CNN speaks to researcher falsely cited in MAHA report
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Child-Free People, What Are The Wildest Things Parents Have Said When They Learned You Don't Want Kids
Whether or not you choose to have children is honestly nobody's business but your own, but that doesn't stop other adults from weighing in with their unsolicited takes. Considering this, I wanted to hear from you — our BuzzFeed Community. If you've chosen to be child-free, what has been the wildest reaction from parents around you? Maybe you and your partner are friends with a couple who have three children. They're always running on fumes and expressing how exhausted and stressed they are. However, when you both mentioned that you'll be remaining child-free, they gasped and claimed you weren't doing your part to keep the world turning. As if it's all up to you. Related: Or, maybe you told your parents you had no interest in procreating, and they guilted you for robbing them of their only chance at being able to right all the wrongs they committed when raising you. YOUR child was supposed to be their second chance. Related: Or maybe it was someone in line at a coffee shop. You had your nephew with you, and when they commented that you both looked so much alike, you mentioned that you weren't their parent and just babysitting. You also said you wouldn't be having any of your own, and the coffee shop lady scoffed. She said that you're what's wrong with your generation. That you're just too lazy to put in the work of child rearing, and it's really such a shame. Whatever the case may be, we want to hear about it. If you're child-free, we want to know the wildest thing someone has said to you about your decision. Share in the comments or via this anonymous form below. Your response could be featured in an upcoming post. Also in Community: Also in Community: Also in Community: Solve the daily Crossword
The Hill
9 minutes ago
- The Hill
Everyone loses in a redistricting war
Gerrymandering, a wonky topic previously discussed mainly among AP history students and political scientists, has recently dominated national news headlines. In the fight for control of Congress after the 2026 midterm elections, governors of several states are opting to hijack the decennial process for partisan advantage, rather than letting voters decide directly who should represent them in Congress. Election analyst and redistricting expert Dave Wasserman recently referred to what's happening as the 'gerrymandering apocalypse.' CNN referred to it as a 'battle royale.' And Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-N.Y.) said, 'we are at war.' It's easy to point fingers at Gov. Greg Abbott (R-Texas) and say 'he started it!' Abbott acquiesced to President Trump's suggestion that the state take up redistricting mid-cycle and draw five additional Republican seats — a seemingly desperate attempt to avoid the ' midterm curse, ' where the incumbent president's party typically loses House seats in a midterm election. But the Archduke Ferdinand in the war on redistricting isn't Texas, it's actually Ohio. There's a famous adage relevant here: 'So goes Ohio, so goes the nation.' And over the past two redistricting cycles, Ohio has gone down a very gerrymandered path that the nation now seems to be following. In matters that extend beyond Ohio and gerrymandering, it is imperative that we pay attention to what is going on in statehouses around the country, ' laboratories of autocracy ' as they are often rightly called, for a glimpse into the corruption that awaits our national politics. Ohio has some of the most gerrymandered maps in the nation. Its state legislature and Republican-dominated redistricting committee gerrymandered maps through a series of secret backroom deals, disregard of multiple court orders, and a deliberate strategy of confusing voters to sabotage attempted reform. They even tried to impeach the Republican chief justice of the Ohio Supreme Court for ruling their rigged maps unconstitutional. But while state politicians were gerrymandering Ohio, unfortunately, few people were paying attention. Despite repeatedly breaking the rules, there was no accountability for the elected officials who took part in the scheme. To the contrary, most who participated were rewarded with electoral districts they were guaranteed to win, and a veto-proof majority in the state legislature. This has allowed Republicans in the state to pass unpopular laws that aren't supported by most voters. Take, for example, Ohio's Heartbeat Law, which outlawed abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. Poll after poll showed that a majority — nearly 60 percent — of Ohioans supported abortion rights, with only 32 percent opposed and 10 percent undecided. These numbers have held relatively steady over several years. However, the 2019 legislative vote passing the bill seemed to reflect the inverse; the Ohio House passed the measure 56-40 and the Ohio Senate 18-12. Although average voters around the country weren't paying attention to what was happening in the Buckeye State, political operatives were. What happened in Ohio is now serving as a playbook for what we are seeing in states like Texas, Missouri and Florida. The governors and state legislatures of these states have indicated that they are willing to cheat to win. The Trump administration has demonstrated its willingness to ignore court orders it does not like. And, if they continue to do so, we will likely have a Congress that continues to pass legislation that is unpopular with voters. Politics is often like physics, in that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Democrats have indicated they are willing to fight back by gerrymandering blue states such as California and New York. Some have praised them for this effort, with one Democratic consultant stating: 'There's anger among Democrats, and they wonder why their elected leaders aren't doing everything they can to fight back. … Kathy Hochul is out there saying, 'I'll do everything I can to fight back — including gerrymandering the s–t out of New York.'' But as the redistricting wars escalate, it is also a reminder that, as in any war, no one actually wins. Regardless of which party controls Congress after the 2026 midterms, voters in both red and blue states will be disenfranchised, in direct violation of the Supreme Court's ' one man, one vote ' edict . Both Democrats in red states and Republicans in blue states will be without any genuine form of representation. And even those who have a congressman of their preferred party affiliation will likely be represented by a more extremist candidate whose policy positions aren't reflective of the people in that district. As noted by The Associated Press, 'gerrymandering, once a feared accusation, has now become a battle cry.' If there's any lesson we can take away from the fight, it's that the lines we need to redraw aren't those separating congressional districts, but the ones we are willing to cross to ensure our side wins at all costs.
Fast Company
9 minutes ago
- Fast Company
Philips CEO Jeff DiLullo on how AI is changing healthcare today
AI is quietly reshaping the efficiency, power, and potential of U.S. healthcare, even as government health policy and spending drastically shift. Philips, the legacy electronics manufacturer turned medtech provider, is leading the AI healthcare revolution, streamlining and accelerating the workflow of patient care. Philips North America CEO Jeff DiLullo shares how technology can have the biggest impact on health outcomes today—from radiology scans to cancer diagnoses, and what it takes for leaders in any industry to rethink the way we work to best meet the moment. This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by the former editor-in-chief of Fast Company Bob Safian. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with today's top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode. AI seems to be changing everything. There's a lot of talk about it, but in some businesses, I feel like the conversation about it is ahead of the actual implementation or the impact, and I'm curious how true that might be in medtech. How is AI impacting things now, today, versus what you think it can do in the future? If you remember, we released the Future of Health Index. One of the things that we realized is that AI, in some of these compartments I'm talking about, is quite mature. FDA cleared, very safe for clinical use. Other areas, it's more experimental. But the trust factor of the use of that AI is actually quite nascent. It's the biggest barrier right now to larger scale deployment. Yeah. That health index that you mentioned, the 2025 Future Health Index, I mean, there was this sort of trust gap in it, right? That something like 60, 65% of clinicians trust AI, but only about a third of patients or certainly older patients do. How do you bridge that gap? Is it Philips's job to bridge that gap? Whose job is it? So I have the benefit of having two Gen Zs and a millennial, they are digitally fluid. They don't worry at all about the AI models that are coming on the other side of this because they're used to it and they understand it. Older patients, not so much. The magic is always the healthcare practitioner that's directly interfacing with the customers or the patients. If they believe what they're doing, if they know it's credible, if they're using it to augment their analysis or their diagnostics, not replacing it, I think ultimately we'll see an uplift. It's our job to provide valid FDA-cleared, very good diagnostic capability leveraging AI. But if our doctors and nurses believe what we're doing and they see the value in increasing their time with patients and also a little de-stressing, we think it's going to really pick up in a parabolic way in the next few years, at least in health. I can understand and see how AI can quickly help some of the back office functionality in healthcare, but you're talking about for practitioners, right? How does that practically work today? So I'm going to give you, let's talk radiology. It's the biggest field right now, diagnostic, right? The earlier the diagnostic, the better the outcome most likely. And when I think of a radiologist, I have to wait a month and a half. I'm in a pretty nice part of Vanderbilt University area, like a lot of health tech around me in Nashville, but I've got to wait over a month to get a scan. So in radiology, we start with the box or the design, right? I have an MRI that is highly efficient. I can move it around, I can put it on a truck. But today, I can get a scan done in half or even a third of the time. The AI built into the system software makes it much faster. Just a few months ago, I had a scan that took only 20 minutes—whereas a couple of years ago, the same scan would have taken about 45 minutes. The smart speed that we have on the system actually compresses the scanning time. It doesn't fill in the blanks, it removes the noise. You actually get a better scan in a shorter time. If you're a radiologist having to do 12 or 15 studies a day, but you can do 20 studies a day, I get more patients through, I drive more reimbursement, it's better for the hospital, it's better for patient care. Then I take it into workflow, and today I can pinpoint things that are happening in that digital image and send it to a radiologist and say, 'You should look here,' in just very simple speak. It's very complicated stuff, but the AI is already mainstream today where we can actually pinpoint areas for radiologists to look at and make a determination. I can digitize the whole process today with digital pathology. And I can have a finding where somebody's waiting, do I have cancer or not? I can do this in hours now because it's all digital. And that kind of workflow and orchestration is a game changer. And the issue of AI hallucinations, which show up with some of the generative AI things, does that apply to healthcare? Are there different kinds of safeguards? Because I guess there's a human who's checking. There's so many things today, like smart speed I just talked about, being able to run that radiology workflow to compress the time of diagnostics, run the tumor boards in hours, on-demand meetings like you and I would on Zoom or teams, all of that is happening today, but not happening at the pace it could. My point is, go do that right now. Every health system, go do that. As you start to unpack these more generative AI models, I think there's real reason to be cautious and make sure we have the right controls and the governance on them, but not experimenting in them also is not an option. We kind of have to. But we see leading institutions, MGB, Stanford, Mount Sinai in New York, we see them really working with population health data to really try to train models on very specific and even broad use cases. There's so much to do right now. In other words, you don't have to go all the way out to the silver bullet of, we're going to live forever or we're going to solve every health problem. You can make the system we have right now more efficient and more effective today. Bob, when you first drove a car, was the first thing you did to go to the Autobahn? Probably not. There's so much to do in the neighborhood. There's so much to do in my town that I can really get good at what we're doing and drive productivity at scale. You need to have the innovation and the creativity to get us to the next place, but 80% of it we can do today. That is just game-changing in terms of how we deliver today, and that's what we think is really the next opportunity here for healthcare. And I think that'll happen with what's mature in AI and virtual capabilities in the next few years because the need is so great.
