Have you seen me? FWC asking for help documenting rare, shimmering snake
The rainbow snake is a large, nonvenomous aquatic snake that's found throughout the Panhandle. FWC said its population has declined in recent decades, but it's sometimes spotted in the St. Marys, St. Johns, and Suwannee river drainages.
Woman bitten by alligator while hiking in Florida
There used to be a subspecies population, the Southern Florida Rainbow Snake, that was found only in Fisheating Creek in Glades County, but it hasn't been documented in the area since 1952 and is possibly extinct.
As adults, the snakes can grow up to four feet long and are mostly a glossy black that turns iridescent blue in the sunlight. They have three thin red strips running down the length of their bodies, yellow or pink coloring that fades into a red belly and a yellow chin and throat. Rainbow snakes also have a pointy scale on the tips of their tails, which is completely harmless.
ZooTampa's Creatures of the Night event returns with new adventures
Rainbow snakes have a striking iridescent shimmer when they're in the sun, which makes them easily recognizable, but they're also nocturnal and usually stay close to water, according to the Florida Museum of Natural History.
They feed mostly on American eels, another species experiencing population decline. Decreasing prey, habitat loss and their secretive nature all make it difficult for scientists to study rainbow snakes and help protect remaining populations.
So, FWC is asking Florida residents and visitors to keep an eye out for this colorful but shy snake. If you spot the rainbow snake, snap a picture if you can, and report the sighting to FWC.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
8 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump eyes Intel stake
Lutnick indicated the money for the stake would come from previously allocated Biden-era funding. Media reports have suggested the government is considering a 10 percent stake using CHIPS and Science Act grants. 'The president figures out that we should get, America should get the benefit of the bargain,' he told CNBC's 'Squawk Box.' 'I mean, that is exactly Donald Trump's perspective, which is, why are we giving a company worth $100 billion this kind of money?' he continued. 'What is in it for the American taxpayer? And the answer Donald Trump has is we should get an equity state for our money.' 'So we'll deliver the money which was already committed under the Biden administration,' Lutnick added. 'We'll get equity in return for it, get a good return for the American taxpayer instead of just giving grants away.' The Commerce secretary's comments come just less than two weeks after President Trump called on Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan to resign. The president accused Tan of being 'highly conflicted' following Sen. Tom Cotton's (R-Ark.) letter to the company, voicing concerns about the CEO's investments in Chinese companies and his previous role at Cadence Design Systems. The software firm recently pleaded guilty to violating export controls by selling chip design technology to a Chinese military university during Tan's tenure. However, Trump changed his tone after meeting with Tan last week, and reports began emerging that the administration was considering taking a stake in the company. 'The meeting was a very interesting one. His success and rise is an amazing story,' Trump said in a post on Truth Social. 'Mr. Tan and my Cabinet members are going to spend time together, and bring suggestions to me during the next week.'
Time Magazine
13 hours ago
- Time Magazine
Californians Say AI Is Moving 'Too Fast'
Hello and welcome to the Tuesday edition of In the Loop. I'm writing to you while looking out over the sunny city of San Francisco, where I'm spending the week on a reporting trip. If you're working on something cool here and want to say hi, feel free to shoot me an email at What to Know: Californians are fearful of AI Californians are more concerned than excited about the future of AI, by a margin of 55% to 33%, according to new polling shared exclusively with TIME ahead of its publication this Tuesday. Of the 1,400 adults polled, 48% said the technology was progressing 'too fast,' compared to 32% who said the pace was 'about right' and just 4% who said it was 'too slow.' And 59% of respondents said they believed AI would benefit the wealthiest corporations and households most, compared to 20% who said it would most benefit working people and the middle class. The poll was funded by TechEquity, a progressive non-profit. Support for regulation — The new data shows that 70% of Californians believe in the need for 'strong laws to make AI fair.' But the data also reveals high levels of skepticism that those laws will ever be enacted. 59% of those surveyed say they don't trust the California state government to control AI. Even more — 64% — said they do not trust the federal government. A picture emerges — The poll adds to a growing collection of data from around the world suggesting that ordinary people are worried about the impact of AI on their lives. In January, I wrote about a U.K. poll that showed 60% of Brits favoring a ban on the development of 'smarter-than-human' AI models. And in April, the Pew Research Center found that 43% of U.S. adults believed AI was more likely to harm than benefit them, compared to 24% who expected the benefits to outweigh the harms. Ground zero — California is emerging as a key battleground for efforts to legislate on AI, as the state where most top American AI companies are based. Last year a bill that aimed to regulate so-called 'frontier' models cleared the state legislature, only to be vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom. That hasn't stopped other efforts to regulate AI in the state, however. California 'is a place where you can still legislate and govern with a semi-functioning legislative process, which is not something you can say about D.C., particularly on this topic,' says Catherine Bracy, the CEO of TechEquity. 'The federal government has made it clear that they are going to be completely hands-off, if not creating rules that unleash the industry even more,' Bracy says. '[So] it is incumbent on the states to pick up the slack and make sure that real people who are going to be impacted by these tools are protected.' Who to Know: Dean Ball, former White House advisor on AI For a stint in office, it was an unusually impactful one. Dean Ball joined the Trump Administration in April—headhunted based on an essay he had written titled 'Here is what I think we should do' about AI policy. What followed was a whirlwind five months in government, in which he played a key role contributing to the AI Action Plan, Trump's AI policy, which was announced in July. Earlier this month, Ball announced he was leaving the government to focus on his own research. Action planning — Trump's Action Plan won praise for its emphasis on bolstering U.S. energy grid capacity, plus onshoring datacenters and the production of the chips that power them. The document also urged U.S. companies to focus more on developing open-weight AI models, to prevent the world from coming to rely on Chinese models (which are currently the best in class). The document framed these recommendations, and more, in terms of the escalating AI race with China. Exit interview — In an interview with TIME, Ball emphasized the importance of AI to the Trump administration. 'AI is the President's number one technology policy priority, by a significant margin,' he said. At the same time, Ball says, there is a lot of skepticism inside the Administration toward AI industry projections that superintelligent machines are some two to five years away. 'The diffusion of AI is going to take a really long time,' Ball says. 'I've lived through technology revolutions before, where I was young and bright-eyed and thought it was all going to happen in two or three years. And it turns out a lot of it did happen, but it took 15.' AI in Action: Should you delete your old emails to save water? An official U.K. government document, published last week, has caught a lot of heat online for suggesting that users should 'delete old emails and pictures' to save water during a drought, because data centers 'require vast amounts of water to cool their systems.' It is true that many data centers use water for cooling, but let's get a sense of perspective here. Andy Masley, a blogger who has written several illuminating pieces about the energy and water expenditure of AI systems, ran the numbers. Fixing a leaking toilet, he wrote, can save 200-400 liters of water per day. 'To save as much water in data centers as fixing your toilet would save, you would need to delete 1.5 billion photos, or 200 billion emails. If it took you 0.1 seconds to delete each email, and you deleted them nonstop for 16 hours a day, it would take you 723 years to delete enough emails to save the same amount of water in data centers as you could if you fixed your toilet. Maybe you should fix your toilet.' As always, if you have an interesting story of AI in Action, we'd love to hear it. Email us at: intheloop@ What We're Reading 'Meta's flirty AI chatbot invited a retiree to New York. He never made it home' by Jeff Horwitz in Reuters A relentlessly bleak story from Jeff Horwitz, the best Meta reporter in the business. 'Bue's story, told here for the first time, illustrates a darker side of the artificial intelligence revolution now sweeping tech and the broader business world. His family shared with Reuters the events surrounding his death, including transcripts of his chats with the Meta avatar, saying they hope to warn the public about the dangers of exposing vulnerable people to manipulative, AI-generated companions.'
Newsweek
16 hours ago
- Newsweek
Top Scientist Issues Stark mRNA Vaccine Warning to U.S.
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Rick Bright, the former director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) has warned that Department of Health and Human Services' decision to cut funding for mRNA vaccine development could threaten American national security. "BARDA wasn't the only government agency making early investments in mRNA research," Bright wrote in an opinion piece for The New York Times. "The Department of Defense and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency had already recognized mRNA's potential for swift action against emerging biological threats, including those that might be weaponized." It comes after HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced the termination of 22 mRNA development investments and the reallocation of roughly $500 million at the beginning of this month. Why it Matters Bright said the mRNA platform had been central to the fast response to COVID-19 and that abandoning the technology would undermine the nation's ability to respond quickly to future biological threats. Multiple scientists and doctors have spoken out against this decision, including infectious diseases expert Dr. Thomas A. Russo, who told Newsweek that mRNA vaccines "will be critical when the next, inevitable infectious diseases crisis rears its ugly head." What To Know On August 5, the HHS confirmed it would cancel $500 million in mRNA vaccine development contracts, impacting research teams and proposals—including those from Emory University, Tiba Biotech, Pfizer, Sanofi Pasteur and others. The projects reportedly targeted respiratory viruses including seasonal influenza, COVID-19, RSV and H5N1 and included work by major industry and academic teams. Secretary Kennedy argued that the data showed mRNA vaccines had not met expectations for preventing upper respiratory infections and that HHS would shift funding toward other vaccine platforms. But Bright praised mRNA technology, saying that the "unprecedented speed" with which a COVID-19 vaccine was developed in 2020 "was possible only because years earlier, the United States had invested" in it. "This decision undercuts one of the most significant medical advances in decades, technology that could protect millions more people from the threats ahead," Bright said. "I know the stakes because I was BARDA's director when the United States made the decision to invest heavily in mRNA," he said. "That investment did not begin with Covid-19. It began in 2016, when we faced the Zika virus outbreak." "We needed a way to design a vaccine in days, not years, to protect pregnant women and their babies from devastating birth defects. Older vaccine approaches were too slow," Bright continued. "The solution was mRNA: a flexible, rapid-response technology that could be reprogrammed for any virus once its genetic sequence was known. That early investment laid the groundwork for the lightning-fast Covid-19 response four years later." Kennedy said in a post on X the time: "We reviewed the science, listened to the experts, and acted. BARDA is terminating 22 mRNA vaccine development investments because the data show these vaccines fail to protect effectively against upper respiratory infections like COVID and flu," Kennedy said in a post on X. "We're shifting that funding toward safer, broader vaccine platforms that remain effective even as viruses mutate." Newsweek has contacted the HHS, via online inquiry form, for a response to Bright's comments. File photo of an employee of the Bavarian Red Cross (BRK) preparing the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine against the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 for vaccination in a vaccination center, taken in Bavaria, Germany, in January 2021. File photo of an employee of the Bavarian Red Cross (BRK) preparing the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine against the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 for vaccination in a vaccination center, taken in Bavaria, Germany, in January 2021. AP What People Are Saying Former BARDA director Rick Bright said in his NYT op-ed: "Like every technology, mRNA has limitations. Vaccines meant to protect against respiratory infections, whether developed through mRNA or older technologies, are generally better at averting severe disease than preventing infection. It is a scientific challenge we can address with next-generation vaccines. The answer to limitations is improvement, not abandonment. "Political narratives about mRNA have fueled confusion, which leads to mistrust, yet the scientific evidence consistently shows that this technology is safe and effective and holds enormous potential for future vaccines and treatments." Children's Health Defense, an anti-vax nonprofit founded by Kennedy Jr. which focuses on childhood health epidemics, said in a post on X: "CHD applauds this most recent announcement to defund 22 mRNA vaccine projects under BARDA. While we believe that the mRNA shots on the market are unsafe and should be off the market, this is a welcome step in the right direction. The pandemic preparedness industry as it exists today is a threat to human welfare." What Happens Next HHS said it would shift funding toward other vaccine platforms but did not provide detailed timelines or specify which programs would receive redirected support. Scientific organizations, industry groups and public-health leaders said they would assess the impact and consider next steps, while some public-health advocates announced initiatives to defend vaccine science and provide public information.
