful tools for preventing conflict may be found not at the negotiating ...
Students, politicians gather on Beinecke to protest Trump negotiations
On Friday afternoon, protesters marched to Beinecke Plaza, where they convened with Connecticut politicians, including Sen. Richard Blumenthal LAW ’73, to urge Yale administrators against settling a federal investigation into its admissions practices.
Mikel Arteta agrees new Arsenal contract to extend stay
Mikel Arteta has agreed an improved new contract with Arsenal, committing his future to the Premier League champions after months of negotiations.The 44-year-old’s existing deal was due to expire at...
ProTributeBands.com Clarifies Direct Booking Model for Corporate Event Entertainment Planners
SAN RAMON, CA - September 25, 2026 - PRESSADVANTAGE -ProTributeBands.com, the curated booking and lead generation platform for high-end tribute bands, has outlined how its direct-booking structure works for event planners seeking corporate event entertainment. Under the model, bands featured on the platform negotiate terms and close each booking directly with the client, while ProTributeBands follows up to keep the transaction moving smoothly.The structure separates ProTributeBands.com from traditional booking agencies that insert themselves into every contract. Rather than acting as an intermediary that controls the final agreement, the platform connects event planners, performing arts centers, festivals, wedding clients, and private party hosts with pre-screened, national-act-caliber tribute acts, then steps back so the parties can settle details themselves. The platform maintains contact with both sides to ensure momentum is not lost during the process.Founded by David Victor, former guitarist and co-lead vocalist of the multiplatinum band BOSTON, ProTributeBands.com features tribute acts covering artists such as Queen, The Beatles, ABBA, Journey, The Eagles, and Pink Floyd. Selected bands receive optimized profile pages and booking leads generated through the platform."Event planners often assume a booking platform means another layer of negotiation and markup," said David Victor, Founder of ProTributeBands.com. "The approach here is different. The bands negotiate terms and close each booking directly, which keeps the conversation honest and the details accurate. The platform stays involved by following up so nothing stalls between the first inquiry and the signed agreement."The direct-booking method reflects how corporate and private event planning typically operates. Planners frequently need to confirm technical requirements, stage dimensions, scheduling, and performance specifics with the people who will actually be on stage. By allowing those conversations to happen between the client and the band, the model aims to reduce miscommunication that can occur when information passes through a third party.ProTributeBands.com applies a screening process before an act appears on the platform, focusing on production quality, musicianship, and readiness for larger venues. The company ranks tribute bands across categories including Queen, The Beatles, The Eagles, Journey, Pink Floyd, and BOSTON tributes, drawing on performance quality and audience response.The ProTributeBands guide to hiring a tribute band offers additional context for planners weighing these decisions, covering topics such as understanding the audience and event, assessing entertainment value, viewing an act in person before hiring, and reviewing rider and insurance requirements. The guide addresses the practical considerations planners face when selecting an act for a corporate function, festival, or private celebration."A tribute production for a corporate audience has to hold the room the same way a headline act would," Victor said. "The vetting exists so planners can trust that the act they see listed can deliver at that level, and the direct-booking structure lets them confirm every detail with the band before committing."ProTributeBands.com serves clients across the United States and abroad, working with tribute acts that perform at performing arts centers, summer concert series, product launches, corporate parties, private parties, and wedding receptions. The platform also accepts artist submissions from tribute bands seeking consideration for inclusion. The company operates online at protributebands.com.###For more information about ProTributeBands.com, contact the company here:ProTributeBands.comDavid Victor(925) 236-0217hello@protributebands.com11040 Bollinger Canyon Road Suite E-938, San Ramon, CA 94582
Netflix content chief Bela Bajaria defines event strategy as streamer eyes more live sports
Bajaria said Netflix would be open to a package of international NFL games if one becomes available when the league renegotiates its media rights agreements.
Clearwater moves ahead with negotiations to turn The Landings golf course into sports complex
Sentara ends negotiations with Anthem on health plans
Sentara Health ended negotiations with Anthem over certain plans amid an ongoing dispute over reimbursement rates.
Zambia signs US health deal after disputes over data-sharing
The US will provide $1.5bn (£1.1bn) under the deal that was negotiated after Trump cut USAID funding.
Iran Won’t Back Off from Conditions for Reopening Hormuz: FM
TEHRAN (Tasnim) – Iran has clearly presented its conditions for reopening the Strait of Hormuz and advancing negotiations, Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said, stressing that Tehran will not back down from those conditions.
Time lost to political haggling means lost momentum for research
While it’s not up to universities to set deadlines for EU institutions, “lost time” in the run-up to the launch of the next Horizon Europe would translate into “lost momentum” for universities, according to Dag Rune Olsen, president of the Young European Research Universities Network.“I think it's important to have [the EU budget] in place in order to be able to work on the research funding mechanisms, because we cannot afford to lose more momentum than we already have,” Olsen told Science|Business in an interview in September, just after EU research lobbies gathered in Brussels to push for a €200 billion budget for the next Horizon Europe programme.A funding gap would mean ramping down research activities, said Olsen. “You can do that quite swiftly, that’s not a problem, but ramping up again is much more difficult.”The last-minute push for an ambitious budget, and for a timely adoption of the research programme, comes at a time when the richest EU states have teamed up to call for significant cuts to European Commission’s proposal for the next multiannual budget, which allocates €175 billion for Horizon Europe. At the same gathering of research associations in September, the European Parliament’s budget rapporteur warned that the EU will need to raise its own taxes, otherwise political pressure and tighter national budgets will translate into a limited EU budget with a less ambitious envelope for research. The research sector hopes EU institutions will reach timely agreement on the budget and on Horizon Europe, but progress has been slow. Legislative progress has been delayed, partly because the European Parliament’s budget committee is still haggling over how to apply new EU-wide spending rules, known as the Performance Framework Regulation, and partly because EU governments have yet to agree on the size of the next EU budget. EU research Commissioner Ekaterina Zaharieva told Science|Business in July that she was hoping for an agreement on Horizon Europe by the end of 2026, but the timelines have been pushed back significantly, with the Parliament now aiming to announce its official position on Horizon Europe only in November. Avoid the funding gapAccording to Olsen, delayed EU funds could prompt universities and researchers to move on and do something else, potentially jeopardising years of work building consortia and collaborations. “If funding is interrupted, the networks fall apart in just a few months,” he said. Olsen also noted that an interruption would affect junior researchers first. PhD students and postdocs are on shorter term contracts and universities risk losing them if funding for EU projects is interrupted. Related articlesEU own resources ‘essential’ for future research budget, says leading MEPParliament haggle over EU-wide spending rules delays vote on Horizon EuropeZaharieva hopes for a Horizon Europe deal in 2026Universities usually have more employees, permanent and short-term staff, than they can cover with national funding, and external funding is essential to keep them all on the payroll. In case of an EU funding gap, “there will be a huge number of people that might end up without any contracts,” he said. Apart from the money issue, Olsen said EU projects forces universities to collaborate more which, in turn, increases the quality of teaching and research. In case of a funding dip, people will look around for opportunities elsewhere, in the private sector or abroad. “And then then you have to recruit again, and it's a tedious business,” said Olsen. “A gap is not a good idea, it's actually a waste of money.”According to Olsen, the difficult political context should encourage universities to make a stronger case for the EU increasing research funding, as universities can deliver on competitiveness, technological sovereignty, security and defence. “The reason why we ask for substantial investments in research is exactly what the Commission, what Europe, the Parliament have been discussing,” he said. “You really need to invest in order to thrive in the longer run.”Focus on the member statesBut EU and national R&D expenditure hasn't kept up with the times. EU governments have failed to reach a spending target set almost 25 years ago. Only six EU countries spend 3% or more of their GDP on R&D. Asked whether universities should put more effort into convincing the governments to ramp up their own spending, but also to support a strong budget for Horizon Europe in the ongoing budget negotiations, Olsen said “the answer is yes.”“We are very actively encouraging our members to talk to their ministries in order to enlighten them about the joint effort,” he said. The network is made up of 25 universities from across Europe, all established in the past 60 years or so.Who will call the shots?Budget and timing issues aside, the Parliament’s research committee has been locked in behind-the-scenes negotiations over the future structure of Horizon Europe, with MEPs disagreeing on the degree to which its collaborative research should be governed by councils of experts.The European Parliament’s lead rapporteur on Horizon Europe wants councils of independent experts to decide on the funding agenda, but the Commission, the Council, and parts of the Parliament disagree. For Olsen, it is normal for politicians to point at the big challenges, but when they start detailing how those challenges should be solved, the endeavour “fails utterly.” He does not necessarily think that “bureaucrats who don’t know the field” would be “much better at it” either. “There has to be a combination” of broad political directions and bottom-up implementation, Olsen said.
😱Martial turned down millions to negotiate with Málaga
French forward Anthony Martial is looking for a new destination to relaunch his career after terminating his contract with Monterrey. Despite being without a club, the striker is prioritizing sporting...
Change to bankruptcy law may help speed up, give relief to small biz
Small businesses may get an easier path to restructure their debt faster while offering greater flexibility in negotiating with creditors under a change in law waiting President Trump's approval.
Karl-Anthony Towns breaks silence on contract negotiations with Knicks
Karl-Anthony Towns wants a resolution to the contract extension saga he's having with the Knicks.
5th cruise terminal negotiations moving full steam ahead
Negotiations for a fifth cruise terminal at Pier 14 are moving forward with the full support of the Galveston Wharves Board of Trustees. At its Sept. 22 meeting, the wharves
Hornets, Brandon Miller Extension Negotiations Went Down to Final Hour
Brandon Miller and the Charlotte Hornets nearly didn't agree to an extension.