Search headlines

I Can’t Believe Carrie Is Coming Back for Season 2

Don’t get me wrong, the show is good. But what are we doing here?

Oct 23 • 9:40 AM EDT • Entertainment • esquire.com

9 former celebrity couples who say divorce actually brought them closer

Who says divorce can’t have a happy ending? From Gwyneth Paltrow to Courteney Cox, these stars say splitting up actually brought them closer to their exes.

Oct 23 • 8:00 AM EDT • Entertainment • ew.com

“It was a tough evening, but I can’t ask for any more from the players,” Martin O’Neill

Martin O’Neill spoke to the mainstream media last night after Celtic lost a fourth successive match in European football, this time going down 2-1 to Celta Vigo at Celtic Park…Martin O’Neill, Ma...

Oct 23 • 3:44 AM EDT • Sports • sports.yahoo.com

Giants’ strong special teams unit has one big weakness: counting

One of the best special teams units in the NFL can’t keep getting burned by something as simple as counting to 11.

Oct 22 • 11:30 PM EDT • Sports • sports.yahoo.com

The next-gen Xbox won’t cost you $1,800. It can’t. Can it?

Didn’t Microsoft say the next Xbox needed to be affordable?

Oct 22 • 7:00 PM EDT • Technology • theverge.com

Is Citizens United to blame for everything?

Plus: The justices’ book deals mean the court can’t rule on cases involving a media conglomerate.

Oct 22 • 12:01 PM EDT • Politics • nytimes.com

Op-ed: Brooklyn’s small businesses can’t wait any longer on child care

Brooklyn is home to more than 74,000 businesses, and the vast majority are small. You cannot build a competitive workforce, or a healthy economy, on top of a broken child care system.

Oct 22 • 11:00 AM EDT • Business • crainsnewyork.com

If Netflix Can’t Shine in Show Business, Who Can?

The streamer was once the prime example of modern entertainment. Now it’s being squeezed by Big Tech and user-generated content. What stock investors need to know.

Oct 22 • 8:41 AM EDT • Business • barrons.com

In 1,000+ Kids Who Claimed to Have Past Lives, Their ‘Reincarnation’ Came 12 Months After a Sudden Death

And scientists can’t explain the creepy correlation.

Oct 21 • 3:11 PM EDT • Science • popularmechanics.com

I’m not Left or Right. I’m Up: Time to look beyond political labels

Whenever an election approached, everyone wanted to know: Who are you voting for? “I can’t vote,” I would answer. “I’m Canadian.” I loved being neutral.

Oct 21 • 12:00 PM EDT • Politics • jpost.com

Trump’s biggest political trick may be wearing off

The president’s rallies and red-meat rhetoric can’t indefinitely distract voters from corruption.

Oct 21 • 6:00 AM EDT • Politics • washingtonpost.com

Fight for the Black vote intensifies in Michigan, a voting bloc El-Sayed can’t afford to lose

Oct 20 • 8:41 PM EDT • Politics • cnn.com

Judi Dench still hasn’t seen “Cats”, calls it a ‘waste’ of talent in new memoir: ‘I can’t bear it’

She confessed that she “didn’t feel right” in her role as Old Deuteronomy.

Oct 20 • 3:07 PM EDT • Entertainment • yahoo.com

Sundar Pichai: Google’s Frontier Imperative, Compute Scarcity Dilemmas, Future AI Products and Businesses

Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai has little patience for doubts about Google’s willingness or capacity to compete at the frontier of AI. His company’s latest Gemini 4 Argon model — long-promised and recently delivered — beats OpenAI and Anthropic’s latest public models on coding, math, science, and knowledge-work benchmarks and has placed Google’s AI back among the world’s best. Amid chatter that Google was fine with good-enough lightweight ‘Flash’ models, Pichai pushed back hard against any suggestion that company is limiting its research ambitions. “We won’t do it any other way,” he told me in a Big Technology Podcast interview recorded this week at Google’s Mountain View headquarters. Pursuing cutting-edge research is costly for Google, requiring compute and chips that otherwise could be sold at a high markup by its cloud business. But Pichai said allocating resources to frontier AI development is “ground zero” for Google. “Our cloud business is at any given moment in time forgoing short-term revenues because we are making compute trade-offs to support frontier AI development,” Pichai told me. In our conversation, we discussed Argon (which Pichai says processed three times as many tokens as Gemini 3 in the 72 hours after launch), AI’s role in developing better models, the AI interface of the future, competition with OpenAI, Google’s partnerships with Anthropic and Apple, data centers in space, and the nature of his optimism. You can read the full conversation, lightly edited for length and clarity, below, or listen to it on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or your podcast app of choice. Alex Kantrowitz: Google is back at the frontier with Gemini 4 Argon, which beats OpenAI’s and Anthropic’s public models on benchmarks spanning coding, math, science, and knowledge work. The conventional wisdom was that Google had given up on the frontier to focus on fast, good-enough models for its products. That was wrong? Sundar Pichai: Very wrong. Look, we are so committed to being at the frontier. It’s in our DNA. We won’t do it any other way. We’ve been thinking about the AI frontier for well over a decade now. The frontier is very dynamic. It’s very competitive. It’s very exciting. I couldn’t be more pleased with how Argon has come together. We took our time with it. We made sure we tested it safely and deployed it carefully. We took a bit longer than our other models, given its capabilities. Across the board, be it for agentic work, knowledge work, coding, creative tasks, Argon is one of the really good frontier models. The first 72 hours since we launched, it’s almost up to 25 trillion tokens used, which is about three times what Gemini 3.0 had in the first 72 hours. And we are capacity constrained as we are serving it. Excited, but there are always areas….. You know, the frontier is very dynamic, and you have to keep evolving the models. There are areas which we can see we need to improve as well. We’ll be at work on all of that as well. Which areas? On any given model, Argon would be across the board better at everything if you just look even two months back. But the space is so evolving. Even on coding, for example, there are pockets where we know we need to do better, and there’s clear feedback. We’ll make it better. The argument for standard models is that they’re already good enough to build great products, with the frontier valuable only for certain tasks. Meta built Muse with good models rather than the best, and Google could put standard models into Maps, Gmail, and Search. Why isn’t that sufficient? It’s definitely not how I have thought about it at all. We are deeply committed to driving the state of the art and actually pushing where this technology can go, all the way from transformers. That’s a journey we’ve been on. You will see us continue to do that. When you’re at the frontier, you get an earlier look into the emerging capabilities, earlier than others, which helps you better prepare for the future. We are fortunate to have a wide set of opportunities across consumer and enterprise. Some of our cloud customers, for sure, want the model at the frontier. The frontier models will be better at developing the next set of models in an era of recursive self-improvement. I would argue it matters there. Internally, we have definitely seen a steep point of inflection by deploying Argon to our developers. It definitely tackles problems which our previous models could not do. Being at the frontier puts you at the innovation frontier and helps you drive that as well. There is room for models of all sizes and capabilities. That’s why we did Flash, Flash-Lite, etc. I agree with you that you can develop very good product experiences with not necessarily the most frontier model, because they tend to be slower and more expensive too. But we care about the Pareto frontier, and we’re committed to doing all of that. You said developing frontier models gives you a look at what’s coming. What do you see on the horizon? What makes this moment so exciting is you build something which you think is a culmination of months of work, and you put it out. You already see clear headroom ahead. We’ve all been working on these agentic, long-horizon capabilities, but clearly the frontier is going to have multiple of these agents working together to do things. That’s an example of an exciting paradigm underway. It’s also clear to me that users, both in consumer and enterprise, will have access to some multi-agent framework for them, working all the time doing things. It feels like a moment of infinite possibilities. Sergey Brin said one of Argon’s core innovations was relying more on the model to help develop the model. Yet incidents involving OpenAI’s bots breaking containment and Google’s bots accessing a site they shouldn’t have suggest these systems still aren’t perfectly aligned. Isn’t there reasonable cause for concern about accelerating toward recursive self-improvement? There are three parts to your question. Let’s first talk about RSI itself. You’re right, Sergey mentioned RSI being a critical contributor as we are developing Argon. But to be very clear, today, in a continuum, we are pretty far from the end state of RSI or something like that. The right way to describe it is you have RSI loops along with AI researchers in various aspects of model development. You almost have agents helping AI researchers in some automated way work together to build these models. It’s good to at least understand where we are today, and it’s super exciting. I expect that continuum to keep making progress as we go into next year. The second question is around safety. Security comes from defense in depth. You’re talking about alignment, obviously. We all are doing a lot of work to make sure the models are as aligned as possible. But it’s an active area of research, and there are clear gaps. That’s not the only thing we rely on. You have the work you do on alignment, but beyond that, we put a lot of effort into real-time monitoring as these models are working. Making sure you have good telemetry into what’s happening so that you can intervene in real time if you see unexpected behaviors. How you do that, the architecture with which you do that, how you make sure it’s all sandboxed and isolated in a way that it can continue doing its job during real-time monitoring — these are all areas of investment. Obviously, when we deploy these models, giving customers, enterprises, control, both with real-time monitoring, but their ability to decide where they deploy, what type of data which models ever have access to, etc. All that work is very, very important, and we are doing a lot of that. As an industry, we need to constantly up our game and take the time to do all this stuff, including dedicating the compute required to make sure you can safely deploy these models. The third part is: Is it all enough? This is why there are a lot of conversations in the industry, and I think it’s reasonable to be worried. The right way to approach something you worry about is early on thinking about what more we can do. As an industry, you’re definitely seeing increased levels of work on alignment, testing for safety, etc., as we deploy these models. The next step would be developing better standards so there are cross-industry standards of how we do these things, including the ability to evaluate using independent evaluators. If you look at areas like financial controls, we have accounting standards, we have independent auditors. Those are all the next natural steps for us as an industry to work toward, and regulation will end up playing a role as we go through all of that as well. Google pursues both language models and world models, while some other AI companies like OpenAI have focused more heavily on LLMs as the path to AGI. Why is world-model research important to you? As humans, you obviously perceive the world around you, and you’re taking all those inputs. Making sure these models are able to understand the laws of physics, simulate the world in high fidelity. All that, I think, are key enabling blocks for intelligence. We are working across all possible applications of this. Take an area like robotics. It’s not an accident: If you look at embodied reasoning benchmarks, Argon is state of the art. That all comes from our experience building world models. Inherently, I would expect there will be architectures which will converge all of this in the future. But for us, we view this as, today, this jagged frontier that is intelligence. We want to be at the frontier of all the possible approaches, and that will help us both drive better research, better insights, and develop a much better AGI model, is how we think about it. Some people argue Google should focus on selling its computing resources rather than using them for AI research. Cloud wants to sell compute at a high markup, while researchers need a very big computer to build the best models. How do you balance those demands? Ground zero for us is making sure we are investing in the compute that’s needed to be at the AI frontier. In 2015, I set the company to be AI-first. AI is that key horizontal ingredient across everything we do, all the way from Search to Cloud to Waymo. That is ground zero for us, making sure both for research and developing the models that we have enough compute needed. Beyond that, we have these independent businesses which each have their own long-range plans. They’re using those long-range plans to project forward, and we plan for compute for all of them. The cloud team, they have a business and they have a projection and they have demand signals. They have committed contracts. With that help, we can plan on a long-term compute trajectory for them. We’re fortunate to have this wide set of opportunities. There’s no company in the world which isn’t making trade-offs at any given moment in time. But the first principles we operate on is making sure we have enough compute to invest in the frontier, and that’s non-negotiable, and everything else works on top. Remember, we are building our own compute, our own data centers. There are long lead times. The compute we have today is a function of decisions I made in 2024. Even if you think back to a year from today, last year the agentic coding takeoff hadn’t happened. Today, obviously, when you sit and look at anything, everyone is short—not just us, other companies—and everyone wishes you had two times what you had planned for. That comes with the territory. At any given moment in time, we are planning for what we would need two to three years out in the future. You’re going to find some decisions you make may look suboptimal two years out, depending on where the state of the art is. I don’t spend too much time thinking about it. The way I think about compute allocation is making sure Google DeepMind, both for research and frontier model development, is cutting edge in terms of compute access. After that, we plan for all our businesses. It’s great we can provide our compute to other people too, like we have done. It allows us to scale that up, get real tests for it in the widest application set possible, test it in the real world, and make sure we are at the cutting edge of technology at every layer of our AI stack as well. Ben Horowitz relayed on a podcast that Andy Jassy had said compute was sold out until 2028. Are you seeing the same thing? If today a customer is coming out and asking us for compute in ’27, that is incredibly difficult to do. Even last year we went out and leased some short-term compute to accommodate some customers and help them out. But yes, we are all dealing with similar timelines. Every major technology shift seems to involve overbuilding, from railroads to fiber. Do you think that’s happening here? It depends on the time frames you’re looking at. This level of build, if I take a long enough time frame, it makes complete sense to me. We are at early stages of the most consequential technology ever, and this is not like fiber. It’s not dark. We are using it. We are capacity constrained on a daily basis. The applications, the underlying technology is improving rapidly. But running a company, the way I work through the moment is you look at your demand signals. You look at your committed revenue opportunities that you’re getting in the form of contracts. You balance that with the underlying technical capability, or internally you balance how we are using it internally, the model trajectories. Based on all that, you take a disciplined approach—a confident, aggressive, but disciplined approach—to plan out compute. But when you talk about the broader economy as a whole, you’re having people operate with various levels of risk. I focus on what I can control as a company and plan through it. If your question is, can there be an overbuild? Yes, because you can have some constrained components. Remember, what matters is a set of everything you need to build out that compute. Memory, electricity, electricians…. Land. Like 2,000 components or more. You could get constrained at some point. There could be things which cause bottlenecks, and then you could have overbuilds. There could be external shocks to the economy. There are macro risks. All that is possible at any given time. But am I confident that the compute we are planning for, we will have uses for it given enough time? Absolutely, yes. I was in the room when you said AI would be as profound as fire and electricity. If you believe that, shouldn’t you give researchers the biggest possible computer, even at the expense of today’s cloud profits? We’re all doing some form of that. Our cloud business is at any given moment in time forgoing short-term revenues because we are making compute trade-offs to support frontier AI development. What you’re seeing is true already. But you want to be thoughtful. Even our AI researchers have some constraints, which are also good. That’s what inspires creativity. That’s what helps you come up with a more efficient algorithmic breakthrough, maybe to use less memory. What we are committed to is to invest what’s needed to stay at the frontier. OpenAI President Greg Brockman told me a few months ago that the ideal AI product might have no interface at all—just as natural as conversation. What do you think the interface looks like in the age of AI? Computing historically has been humans adapting to computing. With AI, it’ll be the other way around. The technology will adapt seamlessly to how humans live and go about their day-to-day life. You want to be able to speak to that AI when you want to. It has context. It can be persistently running somewhere, give you continuity. You’re not dealing with a lot of complexity. It’s natural. All that makes sense to me. That doesn’t mean it won’t have any interface, however. Nowadays, even on my phone, Gemini voice models are so good. I can just press the microphone button. I can just ramble. That’s why we call it Rambler. I can ramble. It intelligently corrects with my personal context. Even my friends’ names, weird names, it gets it right, even if it first guesses it wrong. It’s amazing. I’m not going in, backspacing, editing once I finish saying it. It’s remarkable how good it’s gotten. But there are going to be moments you will need an interface. You may want to entertain yourself. You may want to watch a video. You may ask your AI to create something, and you want to watch it, consume it. The way I think about it is, you want it to be as seamless and as natural as possible, and that you are not doing the hard work adapting to whatever the interface is. The technology is adapting to how you’re working at any given moment in time. When I asked Sam Altman about competition from Google, he argued that OpenAI was building AI-native products and implied Google was bolting AI onto existing ones. Do you accept that framing, and can a “bolt-on” compete with an AI-native product? First of all, it’s a very dynamic moment. We are all pushing each other. OpenAI has pushed us as a company too. This is not just we are doing something to them. Far from it. Yes, Google went into its own version of a code red too. In the AI moment, all of us have to respond with varying levels of urgency at any given moment in time. We are constantly building new products as well. Gemini was built from the ground up as a product—the Gemini app I’m talking about. Or tomorrow, as all of us are adapting to agents, are you bolting agents onto ChatGPT, or are they building it natively? How would you think about that? You can always put these questions back. I don’t think of it that way. I think of it as you want to build world-class product experiences that are AI-native and they are winning. Some of it is adapting products, some of it is rethinking new experiences. They will all be part of how you approach this moment. How do you expect to make money from these AI interfaces? If an agent recommends a product and I buy it, should it take a cut of the sale, even if that’s disclosed? I’m going to put enterprise aside. Consumers are going to increasingly value this technology. Take software developers today. Developers are willing to pay for these coding models because it really helps make them more productive. Nobody would want to code the way they were coding three years ago, or even the same time last year. When you’re delivering value, there’s value to be had. I’ve never seen examples where consumer products really scale to billions of users, where people are using it intensely, and haven’t had monetization to go along with it. If you’re providing value to people, there is inherent value to be had. The nature of it may change. You’re asking a scenario in which agents are doing stuff for you. At the end of the day, you will have commercial needs. The agents need to fulfill those commercial needs. The providers on the other side are going to see value in that. There’s going to be some mechanism by which it gets fleshed out. That’s what an efficient system does. But what matters is that you’re building those world-class consumer experiences. I promised myself one product feature request: Can you make Gemini-powered search in Gmail as good as searching Gmail through ChatGPT? What’s going on here? One of the exciting things we announced recently is the unified Gemini agent for enterprise, and we’re bringing that to consumers. These are persistent agents which run 24/7 in the cloud. We’re spinning up a micro VM effectively for every query, and from the runtime, the harness, the model—it’s all a headless service. It’ll work everywhere, and it has your context with you. You can address this agent whether you’re in Workspace, in Search, in Gemini. Agents are going to drive this unification from a customer experience, which people are looking for. When you have a broad product portfolio and you’re moving forward fast, there are always areas where you’re moving forward faster than some other areas. That’s valid feedback. But we are putting a lot of time and effort into making sure, as we build out our agentic experience, that unification and that capability works well across all these services. People have asked where Google’s equivalent of Muse or Dots is. Do you anticipate creating a new product to compete with them? Our goal with Gemini is to be a personal, proactive, and powerful assistant. That’s what we are working toward. You saw us describe the early versions of it at Google I/O this year with Spark. Effectively, already, if you open the Gemini app as a Pro or an Ultra user, you see Chat and Task, and they start giving you that agentic experience. With Argon now, that capability is dramatically accelerated. What we announced recently in our enterprise event, we are bringing that to consumers as well. Soon in Gemini, you will be able to ask something, and it’s a continuum. You don’t need to think about whether you’re asking a chat or an agentic task. It’ll just automatically do the right thing, and it can work persistently in the background securely and get things done for you. Already, empirically, when I look at what’s coming into Gemini in our app, last year you would have tagged them and most of them would have been chats. But a steadily growing percentage is already agentic tasks in Gemini. Yes, we are going to bring personal agents to our consumers. It’ll work in the Gemini app. It’ll work in Google Search. It’ll work in Gmail. You can address it, call it, etc. We want to make sure we’re getting it right. It’ll be powered by Argon, and we are very excited to bring it to our users. Google has invested and committed tens of billions of dollars to Anthropic. What do you see in Dario Amodei that makes you want such a deep investment and partnership? Very early on, when we looked at the founding team of Anthropic, it was very clear to us this was a world-class team which was involved in some of the earliest GPT models. We were quickly able to assess that they would be at the frontier. We’ve always tried to identify and partner with companies which would be at the cutting edge of technology. We’ve done that with SpaceX. We’ve done that with Anthropic. That’s what we saw, and we had a chance to partner. Is your partnership with Apple to license Gemini for Siri expanding, contracting, or standing still? For both us and Apple, that partnership was about translating the capabilities of AI into better experiences for users. I thought Apple has done a phenomenal job of incorporating—they customize these models and build it into Siri—and it’s been great to see the reception. We are committed to doing more. You’re going to do more with them? There’s nothing specific to comment, but it’s a partnership. It’s working well. What have you learned so far about the feasibility of data centers in space? It’s a very exciting project. Projects like this remind me—I still recall that moment in the desert for the DARPA Grand Challenge, watching the Stanley car compete in it, which ended up being the basis for Waymo. With all these technologies, you’re at a moment in time where it looks a bit like sci-fi, but 10 to 20 years down the line, it’s actually working in a meaningful way. I feel the same in space. We’ve always believed in betting big on these technologies. Quantum has been a great example of it. We’re probably 10 years into the journey. Waymo, we are almost 20 years into the journey. Space, we are two to three years into the journey. It’s clear to me that it’s an approach which will make a lot of sense in the future. Being in sub-synchronous orbits with 24/7 access to the most abundant form of energy we have access to will make a lot of sense for this exponential increase in compute that we are going to need. Having said that, this is a challenging project. The team has disciplined milestones. It was a super exciting milestone to send the TPUs up to space. Sometime, as we are speaking, we are expecting a “hello world” moment from them. I look forward to seeing that happen, and we’ll continue investing here too. You previously said 25% of the code written within Google was written by AI. What’s the number today? That number in our world today is meaningless in the sense that every part of what we now touch is influenced by AI deeply. What we are tracking with Argon, for example, it’s been a point of inflection. People are using Argon to really go tackle complex projects, including projects which affect millions of lines of code. In the four weeks since we have launched Argon, we have seen a 30% increase in CLs, and more importantly, almost a similar increase—a one-third decrease in rollbacks. People are writing code more productively and better code with it. We are tracking it with newer metrics now. How are you dealing with opposition to data centers? If you can’t build in the U.S. the way you want to, where else do you go? We’re very committed to building our data centers very responsibly. When I look at our largest data centers in some of the communities where we have been the longest, I visit them, I talk to people. There are people who come and tell us their kids have gone to college because of our investments in these communities, and we’ve grown in those communities. To me, this is about doing it right. Engaging with the communities early, doing it transparently. We are committed to making sure we are bringing incremental power, and we cover 100% of the cost of our power needs for these projects. It’s understanding the impact on neighborhoods and making sure you’re working thoroughly to address them. Done rightly, you can continue making progress. But we are constantly taking feedback into account. I do worry not everyone operates the same way. People have been surprised by data centers showing up in their backyard. Those are all important. As an industry, we should continue to do better. But part of the reason, in a 20-year time frame, we are thinking about things like data centers in space is making sure we are able to put these data centers where maybe the trade-offs will be different. What unproven area of AI is Google working hardest to crack? Is it continual learning—getting models to keep updating after release—or something else? There are multiple parallel paths. You saw with Argon we have a million output tokens. With our Gemini models early on, we had a one-million context window on the input side. These are all examples of breakthroughs we are constantly working on. How do you think about synthetic data? How do you think about continual learning? How do you think about more efficient architectures? We do dedicate a meaningful percentage of our compute to these research bets too. It always goes hand in hand, including our world models. Those are all bets we are placing. Sometimes, as part of these bets, there are ideas that emerge which just make their way into the mainline models. Maybe we don’t fully talk about it, but we have multiple steps in these areas. Working in technology requires optimism that building something will improve the world, but those bets can leave real consequences when they fail. I recently returned to a town in El Salvador where enthusiasm for Bitcoin had given way to unfinished construction and something resembling a ghost town. How do you maintain the optimism you spoke about in your Stanford commencement address while accounting for those risks? I genuinely have a deep conviction that improving technology and improving access to technology makes people’s lives better. It’s been my personal experience in my life, out of which comes that deep conviction, optimism. But with that, I’ve always felt humanity’s journey is always about working hard to harness that technology to make it work well for society. The optimism is not an optimism that you just build whatever you want, whenever. You work hard to make sure you’re building technology in the service of humanity, to make the human condition better. That’s got to be the defining goal as we are approaching it. With that framework, I’m very, very optimistic. We are in very early stages of the kind of progress that we are going to see on many areas. We’re all talking about areas like healthcare. A lot of the progress is ahead. The ability to make things in a fundamentally cheaper way on many things where things have been getting expensive for a long, long time, discovering new materials, etc., which really bend the curve—it’s tough to step today and understand the impact of all that, but they’re going to be very profound. I’m very optimistic, but we have to be rightfully concerned about all the ways this technology can go wrong. Sundar, I know you don’t do many of these. Thank you. Thanks, Alex. Appreciate it.

Oct 20 • 1:47 PM EDT • Technology • bigtechnology.com

Opinion: Chicago can’t cut its way out of this budget crisis. There’s another option.

To solve Chicago’s financial crisis, we need to look past the false binary between cutting our way out, and regressive fines and fees.

Oct 20 • 12:18 PM EDT • Business • chicagobusiness.com

‘SIX’ Provides Lively History Lesson

Anyone who has seen “Hamilton” has doubtless thought, “Why can’t we learn all of our history from theater performances?”

Oct 20 • 8:35 AM EDT • Entertainment • capenews.net

SBA urges Iowans to nominate their favorite small business for an award

There are all kinds of small businesses in Iowa that we can’t do without, from diners and donut shops to tailors and auto mechanics, and it’s time to recognize those merchants that make our lives better. Ryan Lincoln, the Iowa district director of the U.S. Small Business Administration, says the agency is taking nominations for […]

Oct 20 • 7:00 AM EDT • Business • radioiowa.com

Mental Health Can’t Wait

Mental Health Can’t Wait

Oct 20 • 12:49 AM EDT • Health • thecrimson.com

Are babies conscious in the womb before birth? Here’s what science can and can’t prove

The fetal brain is doing far more before birth than scientists once understood. The difficult question is where complex brain activity ends and conscious experience begins.

Oct 19 • 8:42 AM EDT • Science • yahoo.com

Knicks can’t let banner night rush Josh Hart back

Josh Hart didn’t guarantee he’d be ready for opening night when asked about his sore ankle Sunday. His answer, reported […]

Oct 19 • 8:22 AM EDT • Sports • sports.yahoo.com

Scientists discover why some people still can’t taste food after COVID-19

Scientists have uncovered a possible explanation for why some people struggle to taste food more than a year after recovering from COVID-19. By examining taste buds from patients with lingering symptoms, researchers discovered molecular abnormalities that weaken the signals responsible for detecting sweet, bitter, and savory flavors.

Oct 19 • 8:00 AM EDT • Science • sciencedaily.com

Streaming’s Biggest Show Returns…and a Buzzy Genre Struggles

(Welcome to my weekly streaming ratings report, the single best guide to what’s popular in streaming TV and what isn’t. I’m the Entertainment Strategy Guy, a former streaming executive who now analyzes business strategy in the entertainment industry. If you were forwarded this email, please subscribe to get these insights each week.) Obviously, the big news of the week (if not month) is Netflix letting go of executive Bela Bajaria, their chief content officer. I’m going to cover this in my next “Most Important Story of the Week”, but I also have a data angle that I might publish before then. (Too much news this month, am I right?) But first, I have a bonus Streaming Ratings Report issue for you. Today’s article is a bit of a grab bag of topics I’ve wanted to write about, but couldn’t squeeze into the (already very long) Streaming Ratings Report issues. The NFL drives huge viewership numbers, so I’ve got a look at that. A whole bunch of TV shows returned to the traditional broadcast channels, and I have thoughts. And I have a quick look at adult animated shows, since a couple flopped earlier this month. Plus, the Emmys aired earlier this month, and we got some fun data bout how popular those nominated shows are and why I’m not optimistic about the show’s future. That’s a lot, so let’s dive right in. Subscribe Sports - Football Remains the King of Streaming Over the last two Streaming Ratings Reports, I sorta ignored the biggest “show” each week. (I was tempted to say “piece of content” but I know that word bugs folks.) In my database, I call these “specials”, and they sure are special. I speak of the king of American TV: football!!! Streaming football is back and, unlike some other sports, it routinely dominates all viewership. Probably the best way to show this is to update one of my favorite graphics, the “40 Million Hour Club”1 since football games have joined that club each week they’ve premiered: (Yep, that’s the data through 28-Sep, the first four weeks of the season. As a reminder, I take the average minute audience provided by Nielsen, factor out a percentage of linear TV viewers in home markets, and multiply the run time by the three-hour runtime.) Again, the numbers are huge. Let’s start with Netflix. They grabbed the rights to the bonus opening week NFL Kickoff game (which was on YouTube last year) and it put up 18.5 million viewers on average. That nets out to 47.4 million hours of estimated streaming hours. That’s good! Though, notably, it’s well below Christmas Day games from previous years. Compared to other streamers/broadcasters, that’s a bit of a mixed result. On one hand, Netflix’s 18.5 million average is about what YouTube claimed last year, though Nielsen used a bespoke methodology at that time, so I trust this viewership figure more. So that’s good. (The game also shifted from a Friday to a Thursday and that could have helped the viewership as well.) And Netflix continues to best Prime Video in total viewership—as you’ll see next—though Netflix has had much higher-profile (opening week and Christmas Day) games. NBC/Peacock’s opening game the night before averaged 25.1 million average viewers, which is just much bigger than Netflix (or Prime Video). That’s the big caveat to all streaming viewership records: even in success, they can’t compete with traditional linear TV. Previously, I called this my “hierarchy of viewership”, and the data keeps supporting that thesis. The downside for NBC is that this game’s viewership was down compared to previous years, though it may be a counting issue. Here’s a great chart from Sports Media Watch: Indeed, looking at all the opening week games across all windows, Netflix still lags the other primetime windows, but does well compared to the afternoon games: I saw a few folks make the case that streamers still lag traditional broadcasters in reach, and I’d add they really lag compared to “broadcast plus streaming” options like NBC/Peacock, ESPN/Disney+ and CBS/Paramount+. The best data I saw for this came from Samba TV, who charted reach through the 2025 season, and, wow. (Samba TV’s numbers are historically lower than Nielsen’s, so don’t compare their household figures to Nielsen’s hours, but use them as a proxy for the relative reach of the streamers.) The good news is Prime Video is NOT having a down year. Their opening Thursday Night Football game reached 18.6 million viewers (about what Netflix got), but that’s a high for Prime Video on Thursdays and the biggest Thursday night game since 2015. The TNF games the weeks of 21-Sep and 28-Sep continued this streak, getting 43.1 (16.8 million average viewers) and 42.5 total hours (16.6 million average viewers), which were both up from last year. Still, that continues the (typical) season slide: (For those new-to-streaming-football-numbers folks, the viewership declines for Thursday Night Football as the year goes along.) Overall, it appears as if Prime Video is now part of the “football habit”, be it for customers at home or out at places like bars and restaurants. And its viewership is slowly catching up to broadcast. One last chart shows this. Last season, Nielsen started adding out-of-home viewership to the charts, so I try not to do season-to-season comparisons as I did for the first few years. And while Nielsen added Big Data viewing this year, I’m going to compare the last two seasons. Here’s that chart, which shows the season-over-season gains: When it comes to streaming football, we have to keep a few seemingly contradictory thoughts in our head… First, streaming doesn’t come close to matching broadcast’s reach and, thus, viewership. Second, even with that gap, football is still the biggest “thing” on streaming. It’s very, very popular. Third, while some methodology changes have likely helped Prime Video’s numbers, their viewership does appear to be growing. Lastly, yeah, the NFL started the season off poorly, with week one dragging down the numbers in year-over-year comparisons. However—and again, methodology changes may have helped this—the viewership grew compared to previous seasons over the next couple of weeks. So football is still king. On streaming and off. Television - Adult Animation Continues to NOT Make the Streaming Charts In the last two reports, two adult-animated shows whiffed: Netflix’s animated comedy, Dang! Paramount+’s Sega-video-game-inspired fantasy/comedy, Golden Axe. Neither made the charts, but that’s usually the case for animated shows. I mean, here’s literally every animated show that’s made the Nielsen Original charts since the start of 2025: And one of those shows is G_abby’s Dollhouse_! A kids show! The problem with charts like this is that they don’t give you a sense of how many shows miss the charts. Netflix had at least eleven animated flops, including comedies like Big Mouth (a show everyone assumed was popular in the pre-Streaming Ratings Era), Long Story Short, Haunted Hotel, Mating Season, Strip Law, and Alley Cats, and action shows like Blood of Zeus, Castlevania: Nocturne, Devil May Cry, Splinter Cell: Deathwatch, and Tomb Raider: The Legend of Lara Croft. Prime Video had at least six animated misses, two in the same universe (Hazbin Hotel, Helluva Boss), three more comedies (#1 Happy Family USA, The Second Best Hospital in the Galaxy and Kevin) and an action show (The Mighty Nein). Disney+ had MCU and Star Wars animated misses (Eyes of Wakanda, Marvel Zombies, Star Wars: Visions, Star Wars: Maul – Shadow Lord, and Star Wars: Tales of the Underworld) but I can’t tell how many of those shows were geared towards adults. HBO Max had Harley Quinn and Hulu had Solar Opposites. None of these shows made the charts! That’s a lot of misses! If I remade the chart with all those misses, here’s how it would look: Listen, I know the counter arguments. First, it’s cheaper to produce animated shows than live action. Fair enough, but with viewership this low, even that cheaper price point starts to not matter. Second, just look at the acquired charts. Hit animated comedies can generate viewership for years! Shows like The Simpsons, South Park, Family Guy, and Bob’s Burgers do really, really well. Fair enough, but streaming has failed to recreate the dynamic that Fox has mastered so well. That’s a problem for streaming still. Television - Emmys! The annual Emmys broadcast was a few weeks ago, and I’ve got data on how the nominees performed on streaming, plus hot takes on this year’s viewership (and the big news about the broadcast’s, er, streamcast’s future). We’re just getting started with this issue, but the rest is for paid subscribers of the Entertainment Strategy Guy, so if you’d like to find out… The top Emmy-nominated shows… ...why I’m worried about the future of the Emmys telecast... ...the pros of broadcast television ...and the cons... ...please subscribe! We can only keep doing this great work with your support. Coming Soon! Next week, we’ve got a double issue (since the weeks of 21-Sep and 28-Sep were so light), but then I’ll be all caught up after a deluge of streaming ratings data from Nielsen in September. In the meantime, I’m going to try to take a look at Netflix’s stats to explain why Bela Bajaria is out. But even light weeks give me plenty to talk about. The Great British Baking Show returns to Netflix and Apple TV has a buzzy new star-studded comedy. And Netflix has a controversial-but-appears-to-be-popular new game show. Plus big films like Toy Story 5, Backrooms and The Breadwinner head to streaming. And is East of Eden a hit? After that, The Kardashians return to Hulu, Prime Video has a reboot of Carrie, and Netflix has a horror show, Below. Disclosure Day heads to Peacock, The Housemaid heads to HBO Max_,_ a new Ben Affleck film, Animals, lands on Netflix, and Apple TV has a new John Cena action film based on, checks notes, Hasbro’s Matchbox toys. Okay. Longterm, some interesting TV production news. HBO Max ordered How to Survive Without Me, starring Kaley Cuoco, Joshua Jackson, Ray Romano and Rita Wilson, for fifteen episodes! I love that some streamers (or, at least, HBO Max) are finally ordering TV shows with more than eight episodes. In less wise production news, Landman does not appear to be coming back this year, since it just started production. Frankly, I don’t love this (get your shows out on time) but Landman is so popular, I doubt it matters.

Oct 18 • 3:59 PM EDT • Entertainment • entertainment.substack.com

Many Women Are Still Struggling to Fill Estrogen Patch Prescriptions. What to Do If You Can’t Get Yours

As demand for menopause treatment increases, estrogen patches are hard to find at pharmacies. Here’s what to do if you can’t refill your prescription.

Oct 18 • 8:00 AM EDT • Health • today.com

In Midterm Campaign’s Final Stretch, Trump Can’t Stop Praising Men’s Bodies

As he stumps for midterm candidates, the president has been especially eager to talk about the physical appearance of some men.

Oct 17 • 6:49 PM EDT • Politics • nytimes.com

Rabies reports are rising in California. Experts can’t explain why

Rabies reports are up across the U.S., including in one greater Bay Area county where human exposures to rabid animals have tripled, prompting a local advisory to stay away from sick creatures.

Oct 17 • 7:00 AM EDT • Health • sfchronicle.com

Billy Joel just gave an update on his health — there are two things he can’t do

‘It’s someone else’s turn to hit the road.’

Oct 16 • 12:20 PM EDT • Health • miamiherald.com

Can AI solve our mental health access problem?

Last week I asked you what worries you most about AI in health. It was close, but your top answer was “AI giving bad health advice.” Last week’s poll results: You’re in good company. This concern was top of mind at a conference I joined at Stanford last week, where researchers, clinicians, and people who build AI systems spent a day debating trust and safety in health AI. Stepping back, I’m also hearing your emerging concerns about AI’s impact on our well-being generally. I see this as a matter of public health, and we’ll take it in pieces as we learn together. Today we’ll focus on AI chatbots used for therapy for mental health. Early this month, Governor Newsom vetoed Senate Bill 903, California’s most ambitious attempt to regulate AI use for mental health. It’s at the center of active debate, and raises the questions patients, family members, citizens, and voters will face as AI moves deeper into health care. Let’s work through it. What is “AI-based therapy”? It’s really two things: purpose-built mental health apps designed to deliver structured support, and general chatbots like ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini that people increasingly use for emotional support—even if they weren’t built for it. Spoiler alert: I don’t know whether the shift toward AI therapy is good or bad. The evidence isn’t there yet. But I do know it’s already happening, and I have some ideas about how we can roll it out with safety in mind. The therapy dilemma, in a nutshell Mental health challenges are common, and strain health and well-being across populations. Therapy (interactive dialogue with a trained, empathetic practitioner) helps many people heal. The demand for licensed therapists far exceeds the supply in California, and AI-based therapy can narrow that gap. AI-based therapy remains novel, unproven, and not well tested. Right off the bat, we can see we’re dealing with trade-offs here. Since the main driver of demand for therapy from a robot is lack of access to therapy from a human, we’ll start there. It’s too hard to find and afford a human therapist California is short roughly 55,000 licensed, non-prescribing therapists and counselors, about 40% of what we need. Psychiatrists, who rely on talk therapy as a complement to prescribed medications, are even more scarce. Eight counties have none, and density ranges from 1.7 per 100,000 residents in San Benito County, to 68.1 in Marin County. My wife is a psychiatrist in Marin, and even here access is tight. If it’s hard in the best-supplied county, imagine rural Sierra County, or the San Joaquin Valley. In 2024, more than half of Californians who tried to make a mental health appointment struggled to find a provider who took their insurance, compared with 14% for physical health care. When Senate staff posed as “secret shopper” patients and called 120 mental health providers in Medicare Advantage networks, they landed an appointment less than once for every five tries. Insurers pay behavioral health clinicians about 22% less than medical and surgical clinicians for comparable office visits. On top of that, billing denials and prior authorizations hit hardest at the solo and small practices common in mental health. Psychiatrists opt out of Medicare at the highest rate of any specialty. In many places, a cash practice for therapy fills quickly with patients paying $250 or more an hour, with no insurance paperwork at all. Families who can pay cash find providers more easily. Those who rely on insurance, including Medi-Cal enrollees, older adults, rural residents, and non-English speakers, compete for what’s left. So we can’t pretend the human system works, and we can’t blame people for turning to AI for support when they’re in distress. AI is filling the gap It’s estimated that roughly a quarter of AI users use it for mental health support. If you have internet, it’s available 24/7, it’s cheap, and it speaks your language. Uninsured adults are about twice as likely as insured adults to do it (30% vs. 14%). It feels anonymous in ways that may enable people to ask things they’re unsure or embarrassed about. The largely hidden, personal use makes it hard to study whether it’s actually helping people with their mental health issues, but researchers are trying. Does AI therapy work? A 2026 analysis of nearly 40 randomized trials found chatbots showed a real but small reduction in depression symptoms. But most of these trials were compared to an alternative of no therapy, not a human therapist. So the benefit of AI therapy is probably real, but modest, and mostly untested against the alternative of human contact. We need more studies. Serious concerns OpenAI’s own estimate is that more than a million ChatGPT users each week show signs of suicidal planning or intent. These are high stakes encounters, and AI doesn’t always get it right. That’s partly because a chatbot can sound like a therapist, but it has no license, no duty of care, and it’s not clear who to hold accountable when it gets things wrong. AI is also designed to help users in whatever task they’re seeking to accomplish. People may feel like they’re getting therapy, but they’re mainly getting a convincing conversation. It’s easy for an AI companion to wander into gray areas, like playing along with “creative writing” that may be about the user’s own suicidal intent. Courts are driving safety conversations A wave of lawsuits have been filed on behalf of families claiming that chatbots pushed people they loved toward self-harm, including teens who died by suicide. The first settlements came this year. OpenAI is headquartered in San Francisco, and dozens of cases alleging that ChatGPT drove users to suicide or self-harm are now before a San Francisco judge. Character.ai has filed for bankruptcy after several states brought lawsuits accusing the chatbot of pushing dangerous content to kids. But the technology seems to be improving. Last month, an independent evaluation found that newer AI models “almost never endorse suicide.” That’s progress, but our societal appetite for even one preventable death is very low. So how do we move forward? Finding a middle ground Earlier this month the governor vetoed Senate Bill 903, a bill designed to place guardrails on the use of AI for therapy. The bill would have prohibited any AI-based platform from being advertised as psychotherapy, and would have required a licensed professional to review and approve each encounter where AI was used to support therapeutic decisions. Newsom called it overly broad, since even routine screening questions would have needed clinician sign-off. Knowing we’re already short on mental health providers, requiring human review of AI encounters may not relieve our access problems. Still, the answer isn’t no oversight. Here’s one feasible short term solution. Rather than reviewing each encounter, a licensed clinician can design the guardrails: what counts as a crisis, what triggers an immediate handoff to a human, and what gets sampled for audit each month. The AI runs inside that structure. Conversations get checked, failures get reported, and a real clinician owns the framework. Medicine already has models to learn from. The FDA process for rolling out newly approved medications is an example. After a product reaches patients, we keep watching for adverse events. Patient-facing AI needs the same “digital pharmacovigilance”: systematic tracking of harms, near misses, and the types of groups that get hurt and why. It’s also critical that users know that they can reach a human if they’re in crisis. Most chatbots now include messages like these: Bottom line The rush to use unproven AI tools for mental health support is mostly a workaround, a sign of a health system people can’t get into. We need better access to proven care from licensed clinicians. That takes reimbursement that makes accepting insurance viable, and a bigger workforce. But, built and tested well, AI could be part of the answer. It could be the 2 a.m. check-in when no one else is awake, or a way for patients to practice skills their therapist taught them. It could be the first step to get someone the right level of care, and take paperwork off clinicians’ plates so they spend more time with patients. None of this is simple. The SB 903 veto doesn’t end the debate, and the legislature will be back. In the meantime, those of us using these tools need to stay informed, ask hard questions, and hold the companies building them accountable. I’ll try to do my part, and we’ll keep learning together. Love,Matt P.S. If you or someone you know is struggling with mental health challenges, emotional distress, substance use problems, or just needs to talk, call or text 988- you’ll reach a real person— or chat at 988lifeline.org 24/7. Dr. Matt Willis is the author of Your Local Epidemiologist in California. A California native, he’s served as a primary care physician, CDC epidemiologist, and public health officer for Marin County, where he guided the pandemic response. He lives in Marin with his family and their dogs, Teddy and Ramona. Thank you Cynthia He, MD, PhD, and Parnika Saxena, MD, for their guidance in preparing this article. Cynthia works in an outpatient mental health clinic, treating patients who have Medi-Cal or, sometimes, no insurance. Parnika works in an inpatient psychiatric unit, treating patients with public or private insurance or self-pay ability. All opinions are their own and do not represent their employers.

Oct 16 • 10:32 AM EDT • Health • yourlocalepidemiologistca.substack.com

Democrats eyeing the presidency can’t stop talking about this issue

The attention from prominent Democrats reflects a spreading belief inside the party that a winning 2028 agenda must tackle Americans’ deep worries

Oct 16 • 10:08 AM EDT • Politics • detroitnews.com

Did human beings evolve from apes? Here’s what science can and can’t prove

Oct 16 • 9:33 AM EDT • Science • yahoo.com

Plague is stoppable. The next health threat may not be.

The word plague is scary. Centuries ago, the Black Death killed tens of millions of people and changed the course of history. Plague still kills people around the world, and the word still evokes catastrophe. New fears of plague surfaced on October 2, when a lab worker in Irkutsk, Russia, died of pneumonia. Reports suggested that she may have contracted plague through a laboratory exposure. Understandably, people were alarmed. On October 7, the World Health Organization called for the Russian Federation to be transparent about what it knew. WHO issued an update on October 10. Russian authorities told WHO that testing did not identify plague and that investigations found no laboratory release. WHO said confidence in its risk assessment remained limited and that further clinical, epidemiological, and laboratory information was needed. The cause of the woman’s illness remains unknown, and WHO says a laboratory-associated exposure cannot be excluded. As I explained in a recent interview, this incident is very unlikely to lead to a pandemic. Plague is still active, including in the U.S., which sees a handful of cases each year. But it is a disease we can prevent and treat. Plague doesn’t spread readily, and it responds to antibiotics. The standard response—isolate the patient, trace contacts, and administer antibiotics and monitor for symptoms among contacts for seven days—works. We have even planned for antibiotic-resistant plague. At CDC, we developed a playbook for antibiotic-resistant plague and ran exercises on how to find and stop it. CDC guidance anticipates engineered resistance and recommends two different classes of antibiotics if there’s reason to suspect it. There is no evidence that resistance—or even confirmed plague—is involved in this incident. We have thought through how to address plague, but we’re not ready for the next major health threat that emerges from a lab or from animal spillover to humans. What should concern people is how little stands between the world and the next pathogen to get loose. Since peak COVID, epidemic preparedness has fallen off the political agenda, but the risk is greater than ever. More labs handle dangerous pathogens with more ways to make those pathogens deadlier, and more people live and work in close contact with animals. There are actions we can take now: We need better lab safety in every country. The number of labs that work with dangerous pathogens has increased worldwide over two decades, but there’s no enforceable international standard and no inspection regime; the Biological Weapons Convention, fifty years on, still has no verification mechanism. Labs that study dangerous germs need strong safety systems, training, and oversight. We need to reduce spillover events. Three in four emerging human infections start in animals, and there’s a lot we can do to reduce spillover risk, but the world is doing very little of it. Live-animal markets are one place to act. For instance, closing live-bird markets helped control H7N9 influenza in China. Reducing opportunities for people to encounter infected animals can prevent infections before they become outbreaks. In The Formula for Better Health, which is now out in paperback along with the hardcover, Kindle, and audiobook versions, I argue that labs do too many risky experiments with too many dangerous pathogens in too many institutions, and that every experiment should first answer one basic question: Is the likely benefit greater than the risk? Spillover risk can also be reduced: In the book, I discuss how Brazil cut its deforestation rate by 70% from 2004 to 2012 while increasing agricultural production and reducing risky contact between people and forest animals. We need faster detection and response. Delay costs lives. Strong surveillance, good labs, and trained responders can turn a single case into a small cluster of infections instead of an epidemic. Resolve to Save Lives has worked for nearly a decade to help countries find and stop outbreaks faster. The 7-1-7 target, which Resolve to Save Lives developed with partners in Uganda and elsewhere, provides a clear standard: detect within 7 days, notify within 1 day and complete all essential early response actions within 7 days. In Uganda’s Kasese district, for example, a review of a measles outbreak using 7-1-7 identified shortages of accessible funds, fuel, and vehicles that delayed the response. District leaders established funds they could access quickly. When, a few months later, the Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever appeared, the district detected it in three days, notified authorities in one, and mounted an effective response in two. Only one case was confirmed, and the patient survived. Because funds were available before the emergency, authorities were prepared and able to act. This kind of preparation can’t wait until the next crisis begins. Plague is an old disease we that know how to stop. The next threat may be harder to recognize, harder to treat, and easier to spread. Safer labs, less risk of spillover, and faster outbreak detection and response need sustained investment now, while we still have time to prevent the next emergency. Share

Oct 16 • 8:57 AM EDT • Health • tomfrieden.substack.com

AI is outpacing guardrails. Businesses must build their own

As AI capabilities race ahead of regulation, companies can’t afford to wait for governments to set the rules.

Oct 16 • 1:00 AM EDT • Business • fastcompany.com

Billy Joel reveals he can’t drive or perform anymore in heartbreaking health update

Oct 15 • 4:26 PM EDT • Health • pagesix.com

Democratic socialism isn’t Leninism. Why can’t politicians say so?

The best way to counter the GOP’s Red Scare tactics is to firmly disavow communism.

Oct 15 • 6:15 AM EDT • Politics • washingtonpost.com

Voters Can’t Be Bought (but Politicians Keep Trying) | WSJ Economics for Oct. 15

Plus, government equity purchases, AI-driven inflation and the perils of Treasury’s short-term borrowing.

Oct 15 • 6:00 AM EDT • Politics • wsj.com

You Can’t Build Golden Science Without Global Talent

Trump has announced millions in funding for new science and tech initiatives, but the anti-immigrant America First agenda could undermine his ambitions.

Oct 14 • 8:00 PM EDT • Science • insidehighered.com

Daldrop Opens for Business in Southern Oswego County

$10 Million Facility in the L. Michael Treadwell Oswego County Industrial Park marks the largest expansion outside of Germany in the company’s 73-year history By Stefan Yablonski [caption id=attachment_11076 align=alignright width=450] Daldrop SBB CEO Jens Daldrop addresses attendees at the 2025 groundbreaking for the project. Daldrop also chairs the advisory board of Germany-based Daldrop Group.[/caption] A new era of cleanroom technology is underway in Central New York. The Daldrop Group’s advanced manufacturing facility and U.S. headquarters is physically built within the L. Michael Treadwell Oswego County Industrial Park. This industrial park is located in the town of Schroeppel. It marks the largest expansion outside of Germany in the company’s 73-year history. Daldrop SBB is based in Neckartailfingen, Germany. It is a global supplier of cleanroom technology, primarily to the pharmaceutical industry. It designs and builds advanced cleanroom environments for the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical technology industries. It nvested $10 million in the new project. “We broke ground in 2025; we were under construction all winter. We just opened this spring, early spring,” said Benjamin Morrow, operations manager and control. The company consolidated sites in Salina and DeWitt into the industrial park in Schroeppel, Morrow added. “The next move here is to maximize every square inch of this facility and then we are already looking at the expansion. So, it is more capital investment on equipment — definitely higher-end automation in additional equipment so we can produce more components and then to support the ever-growing base in North America,” Morrow continued. “We are the headquarters for service, maintenance and spare parts. So as Daldrop has more and more installations, they need more and more service, maintenance and spare parts. So that will come out of this facility as well — it already is.” “As a global leader in GMP (global manufacturing support) pharmaceutical cleanrooms for decades, I am very proud to bring manufacturing jobs to Upstate New York,” said Mike Sullivan, president of Daldrop US operations. Key to choosing Southern Oswego County [caption id=attachment_11077 align=alignright width=450] Daldrop SBB at the L. Michael Treadwell Oswego County Industrial Park when the company announced the start of construction.[/caption] Sullivan said that the selection of the Schroeppel industrial park was mainly due to the help of Operation Oswego County and two people in the organization. “Prior to being purchased by Daldrop International from the Stuttgart region of Germany, Vince Bongio was a founding partner in SBB Inc. as well as our head of engineering. We based out of Syracuse due to Vince’s skills in HVAC and the manufacturing capabilities found in Syracuse,” said Sullivan. Bongio moved to Syracuse from California in the 1970s to work in Carrier’s Industrial Division of Large-Scale Petrochemical Refrigeration. Next, he advanced to General Electric’s TV Tube Plant where he got into cleanrooms ,leading to his role of head of engineering for Clestra Cleanrooms where he met Sullivan, their New England distributor. “Vince Bongio is a phenomenal engineer. Formerly of Carrier, he grew up in California and went to Cal Poly,” Sullivan explained. “Carrier hired him right out of college and he moved to Syracuse. He is the reason we are in Syracuse today. He is retiring this year. We are very proud and his legacy is having brought Daldrop to Syracuse.” In 2000, Sullivan, Bazinet, Bongio Inc (SBB) was formed with engineering and manufacturing, based in Syracuse, and sales and construction based in Massachusetts as it is today. “SBB Inc. started in Syracuse. I had a design–build contracting firm out of Massachusetts that was primarily doing all the new technologies coming out of MIT,” Sullivan said. “I started a manufacturing side. A big thing for cleanrooms is the HVAC. Most cleanroom suppliers are architecturally focused people. The strength in Syracuse is HVAC. So, SBB developed with me running sales and construction out of Massachusetts and manufacturing out of Syracuse.” “Daldrop wanted to have a relationship in the States and of those who approached us, they were the only ones who really understood HVAC. So, we were the right fit for them. We did a joint venture focused out of Massachusetts from 2012 to 2018 leveraging their technologies,” Sullivan explained. “The commitment was if we brought their product to the States, we would do that if they built it here. “The pieces that had to be in place to make the investment, they wanted to acquire us, we were great with that. If you looked at business recommendations the general guidance was to build in a low labor area — something like North Carolina — but Syracuse had a strong background in HVAC and we chose Syracuse and Oswego County to be our headquarters in the States. So, it is built off of history, technology and the existing supply chain — bringing jobs back to the area.” During the initial discussions with Daldrop about coming to the U.S., SBB agreed to sell under the conditions Daldrop would manufacture in the U.S. There are many areas that offer incentives and economic packages, but the strength of HVAC expertise and skilled manufacturing was a big part of the discussions for site selection. Coming home [caption id=attachment_11078 align=alignright width=451] Construction moves forward in March at the L. Michael Treadwell Oswego County Industrial Park.[/caption] The second key person to building in Oswego County is Ben Morrow, Sullivan added. “Ben has been working with Daldrop SBB for more than 12 years and has advanced to COO of manufacturing and engineering. Ben grew up in Phoenix, so building a factory for the Germany company in Phoenix is a strong success for both his community and the appreciation of Ben’s skills as a team leader,” Sullivan said. “I went to high school in Phoenix. So, this is like full circle for me. It’s a small world,” Morrow said. “I hadn’t been back to Phoenix since graduation. This is one of the properties that John Trimble of C&S, he is the former president of C&S, he just retired, suggested. He and I were very good personal friends. John was from Mexico and I was from Phoenix. We knew each other from high school. And the architect of this building, Ed Smart of smartDESIGN Architecture in Batavia — I went to high school with him. So, this was a project that’s full circle a coming home kind of thing. The three of us knew each other — kind of like it was meant to be. Very serendipitous.” Schroeppel was one option for Daldrop to consider; the original intent was just to get a warehouse to store some product, he added. The facility is Daldrop’s largest outside of their native country. Total payroll at the facility will be approximately $2.4 million once fully staffed. “Here is 32,000 square feet and we plan to expand and put in an additional 10,000 square feet,” Morrow said. “We have 17.5 acres. We can put at least three more facilities here, just on this property. The master plan submitted for the current building is the first of possible three buildings on the campus.” “If we can find the right people and advance the production according to the plan, we should be able to grow for the next decade. One of the first jobs we filled was our new HR manager, with a primary focus posting and filling new positions,” Sullivan said. Stop the exodus, start hiring [caption id=attachment_11080 align=alignright width=452] Principals at the local Daldrop SBB headquarters, from left: Ben Morrow, Mike Sullivan and Jens Daldrop.[/caption] “I have been coming to Syracuse for 30 years. One of the things I had a hard time watching was the exodus of factories. One of the toughest things is to watch it with my partners’ kids who had to move away for jobs. It is important for us to give opportunity where people’s kids don’t have to leave the area to get work,” Sullivan said. “My responsibility is to find people who have skill sets that want to work and then I have to build opportunity for that work to happen. “After years of watching companies and Vince’s three sons all move out of the areas to get jobs, it is important to us to provide opportunities for the Syracuse region and help grow our company. We have been hiring for our new factory and will continue for the next few years.” “We are hiring and will continue to hire. Currently we have about 19 on staff right now,” Morrow said. “We expect to grow that by about 10 to 15 in the next 12 to 18 months or so. We are at 19 currently — one in the wings. It’s been great being able to hire locally. All these folks that we’ve been hiring, they all live within a few miles from here.” “We hired someone this past week (end of August). She grew up in the area, raised a family and is working down in Florida. She just took a job with us so she can move back and be with her family. We will be moving her back and she should be starting in October. We are very happy to see this happen,” Sullivan said. “I feel strongly about having a spot for the kids to not have to move out of the area. It is better to have people moving into the area.” Currently, Daldrop SBB has openings for finance manager, COO of construction and delivery, as well as mechanical, electrical designers and Revit modelers, construction managers, commissioning agents and many other skills that are needed. Along with Daldrop’s reputation in life science cleanrooms, there is a strong history in semiconductor, electronics, glass, photonics, aerospace and other markets. This may be helpful with any new technologies building in the market such as the Micron expansion and the support network, Sullivan said. “We acquired this property and closed on it two months before any announcement from Micron. It is serendipitous that they’re right down the street from us,” Morrow added. “Everybody started thinking ‘you guys are supporting Micron.’ We were here first. That is not a goal of ours. We may or may not … they are talking to us; it is an opportunity.” The long run [caption id=attachment_11079 align=alignright width=450] Benjamin Morrow, operations manager and control at Daldlrop, speaks during a recent ribbon-cutting event in Schroeppel.[/caption] “Long term, we will expand the Phoenix facility,” Sullivan said. “We built our facility with a campus approach. Sustainability is big. We designed our rooms to be more sustainable. Our building has no gas lines for heat. We put geothermal wells in the ground. We put heat pumps in for heating and cooling out of those wells and we put a large layer of solar panels up on the roof. We worked with National Grid for metering. Our building is a high efficiency model. We upgraded all the instillation and the glass filtering. So, it is a very green building. We will have a very minimal carbon footprint. It also adheres to LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) construction standards.” “We are a bunch of HVAC engineers. We did a large scale geothermal and spent the money up front because we knew it made sense in the business sense in the environmental sense and sustainability,” Morrow said. “We have insulated metal panels on walls and roof; we are an envelope from the exterior.” Daldrop, as a global player, has a strong culture of sustainability that is found in all its products including the new facility. The building has been designed with (sixteen) 400-foot deep geothermal wells, high efficiency construction methods, approximately 70 kilowatt solar photovoltaic panels, electric vehicle chargers and 26% recycled content. “Daldrop thinks of long-term investing,” Sullivan said. “On the roof, photovoltaic panels supplement our power. Over half the energy that I use is coming from the sun. We have chargers up front for employee electric vehicles. This place is built to last. This slab that we are walking on, normal buildings are four inches, some go to six inches, we are nine inches all the way through — except where the heavy equipment is — that is 10 to 12 inches thick, solid concrete. It allows us to reconfigure for whatever type of equipment we want to bring in,” Morrow said. “We are authorized by Underwriters Laboratory to self-certify so we don’t need to have an inspector come out and recertify. We get audited often, but we certify our own electronics. The control system in this building is rather high-end. Our thermostat in every room is zoned, independent. We analyze the data; incorporate it with our solar panels.” “There is a lot of competition for people to work. It’s not just about how much salary they are going to make — it’s about the work environment, the ability for stability. We want to make sure our employees have the best environment to work in,” Morrow added. Similarities “One of the reasons I believe why Daldrop chose this area, Phoenix in particular, is because it is a village, a river-based village. Neckartailfingen in Germany where Daldrop is based is also a river-based village, manufacturing community. So, there is a lot of similarities — that smalltown feel,” Morrow said. “We have a lot of connections through multiple employees that lead back to Carrier, also. Everything came together, the timing everything.” “We are thankful for all the economic development support. Everyone has been helping make this happen. So, keep it up, it is working, that is all I got to say, Sullivan said. “If you look at historical industrial manufacturing, this region has skills that have been un-utilized. The northern industrial region has a lot of skills that if we can tap before they go away, we can leverage them. That is what we are trying to do. You’d be surprised at the supply chain left behind from Carrier — that supply chain is still there.” “Operation Oswego County has been fantastic,” Morrow added. “I can’t say enough good things about that group.” What Is Cleanroom Technology Cleanroom technology is a system of specialized engineering, filtration and operational controls used to maintain an extremely low concentration of airborne particles, microbes and chemical vapors. How It Works • Air Filtration: Uses HEPA or ULPA filters to remove 99.97% of tiny particles down to 0.3 microns. • Airflow Control: Directs air in a steady, unidirectional (laminar) or filtered turbulent pattern to push dust away from work areas. • Environmental Regulation: Maintains precise control over temperature, humidity and positive air pressure to block outside air leaks. • Specialized Attire: Requires personnel to wear full-body garments (“bunny suits”), gloves and masks to stop human shedding

Oct 14 • 8:23 AM EDT • Business • oswegocountybusiness.com

SPECIAL REPORT: Tough Business

A string of vacant restaurant buildings shows that many restaurants in the region are struggling — and several are closing By Stefan Yablonski [caption id=attachment_11132 align=alignright width=401] Smokey Bones Bar & Fire Grill on Route 31 in Clay closed its doors in April. It had been in operation since at least 2008.[/caption] By their nature, most restaurants have a limited life. An astonishing 60% go out of business within three years of opening, largely due to fundamental flaws in the planning of the operation. But even restaurants that experience years of success almost always face eventual closure. The restaurant business is very hard and because of both personal factors and external factors beyond anyone’s control, restaurants don’t last forever. For many restaurants, age is a big factor, according to Kenneth Walsleben, professor of practice, entrepreneurship and emerging enterprises at Syracuse University. “The owners have been at it for 20 or 25 years, if not longer, they want some time to themselves,” he said. Such was the case for Jocko’s Famous Ritz Diner in Oswego. Jocko Reitz bought the building in the late 1970s from Robert Shapiro. However, when he stepped away from the business, it eventually closed. [caption id=attachment_11142 align=alignright width=402] For nearly 80 years, Vona’s Restaurant passed through three generations of family in Oswego. It closed its doors on Dec. 31, 2025.[/caption] For nearly 80 years, Vona’s passed through three generations of family in Oswego. Vona’s Restaurant officially closed its doors on Dec. 31, 2025, when no family member wanted to take over. It is on the market. The Ruby Tuesday in Oswego operated for about two decades before permanently closing in April 2026. The restaurant faced multiple temporary health department closures in 2024 and 2025 due to persistent fruit fly and foundation pest issues. Management posted a final closure notice on the doors in mid-April 2026 and the building was put up for sale. The same pattern has been happening in Onondaga County. The big building once used by Smokey Bones Bar & Fire Grill on Route 31 in Clay remains empty, more than six months after the restaurant closed its doors in April. It had been in operation since at least 2008. [caption id=attachment_11130 align=alignright width=401] Ruby Tuesday in Oswego operated for about two decades before permanently closing in April 2026.[/caption] Just down the road from Smokey Bones, the popular Outback Steakhouse closed in August 2024. Another restaurant took its place, La Cocina Mexican Restaurant, but it closed shortly after. The building sits empty. Other very popular restaurants in the northern suburbs of Syracuse have recently closed. Among them, Fireside by the River in Baldwinsville and Primo Nestico’s Bistro Bar in North Syracuse. “I haven’t really paid attention to the Syracuse area. There has always been some turnover, but there probably has never been a tougher time to be a restauranter than now. It’s just brutal,” Walsleben said. In the first year, roughly 20% to 25% of restaurants close or change hands, according to the National Restaurant Association. [caption id=attachment_11122 align=alignright width=401] Outback Steakhouse closed in August 2024. Another restaurant took its place, La Cocina Mexican Restaurant, but it closed shortly after. The building sits empty.[/caption] “Depending on what statistics you look at, you’ll find that any business has a high mortality rate in the first year. That is just the nature of entrepreneurship,” Walsleben said. “There are certain ones that are getting hit hard while others are more fruitful. “And when you look at the restaurant industry you have to factor in labor which is a large part — typically a third of your expenses — and those costs are going up. And there is always turnover which means investing money to train people. Then you’ve got food costs, which is also a third of the typical restaurant budget. Since the pandemic labor has gone up 41%, food costs have gone up 35%. That’s a big tight squeeze righty there. That’s two-thirds of your budget that has gone up 35% to 40% in the last few years. And then the only way you can make that work is to raise the prices.” The National Restaurant Association reports menu prices are up 36% since February of 2020. In a survey released by the association, more than eight in 10 restaurant owners reported that their food, beverage and labor costs are now higher than before the pandemic. You have to deal with the reality of are the customers willing to pay for that? Walsleben added. Restaurants historically have very thin margins; their profit margin is about 5%. “You have a third that goes into food, a third that goes into labor and about 28%, 29% that goes into everything else — overhead, insurance etc. So that brings you down to your 5% leftover,” he said. “Everything is going up. Customer expectations are going up and people aren’t going to spend that much more. So, you have a tight squeeze here,” Walsleben continued. “Restaurants who use delivery apps, they pay a fee to those guys. Those guys don’t work for free. So, you can kind of see where the squeeze comes from.” Stuck in the middle There are pockets of opportunity; the two extremes of the market can make a profit. But the middle gets squeezed out. “If you are a low-end fast-food kind of place, there is room for that. People have changed their budgets. They are still going out, but they are not spending more,” according to Walsleben. “The high end remains positive. If you have a restaurant that brings a specific experience … a great food product or you are catering to high end customers who aren’t so budget conscious, those patrons are going to expect a high-end experience. They expect excellent food every time. They are expecting excellent service. If you can meet those expectations there is room for you at the top. It’s just the guys in the middle are getting the squeeze from both ends. Tough competition, customer expectations, costs are up. Menu items, you can’t raise the prices as much as you need to. That is why you are seeing a lot of restaurants baling out.” The ones that can adapt quickly are the ones who are doing OK. “Success is heavily dependent on the strength of a restaurant’s concept development and the planning of its execution. Eventually things aren’t always new. Things change. So, if you are in the restaurant business you have got to change your menu — keep things new, fresh and update your meals. It is very fickle industry. One year carbs are out, the next year berries are out. Everybody’s diet changes — constantly chasing the latest phase. You have got to adjust your menu and move with those modifications. If you have a static menu that you have used the last couple years that hasn’t changed except for the pricing, you’ve got a problem,” he said. A lot of times these buildings are singular purpose, he added. “You have a commercially viable kitchen and you got a seating area. There is not a lot of other businesses that cater to that type of a layout. So, it’s pretty common to see another restaurant slide in,” he said. One of the things a banker learns early on is you don’t lend money to restaurants … because they fail so quickly. It is very hard to predict who the winners will be. So, if you are a restaurant in addition to all the other challenges, it is very difficult to get loans, according to Walsleben. “You might work really well in the kitchen. But that doesn’t mean you are a great businessperson,” he said. “Restaurants can fail because the owner didn’t know how to manage things properly. There are a lot of challenges. “There is opportunity at the high end and the low end. But in the middle, that’s the death valley. There are just so many things working against you. You really need to have something that will pull people in and continue to pull people in because you to constantly have to change. Think about a theme and a product that is unique to the area people don’t travel that far these days you have to be able to deliver it in an innovative fashion and keep updating to keep people coming in the door.” Out of Business? How Fast? Do nine out of 10 restaurants fail in their first year, as commonly claimed? No. Survival analysis of 1.9 million longitudinal microdata for 81,000 full-service restaurants in a 20-year U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics non public census of business establishments in the western US shows that only 17% of independently owned full-service restaurant startups failed in their first year, compared with 19% for all other service-providing startups, according to ResearchGate. The median lifespan of restaurants is about 4.5 years, slightly longer than that of other service businesses (4.25 years). However, the median lifespan of a restaurant startup with 5 or fewer employees is 3.75 years, slightly shorter than that of other service businesses of the same startup size (4.0 years). What Makes a Restaurant Successful? Opening and maintaining a successful restaurant is not as easy as creating a great menu and serving excellent food. It takes more than that, according to local restaurant owners who have been in business for decades in the region. They all agree that there are some guidelines to running a successful restaurant. • Quality food: Successful restaurants know exactly what they serve and who they serve it to. Delivering the same great taste every single time builds loyal customers. • Smooth operations: Friendly greetings and attentive staff make guests feel welcome from the moment they walk in. Hiring staff for personality and training for skill ensures reliable, caring service. • Smart marketing: Exceptional food and experiences naturally get people talking and sharing online. Word of mouth can help entice customers. Consistent social media and targeted advertising brings in new and repeat guests also. The menu is what keeps patrons coming back to Mimi’s Diner in Fulton, located at 201 N. Second St. “We locally source our produce and our meats. Our chicken and biscuits is a popular, popular special,” said Richard Tagliareni, the third-generation owner and general manager. “It’s all homemade. We have consistently served quality food.” His grandfather started the business more than 55 years ago. Mimi’s is engrained in the community. They cater to the community and are very involved in everything from the schools to local events. The first Mimi’s Drive-In opened in Mexico. Then a second in Oswego and then Fulton. Fulton’s Mimi’s is the only one left. “The last couple of weeks have been kind of slower than normal. October is usually a busier month for us People will start coming back around again. Also, the price of gas is affecting some things,” Tagliareni added. “We try to keep our prices in line. You go out to eat, you’re going to spend about a hundred bucks or so for two people for dinner. You come here to Mimi’s you are probably for two people for dinner it’s between $50 and $60. We are trying to keep our prices in line. We did have to increase our prices a little bit but things are looking OK.” For the Press Box, 29 E. First St., Oswego, it’s also about great food and a family atmosphere. “Our sports bar and restaurant was established in 1984,” said Alison Canale Scanlon, manager. “I think putting the time into everything makes a big difference and treating people like family when they walk into your restaurant. That’s how we have always operated since 1984.” “It’s the family oriented aspect,” she added. “Consistency, quality and presentation of our food — that’s the secret to a successful restaurant. We try to be very consistent with it. We treat people like family when they come in; because we know how we want to be treated when we go to a restaurant. We treat people the same or better.”

Oct 14 • 8:23 AM EDT • Business • oswegocountybusiness.com

N. Syracuse Manufacturer Marks Milestone, Plans for the Future

Air Innovations has grown from a small local manufacturer into a global business, selling its products in 74 countries organizations. Some of its clients include NASA, Blue Origin and SpaceX. By Stefan Yablonski [caption id=attachment_11117 align=alignright width=450] Michael Wetzel, president and CEO, and his father, Larry, who currently is an adviser to the board of directors. Larry served as the chairman of the board until 2024, when the company was acquired by Altus Capital Partners, a private equity firm.[/caption] Air Innovations in North Syracuse hopes to add more employees and possibly even expand its facility in the near future. The company is a global leader in designing and building environmental process control systems for applications that can’t be addressed with standard HVAC equipment, according to Michael Wetzel, president and CEO. “We customize solutions for temperature, humidity, filtration and pressurization, with additional capabilities in direct-expansion, chilled-water and thermoelectric technologies. Our business now is entirely focused on specialty or niche markets.” Air Innovations celebrated its 40th anniversary on Sept. 18, marking four decades of doing business, manufacturing products and growing in Central New York. In the beginning [caption id=attachment_11138 align=alignright width=451] A worker, Ezzy Salehi, tests a Wine Guardian condenser unit at Air Innovations.[/caption] “A guy by the name of Jim Kelley started the business [known as Floratech] in 1986. It was focused on refrigerated display cases for supermarket fresh flowers,” Wetzel said. “My father [Larry] started Clean Room Technology in the early 1980s, then sold that to a French company called Clestra Cleanroom. “My father and I bought Floratech in 1996 — 30 years ago, 10 years after it was started. Then in 1999, Floratech bought a portion of Clestra and their building. At that point everything was still called Floratech. But, as that was not reflective of the diversity of the business, we rebranded as Air Innovations in 2001.” The company rebranded to pursue a strategy of diversification in specialty HVAC systems. Wetzel explained that since then, it has become a trusted global partner, earning the President’s “E” Award for Exports and securing contracts in the most demanding fields, including aerospace, defense and semiconductor manufacturing. Air Innovations has grown from a small local manufacturer into a global business, selling nearly 70,000 units in 74 countries and territories and developing custom environmental control systems for companies and organizations including NASA, Blue Origin and SpaceX. “We work with all the big names you ever heard of and some you never heard of,” Wetzel added. The Wetzels sold the business two years ago to Altus Capital Partners, a private equity firm focused on control investments in lower middle-market, niche manufacturing companies in North America. Founded in 2003, Altus Capital Partners’ headquarters is in Wilton, Connecticut, with an additional office in Lincolnshire, Illinois. “They are an equity firm. Both my father and I both maintain a small minority share. I am going to continue to be involved. I call myself a part-time CEO. I will continue that role for the foreseeable future; I don’t see any change there.” Building to the future “We are at 58 employees right now, which is a little bit down. We had a high of 70. That moves along with the activity we have,” Wetzel said. “We’ll start ramping up here in the fourth quarter into next year. More than 20% of our employees have been with the company for more than a decade. “I am fairly certain that sometime in the next several years we are going to have to enlarge the footprint of our facility and for sure we are going to have to add employees. We already are. We are probably going to have to add five or six people next year. We are always in the market for HVAC technicians; we always need those.” Air Innovations will remain in Central New York, with its current workforce staying in place, he added. “I believe the primary driver of our success over time is the diversity of our business which is a direct result of our willingness to tackle new challenges,” Wetzel said.

Oct 14 • 8:23 AM EDT • Business • oswegocountybusiness.com

Retiring from Farming

Start now to ensure your farm passes to the next generation Deborah Jeanne Post [caption id=attachment_11062 align=alignright width=405] Adam C. Howell, outreach director at Cornell’s NY FarmNet: “Retirement from farming is atypical planning,” he says.[/caption] Roughly 70% of family-owned farms will transfer ownership withing the next two decades, according to data from to the USDA census. Only 30% of those will remain in the family. The number of farms in New York is shrinking as the size of farms increases. In other words, there are fewer farms in the state, but they’re much larger. This is why succession planning is so important for family farms. A farm represents not only a way to make a living but a legacy and family tradition. Many families want to preserve the small farm segment of agriculture and the values it represents. Passing the family farm to the next generation can’t be left to chance. And it shouldn’t be left for “the kids to figure out” after the older generation dies. Succession planning in agriculture isn’t like other types of business retirement planning or personal final planning. “Retirement from farming is atypical planning,” said Adam C. Howell, outreach director at Cornell’s NY FarmNet. “Most farmers, their assets and the way they live and survive in retirement is tied up in the equity in the farm. Those conversations must take place a lot earlier than they think. They’re dealing with something asset-heavy that may require a trust and tax planning.” NY FarmNet offers farmers free, confidential consultation services regarding financial and business management, and family, and mental health support for farmers in New York state. It’s a program of Cornell University in Ithaca. Howell urges farmers to begin the conversation early. Most family farms are run by generations with the oldest generation most involved and typically with fewer of the middle-aged adults and young adults involved. Some of the younger generation may have off-farm jobs and not live on the homestead. “Different people have different expectations on their legacy,” Howell said. “Intergenerational conflict and discussions can be difficult. It may be good to check with NY FarmNet or Ag Mediation to help mediate these conversations with a third party. A lot of farms have broken up because people can’t decide how to divide things.” New York State Agricultural Mediation Program is a USDA‑certified, free or low‑cost service for farmers. Fair is not always equal. A sole owner simply stating that he wants to divide things equally among his children may leave one-quarter of the farm operation to an adult child who moved away and hasn’t sat in a tractor for decades. The three adult children who have toiled on the farm for 30 years may need to buy out the fourth, non-farming sibling but cannot because all of their money is tied up in the equipment, land and stock that supports their livelihood. Their payrate may not allow them to set aside much to buy out the non-farming sibling. As a result, they may need to sell parts of the farm off in order to keep it. However, doing so may limit their ability to sufficiently support their families. The farm owner may need to bequeath more assets to the farming siblings because their efforts have kept the farm going and without those assets and their work, the farm will cease operations. Howell advises seeking professional help on tax and legal issues. Without it, families can be exposed to expensive problems and infighting. A third-party expert can help farm families navigate what is truly fair in the family’s succession plans. Beyond the practical aspects of inheritance, succession also relies upon planning who will operate the farm and how. “I think it’s important that farmers understand the means and methods of farming are always changing,” Howell said. For example, many young adult farmers earn a degree at a school such as Cornell, SUNY Cobleskill or Morrisville, work on a different farm for a while and then return to their family farm with big ideas on how to improve the farm — if only their dad and uncles will agree. Intergenerational conflict is often centered on newer ideas such agritourism, online marketing and shipping goods. “It causes conflict,” Howell said. “A lot of it comes down to communication and respect within the family. If no one in the family wants to take on farming, what we’ll see is older farmers start to help trusted managers buy into the farm.” The middle-aged generation, now in their 40s and 50s, often struggle with wresting the helm from their parents. Howell said that many older farmers don’t discuss with their grown children their vital business information such as vendors, ordering supplies, pricing, recordkeeping and farm planning. They even claim that “the kids” aren’t ready yet. These gaps in cross-training may cause significant problems even before the older generation dies, if there’s an illness or injury. Howell urges farmers to document these processes and cross-train others on the farm how to handle these areas “to make sure if one person is incapacitated, the entire operation is not at risk,” he said. Mark Modzeleski, financial adviser, financial planner and president at Legacy Wealth Advisors of NY in Syracuse, advises families to talk sooner than later about who should be operating the farm. “Someone is driving the farm,” he said. “Have you decided who? Be honest when you have that conversation. Who do they turn to when there’s a question? Or who has the potential to be leaders?” Planning for leadership continuity is vital. Unfortunately, talking like this can become fraught with emotions if it’s only the family involved. Modzeleski advised finding a third party who can help drive the conversation. “Invite the right people to the conversation who can get you from point A to point B,” he said. “This is a marathon, not a sprint.” It may take sitting down a few times with an estate planning attorney who specializes in farm transition, along with a tax professional and others who can help moderate and plan. Family members, owners and possibly, integral farm managers should attend the meetings. “Figure out what you want your legacy to be,” Modzeleski added.

Oct 14 • 8:23 AM EDT • Business • oswegocountybusiness.com

To get the most from science, train lab leaders

Business skills can’t just be learned on the job, say Sahar Bakr and Peter Aldiss

Oct 14 • 3:00 AM EDT • Science • researchprofessionalnews.com

Beltway Politics Don’t Equal Job Protections for Rail Workers

Teamsters President Sean O’Brien can’t seem to stop inserting himself into the pending Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern merger. Read on to learn why political alliances aren’t the same as job protections.

Oct 13 • 4:34 PM EDT • Politics • smart-union.org

Trump’s Fundamental Electoral Strategy is Violence

Chants of “USA!” rang out at the president’s Ohio rally after a MAGA goon punched a protester in the face. Bet you can’t guess who got high-fived, and who got escorted out of the venue.

Oct 13 • 4:03 PM EDT • Politics • esquire.com

Joe Manganiello unpacks his health scare in memoir, “Bloodlines”: ‘I can’t believe I got through it’

The “One Piece” star tells “Entertainment Weekly” about his experience revisiting his seven-year-long health battle for the memoir, which is available now.

Oct 13 • 4:02 PM EDT • Entertainment • yahoo.com

When 1 + 1 = 1: The Miserable Math Behind Many Media Mergers

(Welcome to the “Most Important Story of the Week”, my bi-weekly strategy column analyzing the most important (but often not buzziest) news story of the last two weeks. I’m the Entertainment Strategy Guy, a former streaming executive who now analyzes business strategy in the entertainment industry. Please subscribe.) The last few issues of this newsletter have circled two topics: September’s streaming viewership and all the Paramount/Skydance/Warner Bros./Discovery merger news. I’m happy to say on the Streaming Ratings Report front, we’ll be all caught up by early next week, then the SRR will come out on a tight weekly schedule. Then, after today, I’ll have slayed my PSWbD dragon. It’s such a big story, it demanded multiple issues. With the announcement of a name (just Skydance) and executive team, though, I think we can almost close the book on this story. In terms of topics, it becomes just another studio to cover. So today, I have one last set of takes on that merger. As I’ve sat with it, reading about who was staying and who was going, a big worry crystallized in my brain, and I gotta get that take out. Plus, I still owe you a host of “ugliness” that didn’t fit in my previous “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly” takes. Let’s dive in! Subscribe Most Important Story of the Week - As Paramount Shuffles Deck Chairs, Will They Build or Consolidate? On social media—I try to avoid most social media platforms, but sometimes I end up checking in—the best joke I saw about the announcement of the new name of Skydance was from fellow reporter Claire Atkinson who pointed out… Yeah, I laughed out loud at that one. Later, though, I saw another Twitter response (that later got deleted, so I can’t shout the person out) that did give me pause. The person noted that the Titanic film made the better analogy: a super expensive project everyone in the town doubted that went on to conquer the globe. So yeah: on one hand, the image of the Titanic recalls the actual ship and its infamous end, but that clip is from a movie which proved the doubters wrong. So for all the skepticism of the latest massive media merger, one could wonder which way this one goes. Does it crash like the Titanic or rise to glory like Titanic, the movie? Either way, this deal is “Titanic”, looking at the massive debt required to close the deal, which is not going well when it comes to borrowing costs for Paramount… …or borrowing costs for Oracle. But I’ve started to get worried about another outcome: the sum of this merger will be smaller and weaker and less profitable than its former parts. In other words, one plus one won’t equal three or two, but an even smaller number. Skydance paid to take a traditional studio off the board, but they won’t really capture the upside. Let me explain what I mean, but first, let’s look at the series of news that inspired this thought. Skydance Sets Its Leadership Team As soon as the Paramount-Skydance-Warner Bros.-Discovery merger closed, the new leadership team announced a new name—Skydance, which I’ll use going forward—and a new executive leadership team. You’ve probably read through all the executive shuffling, but if you haven’t, here’s a quick, incomplete summary, in rough order of importance: Mattel’s CEO Ynon Kreiz—who previously ran Maker Studios—joined as co-CEO with David Ellison. HBO/HBO Max’s Casey Bloys will stay and run streaming. Former head of streaming for Paramount-Skydance Cindy Holland—who was also at Netflix—will depart. The former heads of Warner Bros.—Pam Abdy and Mike De Luca—are out. The film studios will be run by Dana Goldstein and Josh Greenstein. George Cheeks of Paramount will run Skydance TV, controlling all the TV production units. In comic book news, the DC films will still be run by Peter Gunn and Peter Safran. Lastly, the head of CNN, Mark Thompson, will stay in place. Let’s quickly opine on the particulars before diving into the broad ramifications. We’re just getting started with this issue, but the rest is for paid subscribers of the Entertainment Strategy Guy, so if you’d like to find out… Who I like and dislike in their next gigs… Why I think this consolidation will likely leave Skydance worse off… The math behind which mergers succeed and which don’t… A lot more ugliness in this merger… And a whole lot more... ...please subscribe! We can only keep doing this great work with your support.

Oct 13 • 3:20 PM EDT • Entertainment • entertainment.substack.com

Did human beings evolve from apes? Here’s what science can and can’t prove

The familiar claim about humans evolving from apes leaves out an important part of the story. Fossils and DNA reveal a much more complicated family history than the popular version suggests.

Oct 13 • 7:33 AM EDT • Science • yahoo.com

Partners Want AI to Help Them Find New Business, But Most Are Running It on Data They Can’t Use, Introhive Survey Finds

Partners at law and accounting firms say the one thing they most want from business-development technology is help finding new business in relationships their firms already have. But 78% say the relat...

Oct 13 • 7:00 AM EDT • Business • lawnext.com

This Economist Studied Millions of Business Owners. He Uncovered the Surprising Way Everyday Americans Actually Get Wealthy

Owen Zidar, co-author of the book founders can’t stop talking about, "The Everywhere Millionaire," sat down with Inc. to mine the largest-ever dataset on entrepreneurs.

Oct 13 • 7:00 AM EDT • Business • inc.com

Cancer survivor has devastating health news. Her friend didn’t respond for 3 days.

Over their 20-year friendship, she’s always responded to her friend’s needs quickly. Why can’t she expect the same?

Oct 13 • 5:00 AM EDT • Health • washingtonpost.com

Junior Caminero Injury Update Isn’t Good News for Rays

There’s one player the Tampa Bay Rays can’t afford to lose in any circumstance: Junior Caminero. And in the top of the ninth inning of Game 1 of the ALCS, Caminero ran into his teammate Jonny Deluca chasing a foul ball. He was injured, and the whole complexion of the series may have changed. Caminero […] The post Junior Caminero Injury Update Isn’t Good News for Rays appeared first on HEAVY.

Oct 13 • 1:46 AM EDT • Sports • sports.yahoo.com

‘Breaking Bad’ cast pays tribute to RJ Mitte following his death: ‘I can’t believe it’

Following the news of RJ Mitte’s death, Aaron Paul and Dean Norris were among those to remember their late ‘Breaking Bad’ costar.

Oct 12 • 8:50 PM EDT • Entertainment • ew.com

Nico Iamaleava’s Post-Tennessee Saga Takes Another Twist at UCLA

Nico Iamaleava still can’t really find his footing since leaving the Tennessee Volunteers. His name was massively in the headlines more than a year ago, when he wanted more money from the Vols and couldn’t get it, so he hit the transfer portal. Iamaleava hasn’t lived up to that saga, though. He keeps hitting bumps […] The post Nico Iamaleava’s Post-Tennessee Saga Takes Another Twist at UCLA appeared first on HEAVY.

Oct 12 • 5:55 PM EDT • Sports • sports.yahoo.com

Unique, quirky bookstores around the world worth a visit

In an increasing digital age, it appears that physical bookstores have become more than just places to buy books. They offer something that online shopping and e-books can’t quite replicate

Oct 12 • 4:00 AM EDT • Entertainment • thederrick.com

Democracy Can’t Only Show Up for Black Voters at Election Time

Democracy cannot just be something Black Americans are asked to save every election. It has to be something we can see working in our lives between elections. Every election season, here it comes again. We are told how important this election is. We are told democracy is on the line. We are told to ...

Oct 12 • 12:50 AM EDT • Politics • thefulcrum.us

AI Can’t Tell Real Science From Junk. That’s a Big Problem.

Artificial intelligence is in the news every day. It solves fundamental math problems by hundreds, hacks into highly protected networks, and outstreams Taylor Swift. AI is also supposed to lead us to…

Oct 11 • 11:51 PM EDT • Science • dailykos.com

Sad to see clubs can’t run multiple sides

HAVING just read the first round results of local league action it pains me to see that some teams are unable to fulfil their fixtures for whatever reasons. Is this the sign of modern times? People do not want to play or clubs cannot afford to run multiple sides. Back in my days before Leagues, […] The post Sad to see clubs can’t run multiple sides appeared first on The Rugby Paper .

Oct 10 • 9:59 PM EDT • Sports • sports.yahoo.com

Genoa 2-1 Fiorentina: Match report

The Viola can’t even score their own goal as they slump to a deeply embarrassing defeat against a bad opponent.

Oct 10 • 11:25 AM EDT • Sports • sports.yahoo.com

LeBron James is everything Philadelphia wants. And everything it can’t stand

The city has embraced its new superstar with open arms, even as he choppers in from Manhattan and makes no secret of the fact that Philadelphia was never his first choice

Oct 10 • 9:00 AM EDT • Sports • theguardian.com

It’s the ‘black hole theory’ as Trump hits historic low in WA

President Trump’s poll numbers have sunk so low in WA they form a sort of political “event horizon,” a black hole that can’t be escaped, Danny Westneat writes.

Oct 10 • 9:00 AM EDT • Politics • seattletimes.com

CFTC Can’t Tell the Difference Between Sports Betting and Derivatives Trading

WASHINGTON, D.C.— Benjamin Schiffrin, Director of Securities Policy for Better Markets, issued the following statement after the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) proposed a rule that treats event contracts on sports, elections, and pop culture as financial derivatives and adopted a rule that attempts to distinguish ‘casino-style gambling products’ that it says are not swaps from

Oct 9 • 5:11 PM EDT • Sports • bettermarkets.org

Boston’s rats are talking. Scientists are listening with AI.

Boston rats call all night at pitches humans can’t hear. AI is helping Northeastern scientists figure out what they’re saying.

Oct 9 • 3:48 PM EDT • Science • news.northeastern.edu

NC’s State Health Plan sues Atrium, saying it can’t set plan members’ copays

The plan says it may not be able to pay its bills by January and is counting on its new tiered network to save $135 million.

Oct 9 • 1:20 PM EDT • Health • newsobserver.com

The 6 College Football Games to Watch in Week 6

Check out our conference preview for all the Big 10 action this weekend. Florida State at Louisville 7 p.m., ESPN (Friday) Both teams are in desperation mode as they try to avoid the season going into a complete tailspin. Florida State is coming in with momentum after pounding Virginia, although it’s been proven you can’t […]

Oct 9 • 1:11 PM EDT • Sports • sports.yahoo.com

Gears of War: E-Day sells 230K copies

Gears of War: E-Day has sold 230K copies since its advance-access launch on October 1 and full release on October 6. Steam accounts for 168K of those, with Xbox (console and PC) selling 62K. But there’s more to this story, as Xbox makes up the bulk of revenue. E-Day is the best-reviewed Gears game in nearly two decades (and the best one ever made, in my opinion). The Coalition has made a banger here (it’s currently in my top 10 of the year). Despite E-Day’s undeniable quality, this is a soft result. And it’s down to the business model, really. E-Day has made $37M so far, thanks to the Premium upgrade On Xbox, Game Pass is cannibalising much of the premium revenue. Our estimates show that 1.7M folks accessed E-Day via their subscription rather than a copy. But Xbox is having it both ways – or having it halfway, at least – via its Premium Edition Game Pass upgrade. Game Pass subscribers could pay $30 (or their local equivalent) for up to five days of early access starting October 1. Our estimates show that of the 1.7M who accessed E-Day through Game Pass, 722K paid for the upgrade. Between the review embargo lifting on October 1 and the full release, E-Day managed to shift another 250K early-access upgrades – no doubt helped by the campaign’s rave reviews. So despite selling far fewer copies on Steam, Xbox accounts for almost three-quarters of the revenue (roughly $26M of the $37M, versus about $11M on Steam). So “230K copies” undersells the paying audience. Including the 722K upgrades, nearly 950K people actually paid something for E-Day. The $30 upgrade is a halfstep from cannibalisation, but will Xbox go all the way? While E-Day is a sublime game, these are soft numbers for a flagship when Xbox badly needs revenue wins. E-Day sold 62K copies on Xbox against 722K Premium upgrades, so for every one copy sold on Xbox, nearly 12 Game Pass upgrades were sold. The $70 premium SKU is – functionally – dead on Xbox. Normally you can’t see what a Game Pass player would have paid, because the game’s just there in the subscription. But the $30 early-access upgrade estimate shows that 722K people demonstrated they’ll spend real money on this game. In a world without day-one Game Pass, many of these folks would have bought E-Day at $70. They paid $30 for five days early access to something they don’t own. Xbox is, in effect, charging its most valuable customers the least, based on a hangover from a tried-and-exhausted strategy from a previous administration. Those 722K willing-to-pay players generated about $21.7M via the upgrade. If three quarters of this group – mostly US and European audiences – bought E-Day outright, that’s nearly $40M. Of course, Game Pass does bring in meaningful recurring revenue, and E-Day is adding value for hundreds of thousands of subscribers. However, Game Pass is no longer growing, so Xbox is at a crossroads. Xbox is reportedly looking to do a Netflix and bolt on an ad-supported tier to pad it further. But that will just set a new floor, and leadership keeps telling us the priority now is revenue growth, which is subscriber-speak for ARPU. Xbox has already pulled Call of Duty from day-one Game Pass after day-one inclusion hammered its sales, with new CoD titles now arriving on the service around a year late. We know that some Microsoft executives believe the service devalues games outright, and rumours (which Microsoft has dismissed so far, to be fair) suggest that day-one releases could be taken off Game Pass. Want more free estimates and insights in your inbox twice a week? Subscribe below! Subscribe When a game this well-reviewed does this softly on its home platform, the model – not the game – gets brought into question. What else E-Day’s early adopters have played (including this month so far) Looking at E-Day‘s players on Xbox, most have played the franchise before (86% have played Gears 5, 76% Gears 4), and every game on the crossover list is either a shooter or a title from an Xbox-owned studio (though Game Pass is inflating those numbers, of course, more on that later): As for what else Xbox’s E-Day players have played this month, the top three are Fortnite (16%), Roblox (7%), and Call of Duty (6%). Another 5% played Minecraft Dungeons II, which is also on Game Pass and launched a couple of days before Gears‘ advance-access date. Many Game Pass players are happy to check out most big new additions. Want more free estimates and insights in your inbox twice a week? Subscribe below! Subscribe Over on Steam, the top crossover games are also mostly shooters (slightly more PC-coded ones), including Space Marine 2, which was itself heavily inspired by Gears: Looking at what E-Day‘s Steam players are into this month shows who they are – as subscriptions don’t skew the data. The top three are Wardogs (13%), Deadlock (12%), and CS2 (10%), so you’ve got the restless shooter crowd checking out the new hotness. A little further down are Helldivers 2 and Space Marine 2, your co-op PVE shooter players who’ll feel right at home in Horde mode. Game Pass is skewing the playtime distribution on Xbox Looking at the playtime distribution in our platform, E-Day players on Steam are – relatively speaking – playing for longer: 54% of E-Day players on Xbox have played for five hours or less (versus 32% on Steam) 19% of Xbox players played for over 15 hours (versus 33% on Steam) 14% of Xbox players played for over 20 hours (22% on Steam) The absolute number of people playing for over 15, 20, and 50 hours is, of course, bigger on Xbox, thanks to the sheer volume of folks who came in through Game Pass (upgraders included). None of that is cause for alarm. Game Pass is the reason Xbox playtime skews lower, as when a game is free to try, people try it and bounce without putting in even an hour (17% under an hour on Xbox versus 6% on Steam). Want more free estimates and insights in your inbox twice a week? Subscribe below! Subscribe The subscription brings in tourists alongside the committed, dragging down the average even when the game is excellent (but also perhaps winning over the uninitiated). It’s standard across every subscription-included title, on PS Plus too. Forza Horizon 6, for instance, had 11% of its Xbox players bounce under an hour, versus just 2% on Steam. So, Xbox’s crossroads So there we have it. Gears of War: E-Day is an incredible game whose revenues have been stifled by subscription inclusion and exclusivity. It’s the best-reviewed entry in the series in fifteen-odd years, but it still turned into one of the year’s softer flagship launches, not because players didn’t want it, but because Xbox’s own storefront gave its most willing buyers a reason not to pay. Which leaves Xbox at a crossroads. Will it keep making Gears games when the financial returns are this thin and the margins this low? And if it does, does the next one arrive off Game Pass at day one – the way CoD now does, or even on PlayStation? I think it should. Alright, back to E-Day for me! The last word Reply to this email – or reach out here – if you have any feedback for the newsletter – or want to request a game for us to cover. [Alinea Analytics boasts the most accurate PC and console estimates in the business. Game makers use our platform to understand their audience, keep an eye on the competition, monitor sales trends, and spot new opportunities. We equip game studios and financial institutions with accurate data and the confidence to make smarter, data-driven decisions. Want to talk about all things games market data? We’d love to chat!]

Oct 9 • 11:49 AM EDT • Technology • alineaanalytics.substack.com

<i>A Different World</i> Lives Up To The Legacy Of The OG & I Can’t Stop Defending It

Can we just let the 'A Different World' reboot find its footing without all the unnecessary hate? The show is worth the watch, period. Here's why we're hoping everyone is nicer about the Netflix series in Season 2.

Oct 9 • 11:37 AM EDT • Entertainment • refinery29.com

Inside the deadlock at the world's top climate science body

The decision was expected to take minutes. But after nearly three years of debate, members of the world’s leading authority on climate change still can’t agree on a timeline to publish its next review of the latest science on the warming planet.

Oct 9 • 2:04 AM EDT • Science • reuters.com

Inside the Deadlock at the World's Top Climate Science Body

By Kate Abnett and Sudarshan Varadhan BRUSSELS/SINGAPORE, Oct 9 (Reuters) - The decision was expected to take minutes. But after nearly three years of debate, members of the world’s leading authority on ⁠climate change ⁠still can’t agree on a timeline to publish its next review of the latest science ...

Oct 9 • 2:04 AM EDT • Science • usnews.com

Video: Opinion | How TikTok Warps Our Politics

What are the political consequences of the era of video? TikTok is overwhelming our world with emotional appeals that print media can’t capture, according to the Times of London columnist James Marriott, and it’s making us more mystical, tribal and autocratic.

Oct 8 • 9:22 PM EDT • Politics • nytimes.com

I Played 6 Hours of Phantom Blade Zero and Can’t Stop Thinking About It

After half a day playing Phantom Blade Zero, it’s gone from mostly not on my radar to to the top of my wishlist this fall, and I truly cannot wait to dive back in later this month to see if it can deliver beyond those first handful of hours. At least for now, though, just about everything I’ve seen and played has made me more convinced that this is going to be one of the coolest action games of 2026.

Oct 8 • 8:00 PM EDT • Technology • ign.com

William Shatner reflects on 60 years of ‘Star Trek’: ‘A phenomenon that can’t be repeated’

To celebrate 60 years of ‘Star Trek,’ William Shatner discusses the origins of the iconic franchise and his unforgettable run as Captain Kirk.

Oct 8 • 9:00 AM EDT • Entertainment • ew.com

Television Q&A: When will 'The Rookie' be back on patrol?

You have questions. I have some answers. Q: Is “The Rookie” coming back? I think it's been on TV for four or five years, and I can’t find anything about

Oct 8 • 6:00 AM EDT • Entertainment • recorderonline.com

Medical Debt Is Crushing Hospital Patients in Los Angeles. Public Health Officials May Have a Fix.

In Los Angeles County, the nation’s most populous, a new system could screen hospital patients for financial aid, preventing hundreds of thousands from getting bills they can’t pay.

Oct 8 • 5:01 AM EDT • Health • tradeoffs.org

Medical debt Is crushing hospital patients in L.A County. Health officials may have a fix

In Los Angeles County, the nation’s most populous, a new system could screen hospital patients for financial aid, preventing hundreds of thousands from getting bills they can’t pay.

Oct 8 • 5:00 AM EDT • Health • latimes.com

Tigers Can’t Use a Qualifying Offer on Gleyber Torres

Gleyber Torres already took his one qualifying offer, so Detroit gets no pick if he walks. #Tigers

Oct 7 • 2:50 PM EDT • Sports • sports.yahoo.com

Justin Casse passed on the family training business over 4:30 a.m. wake-ups. Now he owns stakes in about 100 racehorses across six countries

Casse built a global business spotting future champions—and learned that even the best judgment can’t guarantee a winning investment.

Oct 7 • 2:02 PM EDT • Business • fortune.com

Journalism is serious business. That doesn’t mean it can’t be funny.

5 reasons humor (and memes) can help journalists inform audiences, build community and cut through the noise

Oct 7 • 7:00 AM EDT • Business • poynter.org

Another sign of rapidly expanding political map: Pollsters can’t keep up

Increased demand for polling has strained call centers that conduct surveys, squeezed capacity and complicated the task of getting accurate reads on public opinion, according to pollsters.

Oct 6 • 12:00 PM EDT • Politics • washingtonpost.com

Alito says Supreme Court can’t stem rise of emergency appeals, 'not pleased' with Trump's rhetoric

The justice told The Associated Press in a rare interview that the rhetoric about the court from Trump and his administration doesn't sit well with him.

Oct 6 • 10:25 AM EDT • Politics • pbs.org

Brazil: Lessons from a Disaster

By Antonio Martins (Outras Palavras) Defeats become deeper and more prolonged when we misunderstand what caused them, avoid correcting course, and embrace “solutions” that only compound our mistakes. Lula’s government and the Brazilian left suffered a disaster in Sunday’s election. Contrary to every poll, the president finished the first round 2.2 million votes behind Flávio Bolsonaro—and, more significantly, 3.4 million votes below his total four years ago, when the machinery of the state was working against him and in favor of his opponent. His vote share declined in 98 percent of Brazil’s municipalities. The PL, the main party of the far right, elected 121 deputies and 28 senators, becoming the largest caucus in both houses of Congress. The parties aligned with the Centrão—Brazil’s bloc of transactional center-right parties—were somewhat diminished, but will still hold roughly 250 seats in the Chamber of Deputies and 35 in the Senate. That will make it easier to assemble the majorities needed to amend the Constitution or impeach Supreme Federal Court justices. If elected, Flávio Bolsonaro could appoint four members of the Court, substantially altering its internal balance of power. What produced these results? How can the far right be prevented from consolidating them into a prolonged political hegemony? And what is the essential change of direction the left now needs? Explaining the Disaster Across the commercial media and the exuberant chaos of digital platforms, interpretations are multiplying. Some focus on specific episodes: Lula’s absence from the Globo debate, his very close relationship with Alexandre de Moraes, or his emphasis on issues supposedly remote from most people’s everyday concerns, such as rare earth minerals. Among the more systemic interpretations, three seem especially questionable. One argues that the principal defeat was not the left’s, since its congressional representation declined only slightly. The decisive movement captured at the ballot box, according to this view, was a shift within the right itself—from the more moderate and transactional forces of the Centrão toward the more ideological and radicalized forces of the PL and Novo. A second interpretation holds that the nature of electoral and political processes has changed. The material interests and aspirations of society, it argues, no longer play the central role they once did; they have given way to forms of subjective self-identification that the left has yet to understand. And a third concludes that, because of these two developments, we should expect a political winter: a prolonged period in which the far right and the broader right dominate Brazilian political life. There are important elements in all three interpretations. The problem lies in what they deny or leave out: Lula’s third government was a small-bore government. It offered the majorities that elected it neither a clearly better life nor reasons to believe again in politics and its power to transform society. These failures flowed from two fatal accommodations, which I will examine below. As a result, the government suffered a slow but steady erosion of support. And, as has happened in so many Western countries, it gave the far right the opportunity to present itself as anti-system and to benefit from popular frustration and distress. The interpretation that emphasizes the migration of votes from the center-right and traditional right toward the far right has been advanced, among others, by the courageous journalist Leonardo Sakamoto. In his UOL column on Monday, October 5, he highlights the miserable behavior of the traditional conservative parties. Over the past four years, they repeatedly joined forces with the “neo”-fascists, helping to “normalize” them—a criticism that could equally be directed at almost the entire corporate media. Believing they could use the far right as a stepping stone, they instead ended up partly devoured by it. This was especially true in the Senate, where the PL’s gain of 13 senators and Novo’s gain of two came at the expense of the PSD, which lost nine; the MDB, which lost two; the PSDB, which lost two; and the PP, which lost one. Sakamoto’s observation is accurate and necessary, but it leaves uncomfortable questions unanswered. Why did the erosion of the Centrão benefit the far right rather than, for example, producing growth for the left—as has happened so many times before, both in Brazil and elsewhere? The answer is not difficult. Throughout its four years in office, Lula’s third government was almost invariably associated with the Centrão. Here lies its first accommodation: accepting the limits imposed by conservative institutions; avoiding, as much as possible, any attempt to strain those limits through popular pressure; and believing only in the modest changes that could be squeezed through openings in Congress. The failure of the campaign to end the six-day workweek is emblematic. Lula could have electrified the presidential race by pairing it with a popular campaign for passage of the measure. Instead, he chose to place his hopes in the hands of Senate president Rodrigo Alcolumbre. He generated no mass mobilization, did not force his opponents onto an uncomfortable defensive, and won no victory. In September 2025, the government squandered the greatest of its many opportunities to shake up conservative power in Congress. Popular opposition to the so-called Shielding Amendment—which, if approved, would have restricted criminal proceedings against members of Congress—brought crowds into the streets, mobilized primarily by artists and social movements. This opened the possibility for a broader political education: a campaign that could begin exposing the limits and dysfunctions of Brazil’s political system while putting Bolsonaro’s movement on the defensive for its predictable support of political privilege. The amendment was defeated. But the executive branch then backed away from the fight. It remained associated with an institutional world widely seen as corrupt, elitist, and indifferent to ordinary people’s struggles. In doing so, it forfeited its credibility as a vehicle for the protest vote. On Sunday, it reaped the bitter fruits. Are We Doomed? Taking a different approach from Sakamoto, the philosopher Moysés Pinto Neto and other writers have drawn attention, in their first analyses of October 4, to the fragmentation of the public sphere produced by Big Tech platforms. Through their algorithms, these platforms present each person with a different view of social reality. As a consequence, it becomes much harder to identify common material problems and demands—for example, the fight for labor rights or for a properly funded public health system. Voters no longer embrace such demands, these authors argue, because they no longer see themselves as part of a collective. Instead, they tend to value the identities assigned to them by neoliberal subjectivity—the role of the entrepreneur, for example. On this interpretation, the left’s possible error lies in clinging to outdated illusions. Moysés’s warning is highly relevant and resonates with arguments such as Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor’s “Apocalyptic Fascism and the Billionaires’ Bet.” Unlike a century ago, the far right no longer promises a radiant future. It concentrates instead on resentment—especially that of young men. “They belong to a generation that fears it may never own a home, but compensates with the pleasure it gets from constantly provoking progressives online. Convinced their future has been stolen, they share memes romanticizing historical authoritarian regimes,” the authors write. But Moysés seems to confuse this danger with inevitability. He fails to see that the left’s answer cannot be adaptation. On the contrary, it must strengthen the possibility of politics as collective action. Nor does he recognize that precisely such a reversal is already becoming possible in some of the most promising mobilizations of the twenty-first century: the election, at the end of 2025, of the young Muslim Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York, on a platform centered on the intensely material fight for an affordable city; the Left Party’s victory in Berlin two weeks ago, built around the demand to expropriate private real-estate corporations; and the very recent wave of demonstrations in Spain—including an occupation of Madrid’s Puerta del Sol—in which tens of thousands of young people mobilized by the Tenants’ Union have demanded limits on rents. By putting itself in the straitjacket of the “fiscal framework” in the first months of 2022, Lula’s third government adopted the second fatal accommodation of its term. Faced with conservative institutions and a country devastated by four years of Bolsonaro, increased public investment was the government’s remaining weapon for offering a more dignified life to the majority and forging an anti-conservative pact with them. The same state that disburses 1 trillion reais a year to enrich a small class of rentiers could instead spend money to extend the Family Health Strategy to every Brazilian, at a cost of 30 billion reais; provide full-day public schooling and childcare to all adolescents and children—and, especially, relief to their mothers; achieve universal sanitation while cleaning up polluted urban rivers; multiply metro systems; begin transforming the urban peripheries; and undertake many other urgently needed projects. In April 2023, an article in Outras Palavras warned that the fiscal framework could “shrink the Lula government and preserve the forces that condemn the country to inequality and regression.” A year later, another article showed that restraints on public spending were strangling policies vital to ordinary people and undermining the president’s popularity. In November 2024 came a reality check, in the form of the government’s humiliating defeat in the municipal elections. Even then, the fiscal lock was neither removed nor loosened. On the contrary: throughout the government’s four years, fiscal restraint remained central to its political narrative. The administration proudly proclaimed that it had “put the state’s accounts in order,” without grasping either how misleading that phrase was—given the payment of 1 trillion reais in interest—or how badly the message was hurting it politically. Lula finally woke up in September 2026. The increase in Bolsa Família benefits, after four years of being frozen; the announcement that anti-obesity drugs would be offered through Brazil’s public health system; and the ban on online betting showed that the state has the power to act decisively on behalf of the majority when those in government are willing to confront obstacles. The huge marches that closed the campaign in Fortaleza, Salvador, Rio de Janeiro, and São Paulo on the eve of October 4 showed how such initiatives can mobilize activists and the broader public. But it was too late—and too little to change the outcome of the first round. History has not ended The possibility of a turnaround in the three weeks leading up to November 25 cannot be ruled out. It will not be simple or easy. Lula must not only make up a deficit of 2.2 million votes; he must also offset the movement of voters who backed other right-wing candidates in the first round, most of whom are likely to move toward Flávio Bolsonaro. Pulling that off will require a broad, grassroots effort to win over voters, potentially reinforced by new initiatives from Lula. The coming hours and days will be decisive. If Bolsonaro’s movement also wins the presidency, the result will create a high-risk situation for Brazilian sovereignty and democracy. The enormous challenges posed by such an outcome would require the left to reexamine, in depth and with a genuine willingness to engage in self-criticism, its political projects—or its lack of them—and its practices. But would that mean we are condemned to the long winter of far-right hegemony that some analyses are beginning to forecast? It is far too early to say, suggests a recent text by Álvaro García Linera, the thinker who served as vice president of Bolivia under Evo Morales. His central hypothesis is that this political current will prove short-lived. At a moment when the entire world is once again talking about sovereignty and protecting national economies, the far right offers a stale, recolonizing neoliberalism. Its submission to the United States is as blatant and pathetic as Flávio and Eduardo Bolsonaro’s overtures to Donald Trump. Its project amounts to something like every man for himself: greater inequality, capitalism without limits, devastation, and supremacism. Will it work? In the United States, just two years into his second term, Trump himself is reaching record levels of unpopularity and may be on the verge of losing Republican control of both the House and Senate in November. Every new beginning is difficult. Whatever the outcome of the second round, the defeats of October 4 show how profoundly the Brazilian left will have to rethink and rebuild. But just as it would be foolish to underestimate the seriousness of its mistakes, it would be equally foolish to conclude that rebuilding a political project is no longer possible. History has not ended. The times are moving faster than ever. Originally published in Portuguese by Outras Palavras. English translation by Eric Blanc; I’ve added the subtitles. More We can’t stop the far right at home or abroad without a revitalized labor movement, which is yet another reason why you should become a sustaining supporter of the Emergency Workplace Organizing Committee (EWOC) — one of US labor’s pivotal bright spots. Relatedly, Jacobin published a short piece of mine reflecting on a decade of Bernie Sanders inspiring a whole new generation of young worker organizers.

Oct 6 • 10:08 AM EDT • Politics • laborpolitics.com

I can’t use Apple’s new Screen Time on my daughter’s iPhone because my son won’t update his MacBook

Kids: 1 Screen Time: 0

Oct 6 • 9:15 AM EDT • Technology • theverge.com

St. Louis Cardinals Biggest 2027 Challenge? Managing Expectations

I have been a St. Louis Cardinals fan for more than five decades and I have lived through many different eras of losing seasons, championships and everything in between. I can’t recall any of them being more unclear about what the expectations should be for an upcoming season than the one that will hopefully begin […]

Oct 5 • 9:50 PM EDT • Sports • sports.yahoo.com

Can Health Trackers Help You Manage Menopause Symptoms?

Apple, Oura and Whoop have all recently added features for midlife women. Here’s what the tools can — and can’t — measure.

Oct 5 • 11:00 AM EDT • Health • nytimes.com

Are aliens real? Here’s what science can and can’t prove

Some scientists believe the sheer number of stars, planets and potentially habitable environments in space makes extraterrestrial life plausible. But plausibility is not proof. Despite decades of sear...

Oct 5 • 7:17 AM EDT • Science • yahoo.com

Yale School of Medicine On the Science of Childhood Anxiety, Say, Anxiety Disorders Are the Most Common Mental Health Challenges In Youth

Credit: Matt Bradbury October 5, 2026 - By Isabella Backman - Anxiety disorders are the most common mental health challenges in youth. Left untreated, they can disrupt the lives of both children and their families. The good news is that with intervention, most children will overcome these conditions. Across Yale School of Medicine, scientists are working to understand anxiety at every level, from common anxious behaviors to molecular biomarkers in the brain. They are using their findings to develop and disseminate new evidence-based treatments for childhood anxiety. Today, the go-to treatment for childhood anxiety disorders is cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). This is a form of psychotherapy that teaches children skills for confronting anxious thoughts and helps them practice managing situations that cause anxiety. While it is the gold-standard treatment backed by considerable scientific evidence, up to 50% of children will not see sufficient benefit from CBT alone. Wendy Silverman, PhD, Alfred A. Messer Professor in the Child Study Center, co-directs the Anxiety and Mood Disorders Program alongside Eli Lebowitz, PhD, associate professor in the Child Study Center. One of their main interests is learning how to improve outcomes beyond CBT. “We’re developing cutting-edge, research-based knowledge that can reduce the suffering that anxiety causes children and their families,” says Silverman. Changing parent behavior YSM experts are investigating how to improve CBT outcomes for children by involving the parents. Silverman’s research has uncovered two main components of parent intervention that improve childhood anxiety: not enabling children to completely avoid the things that make them anxious and taking steps to enhance their autonomy. Parents may unintentionally reinforce their child’s anxiety by allowing them to avoid what makes them anxious. They also may unintentionally limit the children’s sense of autonomy by being overly intrusive. “One of the things that we take pride in is that we’ve focused on trying to understand what parents need to do, and to test our ideas and see if changing the parents’ behaviors is enhancing the effects of CBT,” Silverman says. “Our findings thus far suggest that they do." As much as CBT can be helpful, it can also be challenging to get one’s child to do the necessary steps for CBT to work. This is one important reason why Lebowitz created a novel intervention program for parents named Supportive Parenting for Anxious Childhood Emotions (SPACE). Existing intervention programs often teach parents to act as therapists for their child, such as training them on how to practice breathing exercises. “It makes sense, but this doesn’t work very well in practice,” says Lebowitz. “And part of the reason, I think, is that it’s not easy to get your kid to do things, especially if they’re not excited about doing it.” SPACE is unique because it focuses entirely on parent involvement and changing parental behavior—children are not involved in the sessions. For example, parents learn how to use supportive messages that convey confidence that their child can tolerate and manage distress. “It might sound like a parent saying to a child, ‘I get that this is really hard for you, but I know that you can handle it,’” Lebowitz says. The program also works with parents to identify the ways in which they are accommodating anxious behaviors. “We’ll pick one thing that parents are doing that is an accommodation and help them make a detailed plan for how they’re going to change that,” Lebowitz explains. Treating Anxiety in Children and Adolescents Much of the existing research on SPACE has focused on parents of children under age 14. Ongoing studies are now exploring its use with parents of older teens. “Both anxiety and accommodation can interfere with normative developmental shifts during the teen years, including increased autonomy and individuation from parents,” says Rebecca Etkin, PhD, associate research scientist in the Child Study Center. “In this sense, SPACE may be particularly well-suited for anxious teens and their parents. We want to see whether it is effective during this distinct developmental window.” Unfortunately, many families in need of CBT face barriers, including limited availability of services and geographic constraints. One way to improve access is digital interventions. Silverman and her team are developing an evidence-based digitized intervention program for parents that they can access directly from their computer or smart phone. “The work we’re doing will be one of the very few parent interventions that is digitized and importantly tested for effectiveness,” she says. Creating interventions for anxiety-related challenges Silverman and Lebowitz recently received a generous gift to develop and test other interventions that help parents reduce other child anxiety-related behavioral and emotional difficulties, such as restrictive eating and unexplained somatic symptoms. One of these projects in particular focuses on understanding the risks of social media and its potential benefits, including offering a sense of connection. “A lot of research has focused on the idea that social media is harmful and the less of it the better,” says Lebowitz. “But we actually see is that this is not quite right—there are negatives, but there are also positives. So, we’re trying to get a little bit more nuanced of a picture.” The team is working with teens with social anxiety and their parents over an extended period to better understand their social media habits and how their anxiety levels affect engagement with different platforms. The teens will answer questions sent to an app on their phones about mood and social media usage in an effort to capture emotional responses as they unfold. “We hope to develop interventions that can help make the best of social media while protecting against the more problematic effects,” Lebowitz says. The brain’s role in anxiety Researchers are also testing therapies to address anxiety at the neurological and molecular levels. In collaboration with Dylan Gee, PhD, professor of psychology in Yale's Faculty of Arts and Sciences, and Hilary Blumberg, MD, John and Hope Furth Professor of Psychiatric Neuroscience at Yale School of Medicine, Lebowitz and Silverman are using brain imaging to identify changes in a child’s brain before and after parents enroll in SPACE. In one study, children viewed anxiety-inducing images while undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); the researchers conducted scans with and without the children’s parents nearby. Before SPACE, children’s brains were better able to activate the regulatory circuitry needed to turn off an anxious response when their parents were nearby. But after SPACE, children could activate this circuitry even without the parent around. “As parents work on gradually reducing some of their accommodations, you can see a child get better at regulating their own fear system in the brain,” Lebowitz says. “It’s remarkable.” Research into the molecular underpinnings of anxiety can also inform new childhood anxiety treatments. In a recent study, Lebowitz, Silverman, and Flora Vaccarino, MD, Harris Professor in the Child Study Center, discovered that a protein known as fibroblast growth factor 2 (FGF2) could be protective from the toxic effects of stress. FGF2 levels in children and their parents were linked to the children’s risk of developing anxiety and depression, the study showed. The findings could help explain why some children who are exposed to early life trauma such as poverty or abuse are more prone to developing mental health disorders. And FGF2 could be a target for treatment. “This is very novel because it starts to give a clue to what is the molecular chain that connects those lived experiences to the actual psychological outcomes,” Lebowitz says. New ways to study and treat childhood anxiety Michael Crowley, PhD, associate professor in the Child Study Center, collaborates with Silverman and Lebowitz to study the role that attention plays in development and maintenance of childhood anxiety. There is a large body of research that shows that anxious children, like anxious adults, are prone to focus on threatening stimuli such as angry faces compared with neutral faces. This has led to innovative interventions that involve attention retraining. The idea is that if experts train children to look away from threatening stimuli, it may reduce their anxiety—especially children with social anxiety who are most prone to attend to threats. The researchers have just completed a clinical trial for attention retraining with 10- to 14-year-olds with social anxiety disorders and are currently analyzing the findings. Besides this innovative attention retraining research, as Crowly notes, “I like to design tasks that are engaging to kids,” Crowley says. “My goal is to assess something without the kids knowing what we are assessing.” With this goal in mind, Crowley has created a virtual game, named Boom, to study threat processing in children with anxiety disorders. The game is similar to that of hot potato—the child and three digital players take turns virtually passing a ball to each other’s gloves. At some point, the ball turns into a bomb, and as the bomb lands in each player’s glove, the outline of the glove turns yellow. The goal is to avoid having the bomb go off in your glove. What isn’t obvious is that the game is designed to measure different types of threatening stimuli, both ambiguous and direct. In the game, the direct threat occurs as the bomb is traveling towards your glove. The ambiguous threat is the yellow outlined glove as it is unknown where the bomb will travel next. While children play the game, Crowley’s team measures their brain activity using electroencephalography (EEG). The researchers have discovered that in kids with anxiety, the brain reacts more strongly to ambiguous threats than it does in their peers, but less strongly to direct threats. They believe that the initial abnormally large brain response to not knowing where the bomb is going impairs the brain's ability to properly respond when the threat is actually traveling the child’s way. “The brains of children with anxiety are unable to differentiate between threats you need to do something about and those that are not your problem.” Michael Crowley, PhD, develops innovative games for studying anxiety in children and adolescents.Credit: Matt Bradbury Based on these insights, Crowley hopes to study whether interventions like attention training could restore appropriate threat processing. Crowley’s team is also working on a test called the Balloon Risk Avoidance Task, which evaluates risk-taking and avoidance behaviors. It features a digital balloon that is full of air and about to burst. Kids have six seconds to let air out of the balloon. The more air they let out, the less risk they face that the balloon will pop. But at the same time, the balloon becomes less valuable as it deflates. “The more air you keep in the balloon, the more points you get,” Crowley explains. So far, the researchers have found that when the balloons pop unexpectedly, teens with social anxiety show distinct brain responses. Studying these responses can help psychologists understand the underlying pathways driving the various manifestations of anxiety. The genetics of anxiety When Thomas Fernandez, MD, associate professor in the Child Study Center and of psychiatry, was still in training, there was a lot of excitement about understanding the genetics associated with autism spectrum disorder. Since then, scientists have identified around 250 genes associated with autism. The genetic contribution to anxiety disorders, on the other hand, has historically received less attention. Anxiety is less heritable than autism, but the genetic contribution for anxiety disorders that emerge in childhood may be higher than for anxiety disorders overall. While scientists estimate the heritability of anxiety disorders in general to be around 30% to 50%, some studies suggest higher heritability for certain childhood-onset anxiety presentations. “I saw firsthand how researchers in the field went about finding vulnerability genes for autism,” Fernandez says. “So, we’re using a very similar playbook for childhood anxiety.” “I saw firsthand how researchers in the field went about finding vulnerability genes for autism. So, we’re using a very similar playbook for childhood anxiety.” Thomas Fernandez, MD Associate Professor In the Child Study Center and in Psychiatry Now, Fernandez and Emily Olfson, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the Child Study Center, are studying children and their parents to identify genetic changes that are present in the child but not the parents, known as “de novo mutations.” “All of us have some de novo mutations—maybe about 50 to 100 sprinkled throughout the genome,” Olfson says. “But when they occur within the coding regions of genes, they can be really disruptive.” Previous research shows that people with autism have higher rates of damaging de novo mutations than the general population. In 2022, Olfson, Lebowitz, Silverman, and Fernandez published a study on 68 children and their families that found that children with anxiety had similarly high levels of these mutations. Studying de novo mutations can help point the researchers to where they should be looking for genes associated with anxiety. “The end game is using the genes to steer us toward the right part of biology that we can then target to come up with better treatments,” Fernandez says. Building on those findings, the team is now studying more families to better understand how these de novo mutations, along with other genetic and environmental factors, shape pediatric anxiety disorders. They recently received a National Institutes of Health grant to enroll 750 new families over the next five years. Olfson is the principal investigator, with co-investigators Lebowitz, Fernandez, Silverman, and Shuangge Steven Ma, PhD, department chair and professor of biostatistics at Yale School of Public Health. Neurodevelopment, Risk Genes, and Mental Health Conditions - The Olfson Lab Joel Gelernter, MD, Foundations Fund Professor of Psychiatry, is interested in how different anxiety disorders differ genomically. “We are studying social phobia, panic disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder, working to understand why people differ in their risk to these specific anxiety disorders and evaluating various risk factors,” he says. Gelernter was recently involved in one of the largest studies to date of the genomics underlying anxiety disorder. The study included around 122,000 people with anxiety disorders and around 730,000 without. It found that some genetic differences associated with anxiety were linked to signaling that helps reduce overactivity in the nervous system. Many anxiety medications available today work by targeting this process. “It’s nice when the biology that you get out of a large genome-wide study ratifies things that we already know because that can help increase confidence in further findings from the study,” Gelernter says. Uncovering the neurobiology of psychiatric disorders John Krystal, MD, Robert L. McNeil, Jr. Professor of Translational Research and chair of the Department of Psychiatry, is interested in the neurobiology of psychiatric disorders, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), of which anxiety is a major symptom. In the late 1980s, Krystal’s team discovered that the drug yohimbine activated symptoms in patients with PTSD. “This was the first time we could link a specific biological mechanism to the symptoms of PTSD,” Krystal says. At the time, he adds, this finding was highly controversial. “A lot of people felt that PTSD was a purely psychological syndrome that didn’t have an underlying biology.” Since then, Krystal has dived deep into understanding the neurobiology of PTSD to learn how to better treat it. His team is evaluating the use of ketamine and psychedelics. These would be among the first treatments to be developed specifically for PTSD. They may also be applicable for other disorders including anxiety disorders, Krystal adds. An important gap in PTSD treatment is the absence of biological tests that inform how to best help patients manage their PTSD symptoms. A doctor doesn’t diagnose cancer based on how they feel. Rather, they use tests of the biology of the cancer to determine the best course of treatment. “And we can’t do that in any psychiatric disorder other than Alzheimer’s disease,” Krystal says. “But now we are building a foundation for this approach to the treatment of anxiety disorders for the first time.” Source: Yale School of Medicine

Oct 5 • 6:44 AM EDT • Science • goldrushcam.com

Fox Sports announcers can’t believe controversial finish to Padres-Brewers Game 1

The Milwaukee Brewers hung on to beat the San Diego Padres 3-2 in Game 1 of the National League Division Series on Saturday night, and the Brewers got a home-field assist from the roof at American Family Field during a crucial moment in the ninth inning. Trailing 3-2 with a runner on first base and…

Oct 4 • 11:00 AM EDT • Sports • sports.yahoo.com

Blackhawks Can’t Keep Leaving Their Goalies Out To Dry

Oct 4 • 9:00 AM EDT • Sports • sports.yahoo.com

‘Can’t Get Much Bigger Than This,’ ‘GOAT’s HOME’ – Sports World Buzzes as Caitlin Clark Joins College GameDay’s 1st Iowa Visit in 20 Years for Ohio State Clash

Caitlin Clark is heading back to Iowa City, and she is doing it for one of the biggest football weekends the Hawkeye community has seen in years. The Fever star will serve as the celebrity guest picker on ESPN’s College GameDay when No.

Oct 3 • 12:59 AM EDT • Sports • sports.yahoo.com

Do Animals Understand Us? Here’s What Science Says

Your pet may not be able to speak, but that doesn’t mean you two can’t find ways to communicate. Here’s how to talk and listen to the beloved animals in your life, according to experts.

Oct 2 • 4:13 PM EDT • Science • yahoo.com

Oklahoma Senate study examines barriers for guardians in mental health care decisions

When a person is in the middle of a serious mental health crisis and can’t make medical decisions for themselves, families say Oklahoma’s system can leave legal

Oct 1 • 2:39 PM EDT • Health • okcfox.com

Good science requires much more than evidence

Empiricists believe that scientific theories are true only if they make correct empirical predictions: if we can't verify these predictions, then there is no reason to expect that they tell us anything about reality. However, Professor of Philosophy at King's College David Kyle Johnson argues that this is mistaken. In response to Bas van Fraassen, who has written on this subject for the IAI, he argues that we have many reasons for believing a theory to be true, such as it being parsimonious and having large scope — qualities which have been used throughout the history of science as criteria for judging theories. In 2024, Princeton philosopher Bas van Fraassen wrote a short article for IAI News entitled “Science Does not Describe Reality: The Limits and Benefits of Explanation.” At the time, I was working on two projects (a science book and a Great Course) that, when completed, would (among other things) defend science’s ability to describe reality. I wanted to write a response to van Fraassen, but the projects demanded too much of my attention. But now that those projects are complete, I am in a position to explain the objections to van Fraassen’s thesis. Summarizing van Fraassen’s argumentIn a nutshell, his argument is this: What scientists do is make predictions based on theories and then invite others to test to see whether those predictions are borne out. “If theory T is right, result R should happen in experimental condition C.” Many think that running an experiment that shows that R happens in condition C is proof that theory T is true (and should be believed). But, van Fraassen argues, that R happened in condition C is only a reason to think that R happens in condition C. That’s the only observable, or empirical, result we can actually see, so that is all that we are really justified in believing. (The underlying theory that made that prediction still may or may not be true.) That is why he calls those who accept his position “empiricists.”Before I explain what is wrong with this position, let me explain what it gets right. What van Fraassen Gets RightFirst, a theory correctly predicting the results of an experiment is not, strictly speaking, “proof” that the theory is correct. The basic line of reasoning is this:If the theory T is true, result R should happen. Result R did happen. Thus, theory T is true.In other words:“If T then R. R. Thus, T.”This is a deductively invalid, fallacious mode of reasoning, called “affirming the consequent.” Those premises do not guarantee that the conclusion follows. “If I am in Pennsylvania, then I am in the USA. I am in the USA. Thus, I am in Pennsylvania.” Clearly that argument doesn’t guarantee its conclusion; neither does the above argument.However, science is not a deductive method of reasoning; it is an inductive one. And inductive arguments merely try to raise the probability of their conclusion, not “prove” them for certain. Thus, the fact that an experimental result doesn’t prove a theory is true is irrelevant; it’s not supposed to. That is not what scientific reasoning is about.___If the hypothesis that something exists clearly provides the best explanation for what we can observe, then the belief that it exists is what is rational.___Second, it’s also true that a single experimental result doesn’t provide enough justification to believe that a theory is true. Scientists do not come to a consensus about whether a theory is true by looking at a single experiment; they look at all the evidence to determine where the preponderance of evidence points. The mere fact that I am in the USA raises the probability that I am in Pennsylvania, but not nearly enough to conclude that I am in Pennsylvania. However, if I am also regularly encountering people wearing Eagles and Phillies hats and seeing advertisements for Founding Father tours, I probably am. In the same way, a theory successfully predicting the outcome of one experiment is not enough to conclude that it is true; but if a theory makes a wide variety of predictions that are all vindicated by multiple experiments, performed by many different groups and people, all actively trying to prove the theory false (which is what good scientific experiments are designed to do)—that is a good reason to conclude that the theory is true. In other words, if you repeatedly try to prove something false but can’t, that is a very good indication that it isn’t. The problem of underdeterminationIn reply, those whom van Fraassen calls “empiricists” often point to the “problem of underdetermination.” For any given theory that makes successful predictions about what happens in experimental conditions, there are countless other possible theories that make exactly the same predictions—and since they do, the experimental evidence in question is just as much reason to accept any of those theories as it is to accept our original one. Thus, the argument goes, we have no way of knowing whether our original theory is true, or one of the other “predictively equivalent” theories is true. SUGGESTED VIEWING How Occam's Razor changed the world With Johnjoe McFadden As an example of underdetermination, philosophers often offer this example. The evidence of fossils seems to provide reason to conclude that the universe is quite old; ancient fossils are what the “ancient universe” hypothesis predicts. But it’s also possible that God created an ancient-looking universe 200 years ago, complete with a “fake” fossil record for us to find, to make it look old. The existence of fossils is what that theory predicts too. So, the argument goes, the fossil record can’t be used as evidence that the universe is ancient; the fossil record supports the “200-year-old ancient-looking universe” theory just as much. The problem of underdetermination points out that, for any theory with supporting evidence, we could invent another completely different theory that predicts exactly the same evidence, and thus undermine that evidence’s ability to support the original theory.But this “argument from underdetermination” betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what scientific reasoning is and how it works. To explain, let me use another rather strange (but very real and commonly discussed) philosophical thought experiment called “The Grue Problem.” The “Grue” ProblemSuppose I want to know what color emeralds are, so I observe a few, see that they all appear green, and form the theory that “all emeralds are green.” I thus predict that the next 100 emeralds I find will also appear to be green. And let’s say that happens, and so I thus conclude that my theory that all emeralds are green is true. Now, one might rightly point out that I don’t know for sure that all emeralds are green—I have not seen them all. Maybe some I haven’t found yet are blue. Fair enough. After all, we used to think that all swans were white, until we found some black ones. But let’s say that I go on a quest and collect every emerald in the universe—and, for the sake of the argument, let’s say I can do this, and can even know that I have every one of them. So, I collect them all, look at them all, and verify that they all appear green. Can’t I now rightly conclude that all emeralds are green?Inspired by the problem of underdetermination, a friend might argue that I cannot.Sure, they all appear green now—but there could be another kind of color called “grue.” Something is grue if it is green up to a certain point in time, but then spontaneously turns blue. And there could be an infinite number of “shades” of grue. Something that is one shade of grue will turn blue at noon today, but something that is another shade of grue will turn blue at noon tomorrow, etc. So yes, the emeralds appear green now; and since they haven’t turned blue yet, they are not some “past” shade of grue. But they might be some “future” shade of grue (e.g., they may turn blue at noon tomorrow). And since all future shades of grue are consistent with “being green up to this point in time,” the evidence you have is completely consistent with the notion that all emeralds are some future shade of grue, rather than green. Indeed, that they would appear green until now is what the “some future shade of grue” hypothesis predicts. So, we have just as much reason to conclude that all emeralds are some shade of grue as we do to conclude that they are green.You’re probably thinking “It’s not equally possible that the emeralds are grue; they are obviously green.” You are right! But explaining why your instinctive reaction to my friend’s argument is correct will help inform why van Fraassen’s “empiricist” is wrong and science actually does describe reality.The main mistake my friend makes is in thinking that the “empirical evidence” (of all the emeralds appearing green) is (or even should be) all I am using to draw the conclusion that all emeralds are green. It is not. I am also considering known facts about how colors typically work; things don’t usually change color, and when they do, they don’t do so suddenly, without cause, and all at once. So, even though the simple evidence of the emeralds all appearing green up to this point is consistent with them being some future shade of grue—that is even what the grue hypothesis “predicts”—it is still exceedingly unlikely that they are. The hypothesis that they are green is much more likely. Understanding science refutes the problem of underdetermination The misunderstanding about science that the “empiricist” pointing to “the problem of underdetermination” makes is similar to the one that my friend made. Science is not just about considering experimental evidence; in fact, it’s not even just about considering empirical evidence. As Ernan McMullin and many other philosophers of science have pointed out, the inference that makes science is “inference to the best explanation” (sometimes called “abduction” or “retroduction” by McMullin). While, depending on the circumstances, scientists use many different kinds of reasoning, science as a whole is, simply put, the process of considering multiple competing explanations and comparing them to certain criteria—explanatory criteria (the kinds of things explanations must be and do, by definition, to be a good explanation)—to see which explanation is the best.And these criteria do not deal only with empirical results. Yes, successful predictions raise the probability of a hypothesis, but it’s also the case that the more new assumptions a theory makes, the less likely it is to be true; every new assumption presents an opportunity for the theory to be false. (The fewer assumptions a theory makes, the simpler or “more parsimonious” it is said to be.) Likewise, the more existing evidence a theory contradicts, the less likely it is, because in order for a theory to be true, every piece of evidence it contradicts has to be somehow faulty. (The fewer established theories a new theory contradicts, the more “conservative” it is said to be.) And, obviously, the more something explains, the better explanation it is. (This is called having “scope.”) If a theory raises unanswerable questions, it’s not expanding our understanding, and thus is not wide-scoping. Scientists consider all these things when deciding which theory to accept, because the theory that adheres best to these explanatory criteria is most likely to be true.___the mere fact that a theory’s predictive success is why it “sticks around” or “becomes accepted” in the scientific community is not a reason to be skeptical about its truth.___The reason the grue hypothesis is no good is because it invents an entirely new kind of color—not just a new shade, but an entirely different category of color (a different way colors work)—and thus is not parsimonious. It raises unanswerable questions about how and why emeralds would just spontaneously change from green to blue (and thus does not have wide scope). And it contradicts what is already well established about how color works (and thus is unconservative).The theories that the problem of underdetermination points to do the same thing. Yes, the theory that God created an “ancient-looking universe” (complete with an ancient-looking fossil record) two hundred years ago is also consistent with the empirical evidence (of a fossil record) that presently exists; but that theory is monumentally unparsimonious (it requires many extra assumptions about infinite entities) and not wide-scoping (it raises unanswerable questions about why God would do such a thing). So, I can rationally conclude that it is false.Indeed, the history of science includes many examples of theories that were rejected because they lacked parsimony and/or scope, even before their falsity (and the truth of their competing theory) was confirmed by observation. As I point out in my book, geocentrism was rejected by the scientific community because it lacked parsimony, almost 200 years before the observation of parallax confirmed that the Earth moves around the sun. And the continuum theory of matter was completely rejected by 1860, because it couldn’t explain chemical reactions or organize matter into a periodic table, even though the experiments that eventually confirmed atomic theory weren’t even proposed until the 1870s. Solving the best of a bad lot problemIn response, the “empiricists” are likely to object, this time pointing to the “best of a bad lot” problem. “We have no reason to conclude that an explanation that has been shown to be better than others is true because we have no guarantee that the true theory was among those that we were considering.” If you have a “lot” (a collection) of poor explanations, even the best one is not true.The responses to this problem, however, are numerous. Peter Lipton argues that the set of hypotheses that scientists consider are not just randomly selected and thus unlikely to contain a theory that is true; they use existing knowledge to home in on what is most likely to be true. A doctor trying to explain abdominal pain is not going to bother wondering whether demons are causing it; they are going to stick with things like appendicitis and kidney stones, because they are most likely. Further, despite its name, inference to the best explanation is not just the process of comparing hypotheses and accepting the best one; we also want one that is a good explanation in its own right. If it’s not, we are going to keep looking until we find an explanation that is. And while that process does not guarantee that we will come across the exact truth, it’s very likely that the theory that emerges as the best will be at least approximately true, and thus we will be justified in believing it. And lastly, as I point out in my book, although many theories not based in scientific evidence (like geocentrism and continuum theory) have been completely overturned, science almost always progresses by the refinement of scientifically established theories—not their replacement. (Although our sun is not the center of the universe, heliocentrism was our first step in understanding the Earth’s true place in the universe.) So even if a theory we accept today may not be completely right, accepting it is a step on the journey toward the complete truth. The example of atomic theoryNow, it’s worth pointing out that most empiricists are not skeptical of all scientific theories; they are only skeptical of the ones that hypothesize the existence of “unobservables.” It’s not like they think that round Earth, heliocentrism, and germ theory are just useful (but untrue) “instruments” for making predictions about how to most efficiently navigate the seas, predict planetary motion, and treat diseases. They admit that the Earth actually is round, that the planets revolve around the sun, and that germs exist and cause disease. These facts and entities can be observed; the theories that suggest they exist are true. It’s only when theories start hypothesizing the existence of unobservables—like electrons, or quantum fields—that can’t be observed directly, that we should start doubting the theories’ truth. And to be fair to van Fraassen, in this published work, he doesn’t really say that we should doubt the truth of such theories. Only that scientific reasoning does not rationally force us to accept them as true. Skepticism, or agnosticism, he argues, is warranted. SUGGESTED READING Science is based in metaphor By Andrew Reynolds But the history of atomic theory throws a monkey wrench into that argument. Atoms used to be unobservable; again, scientists first accepted the theory that they exist because it had such grandiose explanatory power. But then atoms were seen with electron microscopes. They thus moved into the category of the observable. But this didn’t substantially change anything about what scientists were justified in believing; it certainly didn’t change any “atomic skeptics’” minds. It just confirmed what everyone already knew! If the hypothesis that something exists clearly provides the best explanation for what we can observe, then the belief that it exists is what is rational. The fact that the thing itself is not technically observable does not make doubting its existence rational.What’s more, the atoms were seen with an electron microscope. But electrons are themselves unobservable. How can an electron microscope reveal an atom if electrons are not real? This leads us to what is famously known as Hilary Putnam’s “miracle argument.” It’s (not) a miraclePhilosopher Hilary Putnam’s miracle argument is somewhat famous. Basically, he argued that a scientific theory being able to repeatedly make successful predictions—even about unobservables—without being at least approximately true would require a “miracle.” In other words, it would be such an improbable occurrence that it could not rationally be believed—the better explanation for why scientific theories about unobservables make the right predictions is because the unobservable entities and structures they hypothesize exist.Van Fraassen has addressed this argument. Indeed, in his original article, where he references Alison Gopnik’s point about orgasms not being “necessary for procreation” even though the desire for orgasm “drives the creation of progeny,” he is pointing to his own argument about how organisms are not naturally selected by evolution to get true beliefs; to the extent that belief-forming processes are selected for, the ones that are selected are the ones that are useful for survival—not the ones that produce true beliefs. In the same way, van Fraassen argues, scientific theories are accepted, not because they are true, but because they aren’t falsified; they make successful predictions; that’s what makes them “stick around.” So, the fact that they make successful predictions (and thus became accepted) is not a reason to think they are true.This argument is similar to C. S. Lewis’s “argument from reason,” which he used to argue against evolution: “The truth of evolution undercuts our ability to know that it is true.” Lewis’ argument famously failed; Elizabeth Anscombe, by Lewis’s own admission, demolished Lewis in a debate on the topic, and I have explained elsewhere why modified versions of the argument fail as well. In short, it’s because it fails to recognize that a belief-forming process can make an organism more likely to survive because it reliably produces true beliefs. It is therefore not the case that beliefs generated by naturally selected belief-forming processes are automatically false or unjustified.In the same way, the reason a theory “sticks around” could be because it’s not falsified, because it “makes correct predictions.” But the reason it makes correct predictions is most likely because it is true. (In pointing this out, I am echoing the arguments of Musgrave, Lipton, Psillos, and Kitcher, who refuted van Fraassen’s argument and analogy long before his 2024 article.) It would be a huge coincidence that it could do so without being true. And that is the point of Putnam’s miracle argument. Thus, contrary to van Fraassen’s suggestion, the mere fact that a theory’s predictive success is why it “sticks around” or “becomes accepted” in the scientific community is not a reason to be skeptical about its truth. ConclusionLet me close by saying something about the fact that empiricists don’t doubt the truth of all scientific theories, just the ones that hypothesize unobservables. In today’s society, this theory is dangerous to espouse publicly. The nuance between being skeptical about all of science, and just the highly technical theories about unobservables, is guaranteed to be lost to the average reader. And there is so much unjustified skepticism and doubt about the findings of science and experts that a headline like “Science Does Not Describe Reality” could easily fuel the anti-science movement, worsen climate change denial and cause the next pandemic.This is why I believe it was important to still respond to van Fraassen’s article, a full two years after he wrote it. Not only, as I have argued, does it represent a philosophically inaccurate view of how scientific reasoning works and what scientific reasoning can do, but it is a dangerous view to boot. It should thus be rejected.

Oct 1 • 8:00 AM EDT • Science • iai.tv

VA built dozens of new veteran health centers but can’t find enough doctors and staff

When the Department of Veterans Affairs opened a new, state-of-the-art clinic with ribbon-cutting fanfare last year in his hometown of Fredericksburg, Virgina, Michael Dunlap was thrilled to have care so close.

Oct 1 • 5:00 AM EDT • Health • cnn.com

Health department can’t change Oklahoma gender designations on birth certificate, court rules

State law has never allowed changes to the sex designation on Oklahoman’s birth certificates, the state’s high court ruled.

Oct 1 • 4:47 AM EDT • Health • kgou.org

Health department can’t change Oklahoma gender designations on birth certificate, court rules

State law has never allowed changes to the sex designation on Oklahoman’s birth certificates, the state’s high court ruled.

Sep 30 • 3:01 PM EDT • Health • oklahomavoice.com

Editor's picks: Highlights in Bend music, art events

First Friday Art Walk You can’t do much better in terms of free entertainment than heading to downtown Bend or the Old Mill District for the monthly First Friday Art […]

Sep 30 • 2:00 PM EDT • Entertainment • bendbulletin.com

Is there really an afterlife? Here’s what science can — and can’t

The question of what happens after death sits at the edge of science because researchers can study dying brains, people who survive cardiac arrest and unusual experiences near death—but they cannot di...

Sep 30 • 10:23 AM EDT • Science • yahoo.com