SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " Twitter " 1,425 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Seton Hall Program Helps Clifton Students Explore Health Careers
Through hands-on learning and mentorship, ACE Health helped one Clifton High senior pursue her goal of becoming a nursing student.
Pat Caputo, Metro Detroit sports personality, passes away
Pat Caputo passed away Thursday, his family announced via social media.
Robert Half wins two Stevie® awards in the 2026 American Business Awards
/PRNewswire/ -- Global talent solutions and business consulting firm Robert Half (NYSE: RHI) has earned two Stevie awards in the 24th Annual American Business...
Insmed Reports First-Quarter 2026 Financial Results and Provides Business Update
— Total Company Revenues of $306.0 Million for the First Quarter of 2026— —BRINSUPRI® (brensocatib) Revenues of $207.9 Million for the First Quarter of 2026, Reflecting 44% Growth Over the...
BioShock, game prices, GTA, the disappearing NFL deal and more: An interview with Take Two CEO Strauss Zelnick
In 20 years of covering the video game beat, I’d probably not spoken more than 20 words with Take Two chairman Strauss Zelnick, who’s been running the company behind NBA 2K, Grand Theft Auto, BioShock and Red Dead Redemption for, you guessed it, nearly 20 years. Last week, though, ahead of a panel I was hosting at the iicon event in Las Vegas, I had about 20 minutes to interview Zelnick. I could ask one question for each year, I joked, as we settled into our seats on opposite sides of a conference table. Take Two’s longtime head of corporate communications, Alan Lewis, was seated at Zelnick’s side. I didn’t quite conduct our chat that way, but we wound up going through a lot, including… The state of BioShock The ramifications of the rising costs of game development The fate of Take Two’s recent multi-game deal with the NFL Some hints about Take Two’s mobile plans Whether Zelnick’s answer to me about Civ VII was a good one The do’s and don’t’s of NBA 2K microtransactions Take Two’s take on the Switch 2 Oh, and GTA VI (Spoiler: if Zelnick had spilled the beans on the price of the game or a release date for a PC version or whether there will be a polka radio station, that would have been this article’s headline). Before all of that, I would learn what it’s like to interview Strauss Zelnick, who is confident, calm and focused on delivering precise answers. To wit, I thought I’d start our chat with something fun, a bit insidery but maybe safe for him to share. The team at Take Two’s Rockstar label delays their games a lot, I noted. Of course, those delays, however painful, tend to be worth it. So, I was wondering how Zelnick finds out about them. Take the most recent postponement back in November 2025, when Rockstar said that GTA VI would not hit its May 26, 2026 release date (just 20 days from now!) and would instead come out on November 19, 2026. Was that news delivered via a call? An email? How does it work? “I work super closely with my team,” Zelnick said. “It's a very thin team at Take Two. The entire senior management team is six executives who sit in one hallway and share two assistants. And then, basically, there are two people who head up each of our labels.” They meet weekly to discuss their business, he said. So no one emails him about a delay? Nothing like that? Zelnick craned his neck to look at my left hand. He asked if I was married. I am, I said. “Does your partner email you to give you information?” he asked. Fair enough. I didn’t get the sense Zelnick was going to read me the minutes of the management meeting where the GTA VI delay was discussed. Slight pivot, maybe I could get some personality insights about one of the most successful gaming execs of the last 20 years, before getting to my big list of questions about specific Take Two games, franchises and policies. I asked: How do you deal with delay news like that? Go for a run? Meditate? “I tend to default to being very calm,” he said. “I’m not a person who freaks out easily.” He noted that he has a daughter with special needs due to an illness, and he shared that that situation had gotten him worked up. It was a personal, family emergency. “But, you know, business is not that,” he said. “I have no trouble distinguishing between, like, a business challenge and an emergency.” He turned to his left to ask Lewis, his colleague of 17 years, a question. “Have you ever seen me freak out?” “Never,” Lewis replied. “You’ve seen me upset,” Zelnick told Lewis. “Have you seen me raise my voice? Maybe how many times? Be honest, because we might as well be.”
A GREAT AWAKENING ARRIVES ON HOME ENTERTAINMENT, BRINGING A POWERFUL STORY OF FAITH AND FRIENDSHIP INTO LIVING ROOMS NATIONWIDE
/PRNewswire/ -- Following its nationwide theatrical debut, A GREAT AWAKENING is set to reach audiences at home, offering viewers a new opportunity to...
Elanco Animal Health Reports First Quarter 2026 Results
Raising Full Year Outlook and Innovation Target, Improving Year-End Net Leverage Ratio Target First Quarter 2026 Financial Results: Revenue of $1,371 million,...
LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT REPORTS FIRST QUARTER 2026 RESULTS
/PRNewswire/ -- "2026 is off to a powerful start, with first quarter revenue climbing 12% to $3.8 billion. In an increasingly digital and AI-driven world, the...
Seton Hall and TCNJ Partner on Graduate Health Pathways
Seton Hall and TCNJ introduce streamlined pathways into graduate programs in physical therapy, occupational therapy and athletic training.
Student Startups Take Center Stage at Seton Hall’s 2026 Pirates Pitch
From AI-powered video editing to sustainable refill systems, Seton Hall students pitched innovative startup ideas at the 2026 Pirates Pitch Competition, competing for $16,000 in prizes.
Americans Say They're Feeling Prosperous, Defying Economic, Market, and Political Pessimism - According to Northwestern Mutual's Inaugural Personal Prosperity Index
Northwestern Mutual launches the Personal Prosperity Index: First-ever score is 68 out of 100, with Americans feeling good about the health of their mind, body, relationships, and money – and...
Superior HealthPlan Designates Three Texas Providers as Mental Health Rehabilitation and Targeted Case Management Centers of Excellence
The New Program Recognizes Multi-specialty Providers that Deliver High-quality Behavioral Health Services AUSTIN, Texas, May 5, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- Superior HealthPlan has designated three Texas...
Lenovo's New ThinkPad Headset Uses Ceva Spatial Audio to Make Entertainment Content More Immersive and Drive All-Day Use
/PRNewswire/ -- As hybrid work continues to blur the line between productivity and entertainment, Lenovo is betting that better audio, not just better video,...
Greenberg Traurig Represents Blake L. Sartini In Acquisition of Golden Entertainment and Its Transition to Private, Family-Owned Operation
/PRNewswire/ -- Global law firm Greenberg Traurig, LLP represented Blake L. Sartini in the successful completion of Mr. Sartini's transition of Golden...
Academy Sports + Outdoors Announces Pricing of Senior Secured Notes
/PRNewswire/ -- Academy Sports and Outdoors, Inc. ("Academy") (Nasdaq: ASO) today announced that its wholly-owned subsidiary, Academy, Ltd. (the "Issuer"),...
Biohaven Reports Recent Business Developments and First Quarter 2026 Financial Results
Biohaven to update clinical, regulatory, and operational progress at annual R&D Day at the upcoming Yale Innovation Summit on May 27, 2026. Advancement of...
Lucky Strike Entertainment Partners with the San Francisco Giants for the 2026-2027 Baseball Seasons
/PRNewswire/ -- Lucky Strike Entertainment, one of the world's premier owner-operators of location-based entertainment destinations, is proud to announce a...
Introducing Autodesk for Small Business for the small businesses shaping Design and Make
Autodesk's new State of Small Business report* shows that small businesses across Design and Make industries are growing nearly 35% faster than the broader...
Academy Sports + Outdoors Announces Offering of Senior Secured Notes
/PRNewswire/ -- Academy Sports and Outdoors, Inc. ("Academy") (Nasdaq: ASO) today announced that its wholly-owned subsidiary, Academy, Ltd. (the "Issuer"),...
Global Health & WASH: May 2026 Funding Opportunities (14 new opportunities!)
The May update for Global Health & WASH brings new calls that cluster around three distinct shifts: LMIC research leadership moving from funder encouragement into a hard eligibility constraint, pharmaceutical and corporate-linked funders running structurally independent education and use-inspired research portfolios at substantial scale, and AI adoption shifting decisively from speculative tool to operational capability across health and WASH systems alike. In LMIC Research Leadership as Eligibility, Not Encouragement, Wellcome anchors the dominant signal of the month with three separate major calls that all require or strongly center LMIC leadership in their basic eligibility architecture. Wellcome’s ESIC Hubs (£1.5-£1.9M per hub over 3-5 years) explicitly requires an LMIC-based lead applicant, treating Global South leadership as a design constraint rather than a participation goal. Wellcome’s Infectious Disease Clinical Trial Development Award funds transdisciplinary teams whose lead must be a mid-career or established researcher based at an organization in Africa, South Asia, or Southeast Asia. Wellcome’s larger Infectious Disease Clinical Trial Award (£1M-£8M for optimizing licensed interventions) requires the administering organization to be in eligible LMIC regions and at least 50% of applicants based there. Around Wellcome, the same pattern shows up at smaller scale and across funders: CHINNOVA channels $1M into West and Central African research institutions for climate-health work; IBRO’s Neuroscience Training Grants explicitly tier ceilings by region of residence with Africa receiving the highest amount ($5,000); IHME’s GBD Emerging Researcher Award reserves at least one of its two annual awards for an LMIC researcher; Sidaction’s HIV Cure call funds research teams across France, the Netherlands, and eligible African countries with a minimum two-country collaboration requirement. Taken together, these calls signal a meaningful shift in how research equity is being operationalized — not as encouragement language at the bottom of a call, but as a structural feature of who can lead, where the work must be administered, and what proportion of the team must be regionally rooted. In Pharma-Funded Independent Medical Education and Use-Inspired Research, the lineup this month is unusually deep. Pfizer alone runs four parallel calls under independent education and quality improvement frameworks: a Migraine and Women’s Health RFP (200K x 2-year, $500K pool), Migraine IME ($200K, $1M pool), JAK Inhibitor evidence-based education ($100K), and Maternal Vaccination HCP Education in Saudi Arabia ($75K), plus a separate Pediatric Pneumococcal Surveillance research call in Saudi Arabia ($400K per project). Novo Nordisk Foundation runs four parallel calls of its own at substantial scale: Infectious Diseases Catalyst Grants (DKK 60M pool, up to DKK 7M collaborative), Non-Diabetic Endocrinology Collaborative Grants (DKK 53M pool, DKK 5-10M per project), Pioneer Innovator Grant Health (DKK 1.1M), and Distinguished Innovator Grant Health (DKK 6.8M). LEO Foundation deploys DKK 2-4M per project for dermatology research excellence. Pfizer’s framing across calls deliberately separates the funding from product promotion, emphasizing measurable practice-relevant change and structural distance between scientific outputs and commercial activity. Novo Nordisk’s “use-inspired” hard filter pushes researchers toward a credible translation pathway from mechanism to deployable tool. The pattern: industry-aligned funders are running structurally independent portfolios at meaningful $ that fund implementation evidence, not promotion. In AI as Operational Capability, Not Speculation, several calls this month explicitly treat AI adoption as a near-term operational question with real evidence and governance requirements, rather than a speculative trend to be watched. Wellcome’s ESIC Hubs frames AI as “the accelerator” for evidence synthesis, asking hubs to translate technical innovation into adoption-ready workflows that can match real-world policy timelines. UNICEF Venture Fund’s new Climate Tech for Children’s Health call funds for-profit startups deploying AI, machine learning, and blockchain in low-resource environments, with a strict requirement that solutions must already have a working prototype with promising pilot results. The Water Research Foundation has launched two simultaneous AI calls treating reproducibility, cybersecurity guardrails, and human-in-the-loop deployments as core design constraints rather than nice-to-haves: one on GenAI and Agentic AI in water utilities ($200K), one on alternatives to water shutoffs that explicitly screens for implementation economics evidence. Nordic Innovation’s quantum technology call (NOK 4.5M) extends the same logic into life science and healthcare, demanding consortium-stage projects mature enough to test with real users. TEF-Health offers €300K in subsidized testing infrastructure for European healthcare AI and robotics SMEs. The pattern: funders are converting AI pilots into playbooks, requiring transfer evidence and risk controls before AI can move from experimentation to sector-wide operational practice. For LMIC-based researchers in infectious disease or evidence synthesis, the three Wellcome calls together represent the deepest concentration of LMIC-led research capital in recent memory — pair the Infectious Disease Clinical Trial Development Award (£200K, deadline May 19) as a strategic pipeline feeder into the larger Infectious Disease Clinical Trial Award (£1-£8M, deadline June 2), since the development award functions explicitly as a track into the larger trial scheme. For Nordic researchers, the four Novo Nordisk Foundation calls plus LEO Foundation and Nordic Innovation Quantum represent ~$30M in regional research capital this cycle, all with deadlines clustered in May-August. For WASH practitioners, the three Water Research Foundation calls together (each up to $200K) are a cluster worth reading across — one on AI deployment, one on shutoff alternatives, one rewarding applied innovation — and the strongest applicants will articulate how their work bridges utility operations to policy-relevant evidence. For US-based clinical researchers and educators, the four Pfizer calls plus the APF Portfolio’s 80+ programs form an unusually accessible recurring pipeline; APF’s prohibition on indirect costs is a meaningful structural feature for early-career applicants whose institutions might otherwise absorb significant overhead. Snapshot of New Opportunities Total Estimated Funding Pool: $100 Million+ USD The grants are organized into three categories: Open Calls: Current grant and opportunities with a deadline. Grants are listed by closing date. 39 open opportunities- 14 new! Rolling Applications: current grant and opportunities with rolling applications (but it’s still best to submit as early as possible). 14 rolling opportunities- 1 new opportunity! Long term planning: Grants that have closed their current rounds, but are expected to open new windows. 4 long term opportunities! A quick tip for returning readers: if you want to jump straight to the newest additions, use CTRL F to search for “New!” and navigate quickly to the latest funding opportunities This post is for paid subscribers. This helps support the time and effort it takes to curate and organize these opportunities. Subscribe To keep this accessible to everyone who needs it, we’re happy to offer pay what you can rates. You can find more details here. Open Calls: Migraine Competitive Grant Program: Migraine and Women’s Health (Quality Improvement and/or Research RFP), Pfizer.*Closing soon!* Pfizer, in collaboration with the American Headache Society, is seeking independent quality improvement and research projects that close persistent gaps in migraine care for women across the United States. The funding logic centers on measurable, practice-relevant change: proposals should generate actionable evidence, tools, or system improvements that can be shared and used widely, not just within a single site. Priority areas span menstrual migraine and screening in women’s health settings, the role of hormonal fluctuations across the lifespan, sex-specific risk factors, comorbidities and quality-of-life burden, and disparities in outcomes by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. The call is structured as a two-step competitive process with an initial Letter of Intent, with the strongest concepts expected to translate scientific insight into implementable improvements in diagnosis, management, and equity. Geographies: United States. Who can apply: U.S.-based organizations (not individuals), including professional schools, healthcare institutions, professional organizations, and other entities focused on healthcare improvement. Funding amount: Up to USD $200,000 total over 2 years; total pool USD $500,000. Targeted Sectors / SDGs: Health; Focus areas: migraine, women’s health, quality improvement, clinical research, menstrual migraine, health disparities. Deadline: LOI: May 5, 2026; Full proposal (by invitation): August 28, 2026. Learn more and apply here. This RFP rewards “shareable impact”: the most competitive submissions will pair rigorous methods with a clear plan for system uptake and dissemination beyond the originating institution. ReSSARC: Strengthening the Health Sector and Food Security in the Central African Republic (AID 013381/01/0) Call for Proposals, Italian Agency for Development Cooperation (AICS). *Closing soon!* AICS is seeking a limited set of high-capacity humanitarian partners to deliver an integrated package that stabilizes essential health services while reducing acute malnutrition and strengthening food security resilience in priority areas of the Central African Republic. The funder’s logic is explicitly nexus-based: proposals should meet urgent, life-saving needs while reinforcing local systems, coordination mechanisms, and community-level capacity so results persist beyond the emergency window. AICS emphasizes inclusion and protection outcomes, expecting gender-sensitive design and explicit measures for groups facing compounded vulnerability, including women, children under five, internally displaced people, and people with disabilities. The call also signals a localization pathway, encouraging stronger collaboration with national NGOs and balanced partnerships, alongside clear coordination with existing cluster and humanitarian actors to minimize duplication and improve coverage. Geographies: Central African Republic (Bangui, Ombella-Mpoko, Ouham, Ouham-Pende, Lim-Pende, Lobaye). Who can apply: Non-profit organizations registered with AICS, plus eligible non-profits without an office in Italy that have a pre-existing collaboration agreement with an AICS-listed organization. Funding amount: Total pool EUR €1,800,000; max EUR €800,000 (single applicant) or EUR €1,000,000 (ATS). Targeted Sectors / SDGs: Health; Focus areas: malnutrition prevention and treatment, maternal and child health, community health services, food security and resilience, localization partnerships Deadline: May 5, 2026. Learn more and apply here. This call is structured to reward partners who can link frontline service delivery to system durability and localization, not just short-term coverage gains. Contracts for Innovation in drug and alcohol addiction healthcare, Innovate UK. *Closing soon!* Innovate UK, on behalf of the Office for Life Sciences Addiction Healthcare Goals program, is procuring R&D to accelerate innovations that can improve treatment outcomes, strengthen recovery, and reduce harm and deaths linked to drug and alcohol addiction. The competition is positioned as a market-facing readiness push: selected projects are expected to advance solutions toward later-stage validation, generate evidence of user acceptability and UK market fit, and map credible routes through regulatory and certification requirements. Innovate UK signals a preference for innovations that can be field-tested in relevant UK settings and progressed to TRL 6 or 7, with practical plans for commercialization after contract completion. This structure favors applicants that can execute most work in-house, co-develop with service providers and people with lived experience, and translate technical progress into deployable tools for addiction healthcare delivery. Geographies: United Kingdom. Who can apply: Single organizations of any size (including EU, EEA, or international) leading delivery, with most work and key deliverables carried out in the UK; subcontractors for specialist skills only. Funding amount: GBP £200,000–1.5 million per project (inclusive of VAT); Total pool: GBP £20 million (across two strands). Targeted Sectors / SDGs: Health; Focus areas: Mental Health, Health Systems Strengthening, Research & Development, Technology Access. Deadline: May 6, 2026 (11:00am). Learn more and apply here. This call uses procurement to pull near-market addiction innovations toward operational proof and adoption pathways in UK services.
Curing U.S. Health Care, Part II
On March 23, 2010 President Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — usually referred to either as the Affordable Care Act or as Obamacare — into law. Joe Biden, then the vice president, could be overheard whispering “This is a big fucking deal.” And it was. The ACA, which went into full effect in 2014, created a system of subsidies and regulations designed to make health insurance available to many Americans who had previously been left out. It worked: In 2010 there were 47 million uninsured people in America, but by 2016 this number had dropped to 27 million. This still fell short of the universal health insurance that every other advanced nation has, but it was real progress. In 2017, during his first term, Donald Trump tried to destroy the ACA, replacing it with the American Health Care Act — legislation that would have eliminated most of the provisions that expanded health insurance under Obama. At the time the Congressional Budget Office projected that the G.O.P.’s replacement bill would nearly double the number of Americans without health insurance, increasing the total uninsured population by 23 million and undoing all of the progress achieved under the ACA. However, the attack on Obamacare failed by one vote in the Senate, and the ensuing public backlash against the G.O.P. delivered a large victory in the 2018 midterms to the Democrats. After these developments many observers assumed that the ACA had become a more or less permanent feature of American life. Such assessments, however, failed to take into account the deep hostility of the U.S. right toward policies that expand access to healthcare. As we’ll see, this hostility goes back generations. And the second Trump administration has taken actions that the CBO projects will add 16 million people to the rolls of the uninsured by 2034. How did we get here? And now what? Today’s primer will analyze the political economy of U.S. healthcare since the 1940s and the combination of danger and opportunity created by the current crisis. Beyond the paywall I will discuss the following: US health care on the eve of Trump II 80 years of US health politics The Obamacare story The new assault on healthcare
Las Vegas Review-Journal Launches VegasBusiness, a New Multiplatform Business Brand Serving Southern Nevada Leaders
/PRNewswire/ --The Las Vegas Review Journal today announced the launch of VegasBusiness, a new multiplatform brand designed to deliver authoritative reporting,...
The politics of Trump's ballroom
WEST PALM BEACH, Florida — President Trump was about a half-hour into his second speech of the day, musing about the danger he faced last week at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. “Saturday night, it was good for one thing. People are loving my ballroom now,” Trump told a crowd last night. “That’s the only thing. They love my ballroom.” Ever since he was hustled off stage at the Washington Hilton last week, after an attempted shooter breached the dinner’s security perimeter and sent guests diving to the floor, the president has argued that the incident is proof for why his White House ballroom is needed. Only his planned $400 million, 90,000-square-foot project, Trump has reasoned, can keep a president truly safe at major events. It’s true that a bunch of GOP lawmakers have jumped on board with new legislation and words of support for Trump’s project. House Speaker Mike Johnson, Sen. Rand Paul and other prominent Republicans went on TV to talk about the need for a ballroom. But as we reported at The Washington Post this week, “people” aren’t really changing their minds on Trump’s ballroom. A new Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll found that most Americans still oppose the ballroom project: 56 percent against it versus 28 percent in favor. The numbers are the same as a poll from last year, the Post’s polling whiz Scott Clement found. Other new polls have found similar margins, too. “I’m just not a giant fan, especially of extravagance,” one independent voter told me. “I mean, in the era we’re in right now, given how much people are struggling, it just doesn’t make a lot of sense to me to spend $400 million on a ballroom.” How we got here The Washington Post has followed Trump’s ballroom project very closely. (My colleague Jonathan Edwards may have written the most total words of any reporter about the project; I may be second.) The project exploded as a national issue after Trump tore down the White House’s East Wing after initially promising not to touch it.1 Historic preservationists sued, and about a month ago, a federal judge ordered a halt to ballroom construction.2 The only way the ballroom could proceed, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled, was if Congress explicitly authorized Trump’s plans. (An appeals court has stayed Leon’s order for now.) The judge’s ruling raised an obvious question: would Congress authorize the project? Keep in mind, “authorization” doesn’t mean that Congress needs to necessarily fund the planned $400 million project; they could just sign off on the private donations that Trump has solicited to pay for the ballroom.3 But GOP lawmakers really didn’t want to talk about the ballroom, we reported at The Post just a few weeks ago. One major reason was the ballroom’s bad polling — not a small detail with many of their own midterm elections looming. The White House Correspondents’ Dinner incident, and Trump’s advocacy, may have changed the political conversation around the ballroom. As this week’s polling shows, it doesn’t seem to have affected the fundamental questions surrounding the project. To put it another way, voters still say that cost-of-living concerns are top-of-mind heading into the midterms. Some Republican and independent voters have told me that they see the ballroom as a vanity project that will help Trump but do nothing for their own lives. It might not help Republicans that Trump has dismissed some of the cost-of-living concerns. He’s described “affordability” as a buzzword manufactured by Democrats whose policies helped cause inflation. “They’ve got one good line of bullshit,” Trump said in his first speech yesterday, delivered at a Florida retirement community known as The Villages. Thanks for reading Dan Diamond's newsletter! Subscribe for free to stay up-to-date on my work. Subscribe Speaking of Trump’s speeches… I’m down in Florida because it’s my “duty week” as a White House reporter — basically, I follow the president wherever he goes. (And then hand the baton off to one of my Washington Post colleagues next week.) As part of my duty week, I’ve spent a few days covering the White House’s reaction to Saturday’s attempted shooting, including officials’ review of the security protocols to protect the president. Trump was restrained in the wake of the incident, addressing the nation from the White House briefing room about the need for peaceful dialogue and trying to lower the temperature. But he’s clearly been itching to get back out of the White House, and I was curious to hear how his Florida speeches would go. And — to my ears — it was an unburdened Trump. Not the one we saw Saturday night in the White House briefing room, but the one we witnessed on the campaign trail in 2024. Loose, dropping profanities, mocking everyone, including members of his team. “We have a man here who knows more about Medicaid, Medicare, medical crap than any human being. Where’s Dr. Oz? Where the hell are you, stand up,” Trump said, referring to Mehmet Oz, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. “It’s the most boring trip I’ve ever made. He’s telling me about Medicare, Medicaid. All I want to do is take care of you, I don’t care. I said, ‘You work out the details.’” I wrote up the speech, as Trump headed to West Palm Beach to deliver more remarks a few hours later. The White House didn’t like my story. Their rapid-response team called it the work of a “total loser”4 and “a miserable TDS-ridden moron.” You can be the judge of whether it’s a fair story or the product of someone afflicted with “TDS.” (The White House’s shorthand for “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”) I’ve pasted the story below with a gift link, meaning that you don’t need to be a Washington Post subscriber to read it. It might prompt you for an email address, though. Meanwhile, I’ll be down in Florida for the rest of the weekend, covering the president. It’s TBD whether those stories will be deemed TDS-afflicted, too. 1 Jonathan details the past six months of ballroom fallout, reactions and the implications for executive authority here. I also had a great time talking about Trump’s ballroom and other projects with Australia’s ABC News Daily on a podcast this week. 2 The judge allowed underground construction and national security-related work to continue. But that hasn’t been enough for Trump, who says the ballroom itself is essential for his protection. 3 The ballroom donors include companies like Palantir, Google and Amazon. For transparency, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post, where I work. No one has ever interfered with our team’s coverage of the ballroom or our mentions of Amazon or Bezos, and if that changed, I’d speak out. 4 To be fair, I’ve spent the morning working on stories and writing this Substack post rather than enjoying the beautiful Florida weather. So they may be onto something about who’s winning and who’s losing.
Punk Politics/Camp Costume is a fashion exhibition curated by (some of my) brilliant Parsons students!
I have the most amazing students. I teach Fashion Journalism at Parsons, as part of its MA Fashion Studies degree, though I have students of all different disciplines throughout the New School in my class — from fine-art photographers to investigative journalists to textile designers. And I learn about all sorts of fascinating things from them, like that designers are adding faux sweat stains to their garments now (part of a trend piece about “anatomy core”) and that real “French girl style” is actually about being “cunti cunta” (aka loud, rude, too much, liberated). So when I found out that some of my students were curating a fashion exhibition opening tonight(!!!), I just knew that it would be brilliant too. Wearable Art is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe It’s called Punk Politics/Camp Costuming1, and it’s up through May 10 at La Sudestada, the wonderful gallery and concept store in Greenpoint, Brooklyn. I asked the exhibit’s lead curator, Ella Birney (a talented costume and knitwear designer from Belfast who also happens to be in my class), all about it. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. Tell me about the idea of this exhibition and how it came about. Ella Birney: For our Fashion Curation class, we had to pitch [exhibition] proposals to our professor, Jessica [Glasscock], and I really wanted to continue on the themes that I was exploring in my BA when I was studying in London a couple of years ago. My BA was very punk-inspired and very political. Everything I do, as you know from my writing, always has a slight Irish, political twist to it2. So in my BA project, it was looking at knitwear as a conveyor for exploring political identity in somewhere like Ireland, where identity is such a point of contention. And looking at the images that I generated from that project, there was something so camp about the whole thing. Like, it’s so playful and in bad taste to do a political message — like a knitted Union Jack — out of mohair. There’s something very camp about that. So that’s where it kind of became punk politics/camp costuming — looking at how from the 1970s to now there’s been protest through costume and clothing. What was your BA in? It was fashion textiles, knitwear. Very craft heavy, which — craft is never taken seriously either. That’s also a kind of spin [on the punk/camp thing]. The Union Jack knit that you made is included in the show — what is camp about knitting a Union Jack out of mohair? The whole ethos of camp is kind of bad taste, doing things that are tongue in cheek and a bit wink, wink, nudge, nudge. Like, this is a bit silly. Everything I do is like, this is a bit silly. Like, being from the North of Ireland, everything you do is political. So it’s like, everything is going to be looked at in a certain lens anyway, so we may as well lean into it. So the Union Jack was because I come from a mixed marriage — Protestant-Catholic. And in the North of Ireland, that’s still a big deal. And even though I’m a Catholic and brought up in a very like Catholic Nationalist family, there [were] Union Jacks [the symbol of the United Kingdom] on my street. So I was like, then I’m gonna make your Union Jack out of knitwear. And then that kind of all linked back to the punk movement that Vivian Westwood forefronted in the late 70s, [with her stores] Let It Rock and Seditionaries. How did you source your items? Once we decided on this exhibition idea, everyone in the class was put to [think about] what do you think can fit into punk politics/camp costuming and finding designers that fit that brief. Me and my co-curators, Dulcinea Flores and Allison Gramando, made a brief to send out — with a mood board and color stories, stuff like that — and then everyone kind of got to work emailing people. We reached out to other Parsons grads. Even through Instagram stories we’ve been able to reach so many people who were like, Yeah, of course, I’ll write something for this, or Please — let me submit stuff. It actually was quite easy sourcing things. … The Parsons thing gets you quite far. What were some great pieces you got? There’s a Brooklyn-based, nonbinary artist called Buzz Slutsky. I can’t even remember how I found them, but I came across this crazy, shoe thing — they had made all these different shoes out of papier-mâché, and the story behind them is so fantastic, so interesting. They were just so obliging, like, Of course, you can have these for a few weeks. I was really happy about that. And then we have art from a collective here called Art Comes First. And they lent loads of really amazing pieces that just tied everything together. You have your Union Jack knit in the show too. Any other pieces that you made? There’s three of my BA mohair knits. There’s the Union Jack. There’s a mohair with the word “No” — which is based on an old political campaign in Ireland that was “Ulster says no to sodomy.” And then there’s another one that is red, white and blue, like the Union Jack, but has the word “Catholic” on it and lots of holy medals. I’m so happy I got to include those. How many pieces are in the show? Between 49 and 52, something like that. A load of clothing and accessories, shoes. There’s a Brooklyn-based Irish photographer who’s given us photos. There’s also a shopping cart that is an art piece by Art Comes First that has gold knuckle dusters as the handles. There’s also lots of T-shirts, original pins from the 70s and 80s that were from people’s dads. I also brought my record player, and all of [co-curator] Allison’s dad’s original albums so everyone could play records. Oh my gosh! Yeah, it’s cool. Anything else you would like to add? If we get to do an exhibition, why would we not make it political in this day and age? I hope that people come. There’s a lot of history, because it starts back in the 70s. It’s not like chronological or anything, but there are historical objects. I hope people come out of it thinking, out of all the really horrendous decades of the 70s and 80s and 90s, all these amazing subcultures happened. There are horrible political times, but there’s art that comes out of it that lasts. Punk Politics/Camp Costume is on view May 1-10 at La Sudestada, 67 West St. Suite 513, Greenpoint, Brooklyn. RSVP for the opening Friday May 1 6pm-8pm here. There’s also a button-making and patch-making workshop and artist talk May 9. Follow the show’s Instagram page @punkxcamp.parsons. Special shout out to all the students who put on this show: Ella Birney (lead curator), Dulcinea Flores (curator), Allison Gramando (curator), Pierre Sanon (lead exhibition designer), Eliana Daneshvari (exhibition designer), Reilly Lowell (editor), Jess Gayo (researcher/writer), Joyce Gayo (researcher/writer), Maria Magdalena Ugarte Montero (researcher/writer), Cassidy Colarik (exhibition press officer), Shelby Shovein (educator), Sarah Mahnke-Baum (educator), Trinidy Coleman (graphic designer), and Leonie Soravia (project manager). Jessica Glasscock was the faculty advisor. 1 The website is definitely worth checking out. 2 This is true!
Apotex becomes the first Canadian‑based pharmaceutical company to receive Health Canada approval for a generic equivalent of Ozempic®
/PRNewswire/ - Apotex Inc. ("Apotex" or the "Company"), Canada's largest Canadian‑based global health company, today announced that Health Canada has approved...
Peacock Takes Flight: United Launches New Inflight Entertainment Channel
/PRNewswire/ -- United today announced the launch of a new, dedicated inflight entertainment channel featuring content from NBCUniversal's streaming home,...
Ecovyst Announces Agreement to Acquire Calabrian Sulfur Dioxide & Sulfur Derivatives Business
/PRNewswire/ -- Ecovyst Inc. (NYSE: ECVT), a leading provider of virgin sulfuric acid and regenerated sulfuric acid products and services ("Ecovyst"),...
Live Nation Entertainment To Participate In MoffettNathanson's Media, Internet & Communications Conference And J.P. Morgan's 2026 Global Technology, Media And Communications Conference
/PRNewswire/ -- Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. (NYSE: LYV), the world's leading live entertainment company, announced today that management will be presenting...
Seton Hall Students Discuss Big Economic Ideas on Campus and in Nebras
From campus discussions to a national conference, students engaged deeply with economic ideas, strengthening analysis and communication skills.
Governor Reeves Announces Investment in Mississippi’s Youth Mental Health Services
Governor Tate Reeves today announced the state of Mississippi is deploying $13,464,444 to support mental health systems for Mississippi children, youth and students.
Cardinal Health Reports Third Quarter Fiscal Year 2026 Results and Raises Outlook
Revenue increased 11% to $60.9 billion GAAP1 operating earnings decreased 30% to $509 million; GAAP diluted EPS decreased 20% to $1.69 Non-GAAP operating earnings increased 18% to $956 million;...
Sony clarifies recent PlayStation DRM update
PlayStation fans and gaming preservations have been alarmed since late last week that a new 30-day timer attached attached to newly-purchased digital games for PlayStation 4 and 5 might render those games unplayable if the system they’re on is offline for longer than a month. But a rep from Sony told Game File today that new system will require only a single online check before it functions as a perpetual license for the digitally purchased game. That is consistent with a newer theory that emerged by gamers testing the 30-day timer over the last two days. “Players can continue to access and play their purchased games as usual,” a rep for PlayStation told me over email. “A one-time online check is required after purchase to confirm the game’s license, after which no further check-ins are needed.” The rep’s explanation squares with the current understanding among players about what’s happening. A multi-day mystery A post last Friday by YouTuber Lance MacDonald spread awareness over the 30-day timer. Quickly, players began stress-testing the system, removing a battery within their PlayStations and checking what would happen if their systems were offline past the timer window. They noticed that setting a PS4 or PS5 to be the “primary” console—a common Sony-authorized method to retain rights to a digital game—wasn’t overriding the 30-day limit. On Tuesday came the breakthrough: A gamer called Andshrew on the Resetera forums posted the results of some tasting. They found that digital games purchased on PS4/PS5 after some time in mid-April would get a 30-day timer that could then be removed and replaced with a perpetual license that would allow the game to be played offline. The transition to the perpetual license occurred some number of days after the digital game was purchased and the system was connected to the internet. They believed that a PlayStation’s online check-in would trigger the license change no sooner than 15 days after the user had purchased the game. This synced with the theory that Sony’s new system is related to the 14-day window that PlayStation users have to request a refund for digitally purchased games. The new timer/check-in system could be a way to defeat some exploit in that refund system, some users theorized. Game File is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe In a follow-up, I asked the Sony rep if the 15-day timeline is accurate or if the perpetual license can be activated sooner after purchase. If they share more, I’ll update this post. Sony has not said why they’ve introduced the timer and whether it is designed to stop people from exploiting the refund system. But their explanation suggests that this new DRM method should not result in long-term loss of access to digitally purchased games, just because a PlayStation is offline for a month or Sony’s servers are down. Xbox flashback For many some gamers, the initial reporting of the 30-day timer conjured memories of Microsoft’s disastrous May 2013 announcement of the Xbox One, which was going to require an internet-connected check-in once a day, lest your games become unplayable.1 After widespread backlash, Microsoft abandoned that plan, ahead of the Xbox One’s launch. 1 Fun fact: That 24-hour check-in detail was my scoop from an interview I had that day with then-Xbox exec Phil Harrison. I was EiC of Kotaku at the time and rushing from one Xbox One preview appointment on Microsoft’s campus to another. I phoned the news in to reporter Jason Schreier, who wrote it up for the site.
Mississippi Launches Rural Health Transformation Program Office and Website
Governor Tate Reeves today announced the establishment of the Mississippi Rural Health Transformation Program (RHTP) Office and launch of the official Mississippi RHTP website.
Never miss the action: FOX One brings streaming sports and more to Delta Sync
SkyMiles® Members can now enjoy 24-hour complimentary access to the FOX One streaming platform — home to sports, news, weather, business, entertainment and more — through Delta Sync Wi-Fi. The new partnership brings more than 5,000 hours of live programming on board and positions Delta Sync as a premium destination for major sports moments.
Pearl Health Releases 2026 Top 50 Value-Based Care Thinkers Report
/PRNewswire/ -- Pearl Health today announced the release of its fifth annual Top 50 Value-Based Care Thinkers Report, recognizing the leaders driving...
Chula's Chemistry Metaverse Harnesses Gaming to Transform Science Education
/PRNewswire/ -- Developed under the Metaverse of Academic Nexus for Global Opportunities (MANGOs), the platform allows students to enter a virtual "digital...
Politics Chat, April 28, 2026
In which I try to answer your questions about modern politics....
Paradigm Health Announces Collaboration with the FDA to Transform Regulatory Review of Clinical Trial Data
/PRNewswire/ -- Today, Paradigm Health announced the launch of a landmark research collaboration with the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) focused on...
New Verana Health AI Agent Boosts Efficiency and Compliance in MIPS Submissions
/PRNewswire/ -- Verana Health®, a digital health company dedicated to revolutionizing patient care and clinical research through real-world data (RWD), has...
Neuroinfectious Diseases Research Workshop: Advancing Translational Science and Clinical Innovation
The Neuroinfectious Diseases Research Workshop will be a two-day scientific meeting designed to accelerate research, foster collaboration, and build capacity in the field of neurological infections. Hosted at the NIH Neuroscience Center (NSC, Executive Boulevard), this meeting will bring together clinician-scientists, laboratory investigators, translational researchers, government partners, and trainees committed to advancing understanding of neuroinfectious
Holland & Knight Health Dose: April 28, 2026 | Insights
The U.S. Senate adopted U.S. Con. Res. 33, a concurrent resolution that details the shell of the reconciliation package will fund the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Political Entrepreneurs or Bandits? The “Criminal” Origins of Peripheral Rebellions -
Political Entrepreneurs or Bandits? The “Criminal” Origins of Peripheral Rebellions By Janet I. Lewis and Stephen Rangazas, George Washington University How and why do armed groups that become known as “rebels” initially use violence? New datasets [...]
Sibel Health Awarded a $3.5 million ARPA-H Direct-to-Phase II SBIR Contract to Develop a First-In-Class Wearable Sensor for Continuous Edema Monitoring
/PRNewswire/ -- Sibel Health, an award winning medical technology company, today announced that it has been awarded a $3.5 million dollar Direct-to-Phase II...
Algeria eliminates trachoma as a public health problem
The World Health Organization (WHO) reports validating Algeria as having eliminated trachoma as a public health problem. This makes Algeria the 29th country globally to achieve this significant milestone. "Algeria’s elimination of trachoma is a historic triumph that connects the past, present, and future of public health, and is rooted in a century-long commitment," said Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General. "This milestone proves that with sustained political will and on-the-ground leadership from committed health professionals, we can eliminate neglected tropical diseases and build a healthier, more resilient future for all." For decades, Algeria implemented the WHO-recommended SAFE strategy to eliminate trachoma. These activities included provision of surgery to treat the late blinding stage of the disease (“trachomatous trichiasis”, TT), conducting mass administration of antibiotic treatment, carrying out public awareness campaigns to promote facial cleanliness and personal hygiene as well as improvement in access to water supply and sanitation. Trachoma is the first neglected tropical disease to be eliminated in Algeria. Trachoma is a disease of the eye caused by infection with the bacterium Chlamydia trachomatis. It is a public health problem in 30 countries and is responsible for the blindness or visual impairment of about 1.9 million people. Blindness from trachoma is difficult to reverse. Based on November 2025 data, 97 million people live in trachoma endemic areas and are at risk of trachoma blindness. Infection spreads through personal contact (via hands, clothes, bedding or hard surfaces) and by flies that have been in contact with discharge from the eyes or nose of an infected person. With repeated episodes of infection over many years, the eyelashes may be drawn in so that they rub on the surface of the eye. This causes pain and may permanently damage the cornea. In 2024, 87,349 people received surgical treatment for advanced stage of the disease, and 44.4 million people were treated with antibiotics. Global antibiotic coverage in 2024 was 39%. Outbreak News Today is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe
Can American Politics Ever Be ‘Normal’ Again, AFTER Trump?
As far as Donald Trump has fallen, says former Republican focus group maestro Sarah Longwell of The Bulwark, he needs to fall further before the country can decisively move forward. Can Democrats make it happen, or even Trump himself? Longwell joins Zeteo’s John Harwood for a live conversation on Substack to break it all down. Subscribe Watch the full video above …
Hormel Foods Completes Sale of Whole-Bird Turkey Business to Life-Science Innovations
/PRNewswire/ -- Hormel Foods Corporation (NYSE: HRL), a Fortune 500 global branded food company, today announced it has completed the previously announced sale...
Hormel Foods Completes Sale of Whole-Bird Turkey Business to Life-Science Innovations
/PRNewswire/ -- Hormel Foods Corporation (NYSE: HRL), a Fortune 500 global branded food company, today announced it has completed the previously announced sale...
Interview transcript: Game File x Xbox's Asha Sharma and Matt Booty
I’m trying something different today: offering all Game File readers a free write-up of a big interview, while also offering the interview transcript to paying readers. If you want to get the essence of my conversation with new Xbox CEO Asha Sharma and Xbox chief content officer Matt Booty, with context around their comments, check out the free piece. If you want more depth, this transcript is for you. I’ve lightly edited the conversation for clarity and flow, but you’ll still get plenty of Sharma and Booty’s thoughts, my questions, and a good sense of how our conversation progressed—complete with follow-ups, some conversational detours, and the best quotes that made it into the free piece.
Seton Hall Sports Poll Celebrates 20 Years
The Seton Hall Sports Poll is celebrating its 20th anniversary, marking two decades since its first press release was published February 7, 2006.
Seton Hall Sports Poll Celebrates 20 Years
The Seton Hall Sports Poll is celebrating its 20th anniversary, marking two decades since its first press release was published February 7, 2006.
Structure, Agency, and Structural Reform: The Case of the European Central Bank -
Structure, Agency, and Structural Reform: The Case of the European Central Bank By Benjamin Braun, London School of Economics and Political Science, Donato Di Carlo, The London School of Economics and Political Science, Sebastian Diessner, [...]
Top-ranked university expands into The Northeast Science & Technology Center
/PRNewswire/ -- The Northeast Science and Technology (NEST) Center is officially the research home to four professors and 26 students from the New Jersey...
Stevie® Award Winners Announced in The 24th Annual American Business Awards®
/PRNewswire/ -- The Stevie® Awards, organizers of the world's premier business awards programs, today announced the Gold, Silver, and Bronze Stevie winners in...
Centene Foundation Reports $34.9 Million Invested in Community Health, Education and Social Services in 2025
[auto]
BillingPlatform Honored as Gold Stevie® Award Winner in 2026 American Business Awards®
/PRNewswire/ -- BillingPlatform, the leader in enterprise monetization, today announced it was named the winner of a Gold Stevie® Award in the Subscription...
American Industrial Partners to Acquire Honeywell's Warehouse and Workflow Solutions Business
/PRNewswire/ -- American Industrial Partners ("AIP"), an operationally oriented industrials investor, today announced that a fund managed by it has signed a...
Simply Business Launches Insurance App for Small Businesses in ChatGPT in the U.S.
/PRNewswire/ -- Simply Business, a digital insurance marketplace for small businesses, today announced the launch of its business insurance app in ChatGPT in...
The Symbolic Politics of Status in the MAGA Movement -
The Symbolic Politics of Status in the MAGA Movement By Biko Koenig, Franklin & Marshall College and Tali Mendelberg, Princeton University Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork among Make America Great Again (MAGA) activists during the 2020 [...]
Gamers sue Nintendo over tariff refunds, saying consumers should get the money back
Two gamers have filed a class action lawsuit against Nintendo, alleging that the company will be unjustly enriching itself with any refund it secures from the U.S. government over widespread tariffs last year that, among other things, hiked the prices of Nintendo hardware and accessories. “Unless restrained by this Court, Nintendo stands to recover the same tariff payments twice—once from consumers through higher prices and again from the federal government through tariff refunds, including interest paid by the government on those funds,” the suit states. Nintendo sued the U.S. government to secure a tariff refund in March, after the Supreme Court struck down the tariffs a month prior, saying they were illegally implemented by President Donald Trump.. The gamers who have sued, California-based Gregory Hoffert and Washington-based Prashant Sharan, both say they purchased Nintendo goods that had increased in price due to tariffs, according to the complaint. They filed their suit in the Western District court of Nintendo of America’s home state of Washington and are seeking class action status to represent all people in the U.S. who purchased price-hiked Nintendo goods between February 1, 2025 and February 24, 2026. They allege that Nintendo’s recovery of any tariff refunds would constitute unjust enrichment and violate Washington state consumer protection law. Similar class action lawsuits pressing companies to pass on tariff refunds have been previously filed against FedEx, UPS and eyeglass importer EssilorLuxottica. The tariffs were announced in early April, and by mid-month, Nintendo had announced $5 price increases for controllers for the then-forthcoming Switch 2. In August, it raised the price of the original Switch. In their suit, the gamers cite comments from Nintendo executives connecting the tariffs to price increases. In May 2025, a month after the tariffs were imposed, Nintendo CEO Shuntaro Furukawa told investors “Our basic policy is that for any country or region, if tariffs are imposed, we recognize them as a part of the cost and incorporate them into the price.” Nintendo’s March lawsuit, along with tariff-recovery suits from hundreds of other companies was immediately put on hold pending the implementation of a refund system. The U.S. government announced the beginning of the refund process earlier this week. Companies could receive as much as $160 billion, per CNBC. In March 2026, after Nintendo filed its lawsuit to recover the cost of the tariffs, I asked the company if they planned to pass their refund on to customers who’d paid increased prices. The company’s response acknowledged the existence of the lawsuit but avoided answering that question: “We can confirm that we filed a request. We have nothing else to share on this topic.” Even a promise to consumers may not have spared Nintendo this week’s lawsuit. FedEx previously promised to pass its tariff refunds on to consumers. They’ve been sued over them anyway.
Los Angeles Residents to Gain Faster Access to New Affordable Housing through Health Net's $10 Million Investment in "Guarantee Fund"
Partnership with LA4LA will accelerate construction of affordable and mixed-use housing across LA County SACRAMENTO, Calif., April 22, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- Health Net, one of California's most...
X makes it 1,900 percent more expensive to post links
For Techmeme, the price hike has forced a major change.
Cohen & Gresser Welcomes Leading Entertainment Litigator Jeffrey M. Movit as Partner
/PRNewswire/ -- Cohen & Gresser is pleased to welcome Jeffrey M. Movit as a partner in its Litigation & Arbitration group, based in New York and Palo Alto. He...
Paradigm Health Launches SPIRE to Accelerate Late-Phase Clinical Evidence Generation
/PRNewswire/ -- Paradigm Health today announced SPIRE — Scalable Platform for Integrated Research & Evidence — a new model for post-approval and late-stage...
Shaky political science: using "simulated" elections over real-world elections
[Dear DSOS readers – this article is the latest in our “Shaky Political Science” series. In our 38 page report, “Shaky political ‘science’ misses mark on ranked choice voting,” released in early December, we examined over 40 studies focused on ranked choice voting. We found that many of these studies suffered from puzzling research methodologies, poorly constructed surveys, unrealistic simulated elections, cherry picked data, and faulty analyses that often were contradicted by results from real-world elections (a link to our full paper is here). Here are links to the first three articles in our series: the first one summarizing the overall results of our report, the second one analyzing a study co-authored by University of Minnesota academic Larry Jacobs, which was one of the most error-prone of all the research we reviewed in our report, and a third article showing an admirable example of two political scientists holding two other political scientists accountable for their flawed, sloppy research]. In this fourth article in our “Shaky Political Science” series, we shine a spotlight on seven studies that were web-hosted and funded by New America’s Political Reform Program and its Electoral Reform Research Group (the ERRG is an ad hoc committee headed by New America’s Political Reform Program and joined by the American Enterprise Institute, the Unite America Institute and Stanford University’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law). This research consortium has been led by Lee Drutman, senior fellow with New America’s Political Reform Program. These seven studies are simply not credible from any objective standard about how political “science” is supposed to illuminate our understanding of either ranked choice voting or politics in general. The feature that six of these seven studies have in common is that they all used surveys – artificial, simulated elections -- to attempt to say something cogent or interesting about ranked choice voting (RCV) elections. None of them used real world data from actual RCV elections – either the 1000+ elections in the US or the many thousands of elections from places like Australia, Ireland and elsewhere where RCV has been used for 100 years. While a few of these studies conclude with some mixed positives about RCV, our analysis here is content neutral. The idea that, with a political reform like RCV, you can ask respondents in a mock, artificial election to vote with that method, with only the barest of explanation about how RCV works or its likely impacts (i.e. no spoiler candidates, majority winners, voters liberated to pick their favorite candidates, coalition-building), and then ask them their thoughts/reactions about voting in that system, with fake candidates and no real campaigning, no real exposure to an actual election or actual candidates, rests on some very puzzling assumptions. The findings of these seven studies actually are contradicted by the findings from many other studies based on real-world RCV elections. These New America studies also failed to list the real-world RCV studies in their own citations, instead including those studies that reinforced their conclusions. The seven studies featured in this article were chosen because they form a cohesive cohort which precisely illustrates one of the main points of our research paper, namely that using surveys, i.e. artificial elections, or mathematical/theoretical models, instead of real-world data, is in fact “shaky political science.” Below are summaries of our analysis of five of the seven New America studies. You can read our complete analysis of all seven studies at our paper, “Shaky political ‘science’ misses mark on ranked choice voting.” Choosing to “Vote As Usual” by Andre Blais, Carolina Plescia, and Semra Sevi. New America. (Blais et al., 2021). This study, web-hosted and funded by New America’s Political Reform Program and its Electoral Reform Research Group, used two surveys in which respondents completed ballots for simulated elections using plurality, approval, RCV and point (Score) voting. In both cases the authors provided the respondents with only minimal explanation of each method. For example, the entire explanation for RCV was “For this vote, rank the candidates from your first to your last choice (you do not need to rank them all). This is called the ranked vote.” That’s it. The study did not provide any context or explanation to survey respondents about why she/he might want to rank multiple candidates. Participants were not even told that ballots would be tabulated using an “instant” runoff, not to mention any description of RCVs ability to eliminate the spoiler effect or liberate voters to rank their favorite candidates without fear of helping the “greater evil” candidate to win. That’s like taking an iPhone back in time to 1970 and asking someone if they like it better than their rotary phone without explaining how it works. Their first survey targeted states that held 2020 Super Tuesday Democratic primaries and used the real candidates’ names in the survey; the second survey used fictitious candidates. In other words, they surveyed respondents who had only ever participated in plurality elections, had no history or background with using RCV or any of the other methods, had no clue about its likely impacts, and did not communicate how the alternative methods would be counted, and then asked them: “How satisfied are you with using each system?” Predictably, the winner was plurality elections, the system used for president, Congress, gubernatorial and state legislative elections – in other words, the method they have been using, year after year, all their voting lives. With so little explanation of RCV and its impacts, this study is simply not credible in discovering anything useful about real-world RCV elections. It merely shows that a basic voter education campaign is needed when adopting a new election system. Additionally, the result contradicts many other post-election surveys following real RCV elections, asking opinions from voters who had just participated in a RCV election, that showed a great deal of satisfaction with RCV (see details on that in Studies 22-25 in our paper, as well as the four studies cited in the review for Study 28). Share Other studies on “satisfaction” and “understanding” make similar mistakes, in terms of basing their surveys on inadequate explanation to respondents and lack of education about context. How could any survey ever hope to measure accurately, in essence simulate a real-world election, without actual campaigning candidates, the media writing about those candidates, organizations endorsing candidates and voters being inundated with crucial information? More than anything, what these “studies” based on surveys show is that if you ask voters about something they don’t know very much about, and fail to adequately educate them, their responses will unsurprisingly reflect their confusion. Equally puzzling is that New America’s Electoral Reform Research Group, headed by political scientist Lee Drutman, found this to be a credible enough study that they not only published it but highlighted it in Drutman’s own discussion of research related to ranked choice voting. This pattern was repeated in study after study featured by New America’s Electoral Reform Research Group. For example in Ranked-Choice Voting and Political Expression: Voter Guides Narrow the Gap between Informed and Uninformed Citizens by Cheryl Boudreau, Jonathan Colner, and Scott MacKenzie, the researchers based their analysis on a survey which found that respondents who were asked to vote in a simulated RCV election, with minimal explanation of RCV or how it works, displayed less evidence of being informed about how to use RCV effectively, with the least informed voters ranking fewer candidates. As pointed out under the study above, in a real election voters are informed by a wide variety of methods, including public education by the election administration, by interested political groups, the media, and the candidates themselves who benefit from voters being aware of how to vote in the new system. In Support for Ranked-Choice Voting across Race and Partisanship by Joseph Anthony, David C. Kimball, Jack Santucci and Jamil Scott, the researchers used respondents from different parties and races voting in simulated plurality and RCV elections, who indicated their satisfaction with each voting method. Instead of using real world election results, the authors fell back on the easy, armchair and less reliable academic research methodology of making up mock elections. As with the other studies, little explanation was given of how RCV works or what its implications might be (electing majority winners or eliminating spoilers, for example). Unsurprisingly, this study found that respondents were not very satisfied with RCV. However, when the authors added an explanation that RCV has a tendency to elect more women and people of color, they found that this greater explanation increased the preference for RCV. The more voters were familiar with it, and the more they understood potential positive impacts – surprise! -- the more they were open to switching away from the status quo. Of note, the results from this study are thoroughly contradicted by a number of other studies whose data was obtained from real RCV elections with real voters. Those studies show a great deal of satisfaction with RCV. More “fake election” research An interesting wrinkle on this “research by fake elections” approach, which only served to illustrate how unreliable such “research” can become, was taken in Ranked-Choice Voting, Runoff, and Democracy: Insights from Maine and Other U.S. States by Joseph Cerrone and Cynthia McClintock_,_ also web-hosted and funded by New America’s ERRG. It gets high marks for creativity, but an eye-roll for thinking this could possibly add anything meaningful to our understanding of real world RCV elections. This study tried to determine whether RCV, plurality or two-round runoff elections provided greater voter satisfaction and acceptance of election results. To determine that, the authors conducted a survey asking if voters were satisfied with a fictional newspaper report of an election, with three different versions given to respondents – plurality, runoff and RCV, with variations of Republican/Democrat winners and variations of “come-from-behind” winners,” i.e. candidates not initially in first place but who win the “runoff.” Again, a minimal explanation of RCV or how it works was given, and the survey showed that respondents had the greatest unfamiliarity with RCV than the other methods. The unsurprising result? Respondents were much more satisfied with “come-from-behind” victories in a traditional two-round runoff election than in RCV, even though RCV is also a runoff system but with a single round of counting. Interestingly, the dissatisfaction with RCV disappeared for those who were more familiar with RCV. In fact, among those respondents who were “very familiar” with RCV, they were equally satisfied with RCV, runoff and plurality. Surprise, surprise. Again, what this study revealed, more than anything, is not only the inadequacy of the explanation for RCV given by the authors of this study, but the failure of the research format itself, thinking that such an artificial mock election could somehow simulate what actually happens in the real world in a real RCV election. Those four studies reviewed above are fitting examples of inadequate and shaky political “science.” Other studies reviewed in our paper from the New America/Electoral Reform Research Group cohort which also used mock elections included: Ranked-Choice Voting is an Acquired Taste by Joseph Anthony and David C. Kimball. New America. (Anthony et al., 2021). Ranked-Choice Voting is No Refuge for Extreme Candidates by Melissa Baker. New America. (Baker, 2021). Also included in this New America cohort is Does Ranked-Choice Voting Reduce Racial Polarization? by Yuki Atsusaka and Theodore Landsman, which actually did use real-world election results data but applied an odd and unconventional methodology to the data which relied on shaky assumptions and non-real-world scenarios that were too divorced from reality. To determine levels of “racially polarized voting,” the researchers imagined “ethnic parties,” by which they mean political parties for each ethnic group, which was especially odd since the election data they were using came from nonpartisan RCV races. But then they made an even odder assumption, namely that since race and ethnic characteristics of studied voters were not available, the authors tried to infer that information based on who voters selected and the racial make-up of voters in each district. This amounted to little more than vague and ambiguous guesswork dressed up with a bunch of mathematical equations used to give it a veneer of scientific appearance. Indeed, it seemed to assume racial polarization in order to prove racial polarization. Based on this questionable methodology, the authors concluded that RCV doesn’t reduce racial polarization. But the premise of this study missed an obvious reality: since RCV incentivizes more candidates to run and can result in more diverse fields of candidates, one would expect more racially-polarized voting in voters’ top rankings, not less, because more voters would have someone on that ballot who represents their racial or ethnic identity and more freedom to vote for their real first choice. By encouraging more diverse candidates and eliminating the spoiler effect, RCV facilitates voting for a favorite candidate of your own race and then selecting a second choice with the best likelihood of winning. The real measure is what voters do with their additional rankings – do they consider other candidates and vote “for the best of the rest”? This study didn’t tell us anything useful about that. But readily available data shows this is common in real RCV elections, and candidates act on this knowledge by engaging with voters outside their racial group. So the authors of this study failed to consider or account for what actually happens in real-world elections, and their conclusions are tainted by this failure. New America has contributed a great deal over the past 2.5 decades to our understanding of many policy areas, including politics and political reform (full disclosure: Steven Hill, one of the authors of this article and of the “Shaky Political Science” research paper and series, is a former senior fellow and former director of New America’s political reform program, 2005-2010). So it was especially disappointing that New America funded and published such a large batch of dubious studies about ranked choice voting. The stated praiseworthy goal of its Electoral Reform Research Group was to inspire new academic research about ranked choice voting that would shed light and help the public better understand the impacts of RCV. Instead, the ERRG research did just the opposite. It produced dubious research that created more confusion and misinformation. In so doing, New America’s political reform program contributed to “shaky political science.” Steven Hill and Paul Haughey Share Upgrade to $5 subscription Thanks for reading DemocracySOS, a reader-supported digital portal for the pro-democracy movement. Subscribe for only $5 per month to receive full benefits and to support our work. Subscribe
Ocean Casino Resort Unveils Summer 2026 Lineup with High-Energy Entertainment, New Openings, Expanded Private Jet Service and Seasonal Amenities
/PRNewswire/ -- Ocean Casino Resort is setting the stage for an unforgettable Summer 2026 with an exciting lineup of headlining entertainment at HQ2 Beachclub...
Holland & Knight Health Dose: April 21, 2026 | Insights
Senate HELP Committee Chair Bill Cassidy released a healthcare agenda to expand TrumpRx, increase price transparency and regulate pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs).
The Death of Public Health
During the recent measles outbreak, the largest in more than 30 years, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. refused to clearly recommend the measles vaccine, saying instead that it was a “personal decision,” and that parents should “do their own research.” Similarly, during her recent confirmation hearing for United States Surgeon General, Casey Means was questioned by Senator William Cassidy (R, La). “You’re the nation’s doctor,” said Cassidy. “Would you encourage [a mother] to have her child vaccinated!” “I’m not an individual’s doctor,” Means said. “And every individual needs to talk to their doctor before putting a medication in their body.” In June 2025, Marty Makary, Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), said that COVID vaccines for pregnant women should be a “personal choice”, even though every other country in the world recommended the COVID vaccine during pregnancy due to a higher risk for severe disease. It doesn’t end there. On January 5, 2026, RFK Jr. reduced the number of routinely recommended vaccines from 18 to 10. For vaccines that protected against influenza, COVID, and rotavirus, parents were urged to speak with their doctors—to make an individual choice. (On March 16, 2026, in a ruling by a federal court in Boston, RFK Jr.’s revised schedule was invalidated.) What’s happening? Why are public health officials moving away from making recommendations for the public? The origin of this change might be rooted in the first two years of the COVID pandemic. In 2020, during the first year on the pandemic, we didn’t have anything to stop a virus that was killing hundreds of people a day and could be spread asymptomatically. We didn’t have antivirals until October, monoclonal antibodies until November, and vaccines until December. All we could do was restrict travel, close businesses, shutter schools, and mask, isolate, quarantine, test, and social distance. During the second year of the pandemic, when we had vaccines to prevent COVID, people couldn’t go anywhere without their vaccine cards. They couldn’t go to their favorite bar or restaurant or sporting event or place of worship without proof of vaccination. Some people were fired from their jobs for refusing to get vaccinated. For many, this was seen as massive government overreach and energized what has been called the “medical freedom movement.” Indeed, a headline in the New York Times declared, “How Health Freedom Became a Winning Rally Cry.” As expressed in the comments of RFK Jr., Casey Means, and Marty Makary, the medical freedom movement focuses on the individual not the community—the opposite of public health. In an article titled “Ethics and Social Value Judgments in Public Health,” ethicists from Yale University distinguished public health from medical freedom. “Public health policies,” they wrote, “are population oriented. Because individual health affects the health of others, public health measures regulate individual behavior to achieve population health goals. All raise questions about how individual autonomy and freedom should be balanced against public health interests…which respects individuals’ sovereignty over their bodies and actions as long as their actions do not harm others.” The medical freedom movement fails to recognize that it often limits the freedom of others. For example, a parent who is afraid to send a child to school where many of the students are unvaccinated. Or immune compromised children who depend on those around them to for protection. The question then becomes “Freedom for whom?” Is it your right, in the name of medical freedom, to catch and transmit a potentially fatal infection—and in so doing, take away the freedom of others? In Four Essays on Liberty, Isaiah Berlin sums it up best. “Liberty for the wolves,” he wrote, “is death to the lambs.” Thanks for reading Beyond the Noise! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Subscribe
Stage and Screen Unifies Global Sports and Entertainment Offering, Strengthening U.S. Presence
/PRNewswire/ -- Stage and Screen, a specialist division of Corporate Traveler, has today announced a strategic realignment of its global brand structure that...
Home State Health and Centene Foundation Launch Medical Respite Program in St. Louis
[auto]
HONEYWELL TO SELL PRODUCTIVITY SOLUTIONS AND SERVICES BUSINESS TO BRADY CORPORATION
/PRNewswire/ -- Honeywell (Nasdaq: HON) today announced that it has agreed to sell its Productivity Solutions and Services ("PSS") business to Brady...
Digital Science Introduces Compass by Dimensions to Transform Medical Affairs Publication Insights
London, United Kingdom--(Newsfile Corp. - April 20, 2026) - Digital Science, a leading technology company serving stakeholders across the research...
Curing U.S. Health Care, Part I
In 2008, much to their own surprise, leading Democrats unified around a program of major health care reform. Policy wonks had spent years developing the concepts behind what eventually became Obamacare; big Democratic victories in the 2006 midterms and the prospect of controlling both Congress and the presidency made it possible to imagine turning those ideas into reality. During the Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama advocated similar plans, based on those ideas, for expanding insurance coverage. And it happened! The Affordable Care Act was enacted in 2010. When it was fully implemented in 2014, millions of Americans got health insurance: Impressive as the raw numbers are, they don’t tell the whole story. Before the ACA, even upper-middle-class Americans often found it impossible to get health insurance if they had pre-existing medical conditions. Many Americans were trapped in jobs they wanted to leave but couldn’t for fear of losing their employment-based coverage. Meanwhile, dire predictions from the usual suspects about runaway costs proved wrong. In fact, overall U.S. medical spending has grown much more slowly since the ACA was enacted than before. But the U.S., alone among advanced nations, still falls far short of providing universal health care. As you can see from the chart above, 8 percent of the population was still uninsured in 2024, a number that is set to rise over the next two years as a result of Republican policies. True, many of the uninsured in 2024 were undocumented immigrants, who we don’t try to cover. But there are still a lot of uninsured. Moreover, a significant number of Americans who have health insurance are in fact underinsured. As a result, they are at risk of incurring devastating healthcare costs and are sometimes forced to forgo needed care. This number is set to rise sharply in the next two years as a result of Republican policies adopted under Donald Trump. And not only is the U.S. unique among advanced countries in its under-provision of health care coverage, it also incurs by far the world’s highest healthcare costs per capita. So now may well be a good time to get behind a new push for major health reform — an effort, if you like, to finish the job begun under Obama. Today’s primer is devoted to the economics of health reform. During his failed effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act, Donald Trump famously complained, “Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated.” Actually, we did know — and it’s not that complicated. Health economists understand the principles very well. And because health policy varies greatly among advanced nations, we know a lot about what works and what doesn’t. This will be the first in a series about health reform. Beyond the paywall I’ll address the following: 1. Why markets can’t be trusted to deliver healthcare 2. Routes to universal healthcare 3. What works? In a follow-up post I’ll discuss the pros and cons of different approaches, and possible paths forward for the United States.
VIPs Entertainment Launches New Booking Platform for Live Bands, DJs, and Custom Event Entertainment
/PRNewswire/ -- VIPs Entertainment, a premier live event entertainment agency with offices in Los Angeles, Nashville, and Houston, has launched a redesigned...
Ella Triunfa Series to Spotlight Women Breaking Barriers in Business a
Join us for an inspiring fireside chat with two powerhouse leaders from L’Oréal and The Campbell’s Company as we celebrate women who are breaking barriers, leading with purpose and shaping the future
Precepting with Purpose: Rachael Tikum Reflects on the Mobile Health T
One preceptor reflects on the powerful impact of mentoring future nurse practitioners while delivering care to Newark’s most underserved patients.
SK Life Science, Inc. Launches Epilepsy Connect to Empower Advanced Practice Providers in Epilepsy Care
Key Facts: SK Life Science, Inc. has launched Epilepsy Connect, a new digital platform designed to empower advanced practice providers (APPs) in epilepsy care....
STATEMENT FROM LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT
/PRNewswire/ -- The jury's verdict is not the last word on this matter. Pending motions will determine whether the liability and damages rulings stand. Live...
EVO Entertainment to Bring Dolby Vision+Atmos Across Its EVX Auditoriums
/PRNewswire/ -- Dolby Laboratories, a leader in immersive entertainment experiences, today announced at CinemaCon that EVO Entertainment plans to equip its EVX...
Osara Health Publishes New Peer-Reviewed Study Demonstrating Clinically Meaningful Improvements in Physical and Mental Health for People With Cancer
/PRNewswire/ -- Osara Health, a global digital health company focused on the human experience of cancer care, today announced a new peer-reviewed study showing...
Americans Turning to AI to Supplement Healthcare Visits
One in four Americans use AI for health information. Most do so to supplement care, but some are using AI in place of a provider visit when barriers arise.
First Horizon Bank Welcomes Benjamin Hymel as Business Banking Group Manager in Houma
/PRNewswire/ -- First Horizon Bank (NYSE: FHN or "First Horizon") is pleased to announce that Benjamin Hymel has joined its Acadiana Business Banking team as a...
Seton Hall Students Gain Insight at Sports Medicine Conference
Seton Hall B.S. in Interprofessional Health Sciences students gained insight into career pathways, networked with professionals and connected classroom learning to practice.
Lung Cancer Research Foundation Grants Team Science Award Focused on Curing EGFR-Mutant Lung Cancers
/PRNewswire/ -- The Lung Cancer Research Foundation (LCRF) announces the first recipients of its LCRF Team Science Award on Advancing Therapies Toward Curing...
NACCHO Recognizes 10 Local Health Departments for Excellence in Preparedness for Public Health Emergencies
/PRNewswire/ -- The National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO), the voice of the country's over 3,300 local health departments,...
Later More Than Doubles Enterprise Business as Influencer Marketing Becomes a Performance Channel
/PRNewswire/ -- Later, the enterprise standard for influencer marketing and social commerce, today announces record performance milestones for Q1 2026. Fueled...
Ally Achieves Historic 50/50 Sports Media Pledge One Year Ahead of Schedule
Commits to Continuing the Work to Advance Women's Sports and Support the Fans Who Made It Happen CHARLOTTE, N.C., April 14, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- Ally Financial Inc. (NYSE: ALLY) today announced it...
Holland & Knight Health Dose: April 14, 2026 | Insights
President Donald Trump released his budget request for fiscal year (FY) 2027, laying out his vision for how federal funding will be spent over the next year.
BETMGM Q1 2026 BUSINESS UPDATE
BetMGM LLC ("BetMGM"), a leading sports betting and iGaming operator across North America, jointly owned by MGM Resorts International (NYSE: MGM) ("MGM Resorts") and Entain plc (LSE: ENT)...
Agamon Health Announces New Automated Chart Prep Capability
/PRNewswire/ -- Agamon Health, an AI-powered healthcare technology company focused on automating operational workflows in oncology, announces commercial...
Lessons from the OIG: Common Billing Errors Texas Home Health Providers Need to Know | Insights
The Texas Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHSC-OIG) quarterly report highlights common billing errors and compliance issues in home healthcare settings.
Deloitte's Space Business Reaches New Heights as Two New Satellites Enter Orbit
/PRNewswire/ -- Key takeaways Deloitte-2 and Deloitte-3, launched on March 29, 2026, from Vandenberg Space Force Base to expand Deloitte's on-orbit footprint....
“AI polls” are fake polls
A few weeks after Donald Trump’s second presidential win, I took the train up from London (where I was living at the time) to Oxford to attend a conference on polls and forecasts of the 2024 election. Most of the attendees were pollsters or academics, but I also watched presentations from Aaru and Electric Twin, two companies that do what is interchangeably called synthetic sampling, silicon sampling, or synthetic audiences. Stripped of startup jargon, that means they use large language models (LLMs) to simulate responses to public opinion polls by having AI agents take on the role of survey respondents. I had already heard of Aaru thanks to some articles with eye-catching headlines like “No people, no problem: AI chatbots predict elections better than humans” in the months leading up to Election Day. The founders were making some big, some might even say far-fetched claims, such as: “within two years, we will simulate the entire globe — from the way crops are grown in Ukraine to how that impacts production of oil in Iraq, trade through the strait of Malacca, and elections for the mayor of Baltimore.” When Semafor asked Aaru’s cofounders — Cameron Fink and Ned Koh — about my boss, they said “we respect all those who came before us.” Nate (as he so often does) shared his thoughts on Twitter: Fink and Koh were relatively good-natured about this back-and-forth when we spoke at Oxford. They even offered to mail me one of the t-shirts featuring Nate’s quote they apparently had made. I never took them up on the offer, which I now somewhat regret. These synthetic sampling companies fell off my radar for a while, but they do still exist. In fact, Aaru recently received a $1 billion valuation. Is what they’re doing anywhere close to the most important frontier in AI development? Not by a longshot, especially when Anthropic just developed a model so adept at exploiting software vulnerabilities that it’s only being released to 40 companies. Still, silicon sampling is increasingly finding its way into public polling. Axios reported in March that “a majority of people trust their own doctors and nurses” based on findings from Aaru — without mentioning that the “people” in that sentence were actually LLMs. Around the same time, the Public Sentiment Institute “boosted” their online sample of 373 real survey respondents with 114 AI agents.1 (Spoiler alert: even the co-founder of Electric Twin doesn’t think that’s a particularly defensible approach.) Polling companies like Qualtrics and Ipsos are also developing synthetic data panels. So, what should we make of these … “polls”? Let’s get one thing out of the way: whatever they are, they’re not polls in the way that term is usually defined. Subscribe You can’t replace polls with AI On one hand, using LLMs to essentially make up fake survey respondents sort of sounds like the dumbest idea ever, one that will at best imperfectly replicate real polls while introducing all sorts of biases. On the other hand, with LLMs improving at a remarkable, perhaps even alarming rate, maybe that means I’m a dinosaur at the ripe old age of 24 because I still want to rely on polls that talk to actual people. I’m not going to argue that synthetic samples are completely useless. In fact, as I’ll return to later, there is evidence that some techniques can replicate topline survey results quickly and cheaply. But the marketing from certain companies can be slightly optimistic. “No traditional poll will exist by the time the next general election occurs,” said Fink in 2024. We’re just 206 days away from the midterms, and based on the fact that I still have to collect a bunch of polls every day, I’d say he should have run that prediction by a sample of AI agents before the interview.2 To see why synthetic samples can’t replace polls, here’s a quick primer on how they work. The simplest version of these models involves taking a LLM (like ChatGPT or Claude), giving it a demographic profile (e.g., a white, college-educated woman who lives in Utah and makes $70k a year), and then asking it to respond to a survey question. You repeat that process a few thousand times using different demographic profiles and end up with a sample of synthetic survey responses. The actual models used by private companies are more sophisticated than this, usually because they incorporate more hypothesized demographic characteristics for each agent and provide them with extra information. Aaru, for example, feeds agents a diet of news and information they’d be likely to consume, while Electric Twin incorporates their customers’ proprietary data about the audience they’re trying to replicate. The way Ben Warner, the co-founder of Electric Twin, explained it to me was “we have a large amount of data on […] for instance, 5,000 people. Can we make an accurate prediction of how they would respond to another question?” Still, it should be obvious why synthetic samples can’t replace polls. Polling is fundamentally a data collection process. We might use surveys to make predictions by feeding them into election forecasts, but the main purpose of a poll isn’t prediction, it’s gathering new data about what people think and how they feel. Silicon sampling, on the other hand, produces no new data. It’s simply a model: you input LLM training data, demographic prompts, and a bunch of other information, and it spits out a prediction for what a poll would say. We love models here, but models aren’t polls. That difference is an important philosophical sticking point for most pollsters I talk to. “I think politics should stay away from [synthetic sampling], because we’re trying to […] represent the voice of the people,” said Natalie Jackson, a vice president at GQR Insights. Democratic pollster John Hagner told me: “I think I’m just incredibly skeptical of this idea. I don’t think it’s research. At that point, you’re asking the machine to tell you what you already believe.” Hagner has seen some presentations of early synthetic sampling experiments, but so far, “if it’s being used in a campaign, people are keeping it incredibly quiet.”3 But Eli, I hear you saying, aren’t polls themselves increasingly governed by modeling decisions? Indeed they are: pollsters’ choices on which sampling method to use, how to define their likely voter models, and how to weight their samples can and do lead to dramatic differences in the results they publish. Aaru even referenced these limitations in the methodology statement included with that maternal mortality “poll” — although I’m using the term “methodology statement” loosely here, because it doesn’t really explain how the model works at all. We can ignore the (frankly preposterous) implication that synthetic sampling isn’t subject to a separate set of biases. The important point is that there’s still a meaningful difference between using weighting and other statistical techniques on actual polling data and using a model to predict what a poll would say. The latter is far closer to election forecasts or techniques like MRP — potentially useful models, but not a replacement for polls.4 To be fair, other synthetic sampling companies are perfectly happy with the distinction between polls and models. Warner compared polling and synthetic sampling to different tools in a toolbox. “The mistake I think we make is we think that these new tools should either work in exactly the same way or somehow replace these old tools,” he said. “Rather than thinking of it as, okay, so we’ve always had the hammer, we’ve always had the screwdriver, now we’ve got a saw. But don’t use a saw to try [to] do the job of a hammer.” A quick comment from Nate Eli didn’t ask me for a comment — rather rude of him, don’t you think? But since I’m editing this story, I figured I’d add a few quick thoughts rather than putting words in his mouth. Beyond the frequently misleading marketing, what bothers me about the AI “poll” hype is that as AI tools make statistical inference cheaper and/or better (note that these are not synonyms) that actually increases the comparative value of collecting original data. You might be able to train a model to make a reasonable estimate of what some hard-to-reach poll respondent would say — say, a young Black man who voted for Trump. (Such a person checks a number of boxes for a voter who is usually hard to reach in surveys.) Indeed, this is closely related to what models like the Silver Bulletin forecast already do. They essentially smooth out the kinks in noisy survey data by making inferences based on past voting patterns or national polls or surveys of other states. But you don’t actually know what these voters think unless you’re reaching them directly. If there’s a shift in opinion among this subgroup, you’re not going to detect it. So if I were running a campaign, I’d invest more in going the extra mile to find a representative sample of those voters. And then I’d hire some smart quants — or Claude? — to figure out the implications for campaign strategy based on proprietary data that my competitors didn’t have access to. -Nate Silver Are these models any good? If synthetic surveys are just a new type of model, the next obvious question is whether the models are at least accurate. The answer very much depends on who you ask. On one end of the spectrum, you have the maximalist argument that synthetic sampling is more accurate than actual polls. “It’s an incredibly challenging problem to go to someone and say ‘hey, we’re going to be more accurate at predicting human behavior than you, even when you talk to your customers directly’,” Koh recently told CNBC. In his view, synthetic sampling isn’t a saw to polling’s hammer, it’s “magic.” There’s certainly evidence that synthetic samples can replicate certain survey toplines. But if Aaru does have any examples of their approach outperforming the polls, they’re keeping those to themselves.5 Aaru’s 2024 election model, for example, had Kamala Harris leading in Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin on November 4th. And although they’ve since taken down their forecast page, they gave Harris a 50.5 percent chance of winning the race on November 2nd.6 After the election, Fink told Semafor he was happy enough with those results because they were “within margin of error,” a term that is completely meaningless when applied to a “sample” of AI agents. And of course, Aaru says their models have improved since 2024, so supposedly now they’d be more accurate than the polls? Still, their stronger argument is on cost: “We are significantly faster and cheaper than traditional polling, and still more accurate,” said Fink. The first two claims are undeniably true, but the third brings us to the opposite end of the spectrum. Both Jackson and Hagner are skeptical that these models are reliable for anything beyond replicating common survey toplines. “I just […] don’t think the machines are what we want when we’re looking for nuanced views. My example on this is people in Arizona and Nevada in 2024 who voted for Trump and voted for expanding abortion in their states on ballot initiatives,” said Jackson. Hagner identified another issue. Maybe the synthetic respondents, like sycophantic LLMs, are inhuman in one important way: they’re too nice. “The reports that have come through at the meetings that I’ve been at are that the early experiments on this, they cannot get respondents to be as racist or sexist or, frankly, as negative as human respondents,” he said. Academic research mostly agrees on this point. While there are some papers that show promising results when using LLMs to replicate polling data, most show that LLMs suffer from various quirks like producing too few “don’t know” responses and can seriously overpredict the favorability of politicians like Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. They also seem to struggle with too little variation between demographic subgroups, so the difference in predicted opinion between Democrats and Republicans, for example, is too small. When I asked Warner about these studies, his response to these papers was that just because academics can’t get synthetic sampling to work doesn’t mean that the technique doesn’t work in general. “Actually, the argument is, okay, yours does not [work]. That does not mean […] for this complex set of machinery, which uses a lot of investment, a lot of time, a lot of money, you can’t get it to work.” Cards on the table, I’m somewhat sympathetic to this argument because academics aren’t exactly great at making election forecasts. Usually, the people with skin in the game are the most accurate. Warner’s argument is that the approach Electric Twin takes — which includes, for example, making multiple predictions for each synthetic respondent using different models and prompts and subsequently averaging those to get a final prediction in a sort of ensemble forecast — produces better results than the simpler academic models. Warner shared a comparison between his method and the method from a recent academic paper with me, and Electric Twin was indeed able to get more accurate replication. But even still, he acknowledged that synthetic sampling “is not a crystal ball.” “If you asked me, do I think using other data sources will be more accurate than asking somebody who they will vote for, I would probably say no. But if you asked me ‘would your system be useful for our turnout modeling today?’ I would say yes.” For better or worse, it looks like the method is already getting more popular in the market research world. Most of the clients Aaru touts these days are businesses like EY and McDonald’s. And AI will probably begin to pop up in other parts of the political polling process. Pollsters are already using it to code open-ended survey responses, and some firms, like YouGov, are testing using LLMs to ask survey respondents questions. More worryingly, one danger to actual polls is that AI agents can be used to infiltrate online surveys. Most online polls use various checks to prevent that from happening, but there’s conflicting evidence on how effective those filters are and how prevalent AI agents currently are in online panels. If those agents ever become impossible to detect, it might spell the end of online polling, but the solution isn’t to replace all of your respondents with ChatGPT. Silver Bulletin is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a subscriber. Subscribe 1 That particular poll obviously doesn’t meet Silver Bulletin standards for aggregation. But we exclude all Public Sentiment Institute polls from our averages because we classify them as an amateur polling firm. 2 You could argue that Fink meant the next presidential election, but (a) I’m also confident we’ll still have real polls in 2028 and (b) in that case he should have asked an LLM to define “general election.” 3 Quick caveat: that’s reporting from a Democratic pollster. It’s possible that Republicans are more willing to use AI in political campaigns. 4 Indeed, Silver Bulletin does not include “polls” produced by MRP in our forecasts or averages, and we think it’s extremely misleading when their practitioners describe them in a way that suggests original data had been collected among a large number of states or Congressional districts. 5 A recent report from Aaru and EY did show two examples of a synthetic estimate being closer than a survey to a real-world benchmark — but I’d take those findings with a grain of salt because the report reads more like an ad and didn’t involve any sort of prediction being made ahead of time. 6 For comparison, our odds for Harris on the same day were 48.2 percent.
Splatoon Raiders rated by PEGI, suggests imminent release
Nintendo has updated the official EU eShop listing for Splatoon Raiders, adding a “PEGI 7” age rating classification to the upcoming Switch 2 exclusive. As spotted by a Splatoon superfan on Twitter/X…
In praise of popular science
As a kid, I was enthusiastically and unreservedly in favor of a manned space program. Our destiny lay in the stars, I figured. Get people out there. We need Star Trek here and now. As I got older, I became rather disenchanted with the idea. Humans are expensive, fragile, and inefficient as space cargo. We could flood the solar system with 100 robotic probes for the price of any single manned mission and get back just as useful data. Besides, it turns out space travel is dangerous. Tusk is a reader-supported publication. To support this work, please become a paid subscriber. Subscribe When it came to the recent Artemis II mission, my cynical side didn’t really see the point. Flying around the Moon and back is literally something we did before I was born, and I once owned a Members Only jacket. Apollo 8 circled the Moon ten times and returned to Earth safely the same month that “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang” was released. What was the point of repeating a feat that far braver people once did with tin foil and slide rules? Yet I’ve surprised myself with how moving I’ve found the Artemis II mission to be. The photos have been stunning. The crew has been professional and engaging. There have been modest but important milestones — the farthest humans have travelled from Earth; the first woman, person of color, and non-American to leave low-Earth orbit; innovations in communication, and more. One thing that really stood out is that this is really NASA at its finest. Not that this is the most important mission they ever pulled off, but they did this in a competent way that celebrated the achievements and kept the crew and the science at the forefront of the project. This wasn’t some billionaire throwing celebrities or cars into orbit as a vanity project — this was a collective effort to send experts in to do a job and come home safely. We don’t see that sort of thing much these days. I’m guessing few people would describe many government agencies as inspiring, but this one counts for me. We’re living through a profoundly anti-science era, in which pathbreaking, lifesaving discoveries like mRNA vaccines are routinely downplayed or even vilified. As I’ve noted previously, this era is something like that of the Red Scare in the 1940s and 50s, in which “egghead” professors were portrayed as out of touch or even hostile to regular Americans. One of the things that helped break that spell was Sputnik — the Soviet communications satellite that demonstrated that the United States was falling behind in crucial scientific research and applications. Its launch triggered a new appreciation for American science and goaded the federal government into supporting research universities and labs. I’m not saying that Artemis is the equivalent of Sputnik, but it potentially reminds people that there’s some value to scientific endeavors and the human faces attached to them. Despite my love for the show “For All Mankind,” I’m far from convinced that there’s any real value to putting colonies on the Moon or Mars that would justify the capital investment and the massive health risks to the astronauts. But sending scientific good will ambassadors on a trip into space once in a while? Bring it. Share