Latest news with #the
The Irish Sun
10 hours ago
- Entertainment
- The Irish Sun
‘My voice is gone' – Listen to ecstatic Radio Kerry commentary of David Clifford's best All-Ireland final moments
DAVID Clifford was a joy to watch on Sunday and Radio Kerry's commentary was almost as enjoyable to listen to. The Fossa phenom may not have been on the ball much for he was deadly accurate in making his touches county as Advertisement 2 Tim Moynihan embodies why local commentary is so often the best form of the art Credit: @radiokerrysport 2 Clifford scored three two-pointers to help fire them to their 39th crown Radio Kerry have released a near five-minute highlights package of their commentary duo Tim Moynihan and Ambrose O'Donovan calling the action from The whole video flies by with our personal favourite line describing the Kingdom's frenzied press being akin to "like wasps on cowdung". A close second is him branding the 26-year-old a mixture of a ballerina and a warrior owing to his balance as he rapidly sidestepped two despairing Donegal men before firing over with his right foot. There's also a nice additional bit of colour provided by Moynihan noting that Clifford's two-pointer on the cusp of half-time left Off the Ball double-act Paddy Andrews and Advertisement Read More On GAA For as much as the soon to be three-time Footballer of the Year was in God mode on the pitch, there was an amusing example of him still Paudie Clifford may have to look up to make eye contact with David but he very much lives up to the older brother stereotype. The older Clifford is the more verbose of the two and drove most of their Burlington Hotel interview Some of the highlights included him noting that they were on the same teams growing up despite the age gap as their community of Fossa is so small that playing numbers were often tight. Advertisement Most read in GAA Football The playmaker also joked about his 76 possessions over the course of Harking back to the widely lauded Football Review Committee, he quipped: "Jim Gavin and Eamon Fitzmaurice probably didn't envision me soloing the ball on the spot about 100 times when they drew up the new rules!" Paudie Clifford teases David over childhood nickname during hilarious RTE interview after All-Ireland heroics The best moment, however, was a classic case of a big brother slagging his younger sibling. Asked if they'd always had an innate on-pitch chemistry, Paudie shot back: "The chemistry wasn't great now, we fought every day for about two years straight! Advertisement "Mom was just sick of of dealing with David crying every two minutes. They actually used to call him 'Watery eyes' because he used to cry so much! So that was the chemistry now." AT THE RIGHT PITCH While Paudie was all smiles and in relaxed form by that stage of the day, his immediate post-match interview He vented: "I suppose as a team, we would feel disrespected because we were in three of the last four All-Irelands and we've won two of them now. "And to be called a one-man team when I see myself some of the work that our lads put in… Advertisement 'Like, Joe O'Connor, the turnovers, winning balls, scoring, Jason Foley, Brian Ó Beaglaioch, Gavin White – I'm only naming a few. I see the work that they put in every day. 'To be called a one-man team then, it's nearly like it's disrespectful. It's kind of personal. I suppose that's the angle we were coming from. 'We were close against Armagh last year and we'd be our own worst critics as well. We admitted that we've under-performed definitely as a team over some of the years. 'But I suppose with the work we put in and the players we have there, for them things to be said, it's not nice to hear it." Advertisement
Politico
10 hours ago
- Health
- Politico
Kennedy's plan to ‘fix' vaccine injury compensation
With help from Carmen Paun Driving the Day WHAT IS VICP? Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. took to the social media platform X on Monday — as well as conservative activist Charlie Kirk's show — to promote his plan to 'fix' the system that HHS uses to compensate people injured by vaccines. The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has long been a target of Kennedy's ire, and now, he plans major changes to it. I spoke with POLITICO's Lauren Gardner, who covers the program closely, about how it operates and what we know so far about Kennedy's plans. Here's our conversation, edited for length and clarity. Why was the VICP created and how does it work? Congress created the VICP in 1986 after a series of lawsuits against vaccine makers prompted many of them to pull out of the market. Lawmakers worked with companies, public health advocates and parents who said their children were vaccine-injured to establish a no-fault alternative to the traditional tort system. Under the program, drugmakers' liability is limited, and compensation from an industry-funded tax is available with a lower burden of proof. The intention was to reduce the uncertainty for everyone involved and ensure the stability of the domestic supply of childhood vaccines. To be considered for compensation, a petitioner must file a claim generally within three years of the injury's onset. If the person's injury is listed on a table of injuries presumed to be caused by a given vaccine during a certain timeframe, it's typically easier for them to win compensation; otherwise, they must show their injury was 'more likely than not' caused by the immunization. Kennedy has repeatedly critiqued the program. What does he say is the issue? Some of the secretary's problems with the program are shared by public health experts and, unsurprisingly, vaccine injury lawyers who say the process has become more adversarial in recent years and can take many years to resolve. On the latter point, legal experts point to the law's limit on the number of 'special masters' — essentially judges who consider these cases — at the vaccine court as something Kennedy can't address without Congress. However, Kennedy also made several false or misleading claims Monday, including stating that 'the act has changed' so that the vaccine court is the 'exclusive remedy' for families who might prefer to sue drugmakers in state court. They can do that — as he should know, given his work as an injury lawyer outside of the program — but they have to exhaust their claim at the VICP first. What details do we have about how Kennedy wants to 'fix' VICP? Kennedy didn't say anything new about his plans in Monday's interview. So far, we know he wants to increase the statute of limitations and to somehow compensate people injured by Covid-19 vaccines via the VICP; they currently fall under a separate program that's been widely panned as ineffective. Kennedy specifically referenced a 1995 change to the vaccine injury table's definition of encephalopathy, a broad term for brain dysfunction, that he said 'made it so there's no way you can prove' it was caused by a vaccine. He called the program a 'heartless system that is designed to deny vaccine injury and to deny compensation to people who badly need it, and we are about to fix all that.' He also namechecked Attorney General Pam Bondi as someone who's working with him on this, so since the Justice Department works with HHS to administer the VICP, we could see changes come from that side of Washington, too. WELCOME TO TUESDAY PULSE. Glad to be back in your inbox after taking some time off last week. What are you watching this week before the Senate heads out? Send your tips, scoops and feedback to khooper@ and sgardner@ and follow along @kelhoops and @sophie_gardnerj. AROUND THE AGENCIES PREMIUM RISES — Medicare drug plan premiums are expected to rise next year, according to the 2026 preliminary rate information for Medicare's prescription drug program released by CMS. The agency is projecting the average base premium will be $38.99, a slight increase from 2025's average base premium of $36.78, POLITICO's Robert King reports. CMS said it worked with insurers to blunt larger premium hikes from plans. The Wall Street Journal was the first to report the rate release. 'Following these negotiations, CMS approved some revised bids and, for the first time, rejected standalone [prescription drug plan] bids that failed to address concerns regarding significant year-over-year premium increases,' the agency said in a release. The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act included several major changes to Part D, chief among them a $2,000 annual cap on out-of-pocket drug costs. CMS was concerned that Medicare Part D plans would raise premiums to compensate for the changes. Key context: Last year, the agency sought to blunt the premium impact through a $5 billion program that's expected to end after 2027. It provided insurers who signed with an additional $15 per member per month. Insurers will still receive extra money, but only $10. It will also increase the limit on a plan's total Part D monthly premium from $35 to $50. CMS said the changes will result in approximately $3.6 billion in additional Medicare payments for 2026, a 42 percent reduction compared to 2025 costs. GOOD NEWS, BAD NEWS IN DRUG-USE SURVEY — The percentage of teenagers who seriously considered suicide declined between 2021 and 2024, Carmen reports. That's according to the Annual National Survey on Drug Use and Health, which reflects 2024 data, that HHS's Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, or SAMHSA, published Monday. The good news: The percentage of teens who made a suicide plan over the past year dropped from 6.2 percent in 2021 to 4.6 percent in 2024, according to the survey, which relies on self-reported data. And the percentage of teens who attempted suicide decreased from 3.6 percent in 2021 to 2.7 percent in 2024. The use of certain drugs also declined in teenagers and adults, with reported prescription opioid misuse lowering from 3 percent in 2021 to 2.6 percent in 2024. The bad news: The percentage of people ages 12 and older who reported having a drug use disorder in the past year increased from 8.7 percent in 2021 to 9.8 percent in 2024. The use of marijuana increased from 19 percent in 2021 to just over 22 percent last year. So did the use of hallucinogens, also known as psychedelics, with 3.6 percent reporting using them last year compared with 2.7 percent in 2021. Why it matters: In response to the country's mental health and drug use crises that worsened during the pandemic, federal officials and lawmakers have made efforts to regulate social media use and expand access to substance use disorder treatment. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who's in long-term recovery from past opioid use, has promoted the ban of cellphone use in schools and healthier food to improve children and teens' wellbeing. HHS LAUNCHES HEP C PILOT — SAMHSA has put $100 million into a pilot program focusing on hepatitis C in people with a substance use disorder, a serious mental illness or both, Carmen reports. State and community-based organizations are among the entities that can apply for funding from the program, which 'is designed to support communities severely affected by homelessness and to gain insights on effective ways to identify patients, complete treatment, cure infections, and reduce' hepatitis C reinfection, HHS said in a statement Monday. HHS hailed the pilot program as 'a significant accomplishment in President Trump's agenda to Make America Healthy Again … This upfront investment is a common-sense and scientifically driven initiative projected to both save lives and save community health care costs in the long run.' The CDC estimates that between 2.4 million and 4 million people in the U.S. had hepatitis C between 2017 and 2020. The disease is an inflammation of the liver, caused mainly by a viral infection that can progress to severe liver disease or liver cancer if left untreated, according to the World Health Organization. Oral medication can treat and cure the disease if taken for eight to 12 weeks, but greater access to treatment is needed to achieve disease elimination, according to former National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, who has advocated for the cause as former President Joe Biden's science adviser. WHAT WE'RE READING POLITICO's Maya Kaufman reports that the Justice Department has launched an antitrust probe into New York-Presbyterian, one of the nation's largest hospitals. STAT's Anil Oza reports on a new analysis that outlines what the Trump administration's proposed cuts to the NIH could mean long-term.
Fox Sports
a day ago
- Sport
- Fox Sports
Madden NFL 2026 '99 Club' Odds: How Will Video Game Stars Perform?
It's arguably the most prestigious club in football — and this year, there are seven members. Annually, the Madden NFL video game series releases its latest edition, but prior to that, it reveals the group of players that earned a rating of 99 in the game — the "99 Club." Which group of stars earned the highest rating in Madden NFL 2026? Let's check out the list, along with some of their odds at DraftKings Sportsbook heading into the 2025-26 season. SAQUON BARKLEY Philadelphia Eagles RB To break regular-season rushing record (2,106+ yards): +2000 (bet $10 to win $210 total) Offensive Player of the Year: +650 (bet $10 to win $75 total) To have 1,000+ regular-season rushing yards: -1400 (bet $10 to win $10.71 total) Most regular-season rushing yards: +275 (bet $10 to win $37.50 total) Most regular-season rushing TDs: +650 (bet $10 to win $75 total) Over/Under regular-season rushing yards: 1,450.5 LAMAR JACKSON Baltimore Ravens QB Regular-season MVP: +550 (bet $10 to win $65 total) Most regular-season passing yards: +3000 (bet $10 to win $310 total) Most regular-season passing TDs: +1000 (bet $10 to win $110 total) Over/Under regular-season passing yards: 3,500.5 Over/Under regular-season passing TDs: 28.5 JOSH ALLEN Buffalo Bills QB Regular-season MVP: +550 (bet $10 to win $65 total) Most regular-season passing yards: +1500 (bet $10 to win $160 total) Most regular-season passing TDs: +1500 (bet $10 to win $160 total) Over/Under regular-season passing yards: 3,750.5 Over/Under regular-season passing TDs: 27.5 MYLES GARRETT Cleveland Browns DE Defensive Player of the Year: +850 (bet $10 to win $95 total) Most regular-season sacks: +600 (bet $10 to win $70 total) JUSTIN JEFFERSON Minnesota Vikings WR Offensive Player of the Year: +1600 (bet $10 to win $170 total) Most regular-season receiving yards: +800 (bet $10 to win $90 total) Most regular-season receiving TDs: +1000 (bet $10 to win $110 total) Most regular-season receptions: +1000 (bet $10 to win $110 total) Over/Under regular-season receiving yards: 1,250.5 Over/Under regular-season receiving TDs: 9.5 JA'MARR CHASE Cincinnati Bengals WR Offensive Player of the Year: +950 (bet $10 to win $105 total) Most regular-season receiving yards: +600 (bet $10 to win $70 total) Most regular-season receiving TDs: +600 (bet $10 to win $70 total) Most regular-season receptions: +700 (bet $10 to win $80 total) Over/Under regular-season receiving yards: 1,300.5 Over/Under regular-season receiving TDs: 10.5 LANE JOHNSON Philadelphia Eagles OT Protector of the Year: +750 (bet $10 to win $85 total) Want great stories delivered right to your inbox? Create or log in to your FOX Sports account, and follow leagues, teams and players to receive a personalized newsletter daily! recommended Item 1 of 3 Get more from the National Football League Follow your favorites to get information about games, news and more
Scotsman
a day ago
- Entertainment
- Scotsman
Metallica at The Sphere: 6 artists we want to see at Las Vegas venue
The metal giants are rumoured to be taking up a residency in 2026, but who do we want to see perform at The Sphere? Sign up to our Arts and Culture newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... The Sphere could have it's next residency lined up for 2026. Reports have suggested that Metallica could perform a series of dates at the multi-billion-dollar Las Vegas venue in Autumn 2026. But who do we think could be a stunning residency at The Sphere should the opportunity arise? Could Metallica be the next huge act to perform at the multi-billion-dollar The Sphere in Las Vegas? That's currently the rumour doing the rounds after the weekend, after Blabbermouth reported (via Vital Vegas) that the metal giants are 'ready to ink a deal' to take up a residency in the $2.3bn venue around 'fall of 2026.' That timing would fall after the band completes their current M72 World Tour, with their European leg set to conclude in June next year. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad It's been a query that's not new to the group; when asked by The Hollywood Reporter this past April if the band would entertain the idea of performing at the venue, Metallica guitarist Kirk Hammett was very keen on the idea, responding: 'Oh, heck, yeah! That's a great example of how venues are changing. That's using modern technology to the fullest, to really up the levels of production and entertainment, connected to AI and making it a crazy experience.' They would follow the likes of U2 and Phish, who have both undertaken residencies at the venue before, along with the Backstreet Boys, who are currently bringing their 'Into the Millennium' tour to The Sphere this Summer 2025 as the very first Pop Act to perform there. Due to overwhelming demand, they've even added three final shows on August 22, 23, and 24. But if there is a suggestion box for who else could play The Sphere, we've a couple of suggestions ourselves we'd like to see with the full, futuristic audio-visual setup. Who do we want to see perform at Las Vegas' The Sphere? Tool Tool's intricate, progressive, and visually driven live performances are already legendary, even in conventional venues. Their use of complex, often abstract, and psychedelic visualizers would be taken to an entirely new level within the Sphere's 160,000 square-foot wrap-around LED screen. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The band's emphasis on atmosphere and deeply immersive soundscapes would find a perfect home, allowing for a truly meditative yet overwhelming sensory experience that few other artists could match. The Sphere's advanced sound system would perfectly articulate the subtle nuances and seismic shifts in their music. Dr. Dre and Associates Imagine the iconic West Coast sound echoing through the Sphere's unparalleled audio system, accompanied by visuals that transport the audience through the history of hip-hop, the streets of Compton, or abstract interpretations of their beats. Dr. Dre, along with a rotating cast of his legendary associates (Snoop Dogg, Eminem, Kendrick Lamar, Ice Cube, etc.), could craft a hip-hop spectacle unlike anything seen before. The visual storytelling potential for tracks like 'Still D.R.E.' or 'California Love' would be phenomenal, making it a cultural landmark event - and potentially another appearance of Tupac akin to Coachella? Gorillaz Gorillaz's unique blend of music and animated characters makes them an ideal candidate for The Sphere. The venue would allow for the virtual band members (2-D, Murdoc, Noodle, Russel) to be brought to life on a scale never before imagined, interacting with each other and the audience in a truly immersive digital environment. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Live musicians could perform within this animated world, blurring the lines between reality and fiction. The visual storytelling capabilities for their eclectic musical styles and narratives would make for a truly innovative and fun residency. Pink Floyd This is arguably the most natural fit for The Sphere. Pink Floyd's entire artistic legacy is defined by ground-breaking visual spectacles, elaborate stage productions, and immersive concept albums. The Wall projected across the entire dome, Dark Side of the Moon with cosmic journeys unfolding above and around the audience, or Wish You Were Here with haunting, expansive landscapes. The Sphere's perfect audio and visual capabilities were practically made for a band like Pink Floyd to deliver the ultimate psychedelic rock experience, building on their history of pushing technological boundaries in live performance. Charli XCX Charli XCX's boundary-pushing pop, hyperpop aesthetics, and energetic stage presence make her a prime candidate for The Sphere. Her shows are already known for their vibrant, often chaotic, and highly stylized visual elements. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The Sphere would allow her to create an even more exaggerated, surreal, and interactive environment, playing with scale and digital immersion to build a truly unique pop concert experience. She could create a hyperreal world that perfectly complements her experimental sound. Led Zeppelin While the logistical challenges of a reunion for Led Zeppelin are immense, the sheer fantasy of seeing them at The Sphere is undeniable. Imagine 'Stairway to Heaven' with celestial visuals encompassing the entire dome, or 'Whole Lotta Love' with kaleidoscopic patterns and psychedelic light shows engulfing the audience. Their iconic blues-rock sound, raw energy, and mystical lyrical themes would find a transcendent canvas in the Sphere's technology, offering a multi-sensory journey through their legendary discography that would be a once-in-a-lifetime event. Daft Punk While their live appearances are rare and highly coveted, Daft Punk's entire artistry is built on a seamless blend of music, light, and futuristic aesthetics. A Daft Punk residency at The Sphere would be nothing short of a religious experience for electronic music fans. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Their iconic pyramid stage could be reimagined within the Sphere's vast interior, with visuals transforming the entire space into an ever-evolving, mind-bending electronic landscape. The precise synths and driving beats, combined with truly revolutionary visuals, would be an absolute masterclass in audio-visual performance.
Vox
2 days ago
- General
- Vox
How to make the hardest choices of your life
is a senior reporter for Vox's Future Perfect and co-host of the Future Perfect podcast. She writes primarily about the future of consciousness, tracking advances in artificial intelligence and neuroscience and their staggering ethical implications. Before joining Vox, Sigal was the religion editor at the Atlantic. Your Mileage May Vary is an advice column offering you a unique framework for thinking through your moral dilemmas. It's based on value pluralism — the idea that each of us has multiple values that are equally valid but that often conflict with each other. To submit a question, fill out this anonymous form. Here's this week's question from a reader, condensed and edited for clarity: I'm soon to be a part of the legal profession. I went to law school to advocate for marginalized populations who seldom have their voices heard — people who are steamrolled by unethical landlords, employers, corporations, etc. I will clerk after law school, and then I'll encounter my first major fork in the road: whether I pursue employment in a corporate firm or nonprofit/government. Corporate firms, ultimately, serve profitable clients, sometimes to the detriment of marginalized populations. Corporate firms also pay significantly better. Nonprofit or government work serves the populations I want to work for and alongside, but often pays under the area median income. I'll be 32 by the time I reach this fork, and I don't know what to do. I'm extremely fortunate in that I won't have law school debt — I was on a full ride. Still, I'm not 'flush.' I want to buy a house one day, have some kids with my partner, feel financially secure enough to do so. I also want to have a morally congruent career and not enable (what I consider) systems of oppression. What do I do? Dear Fork in the Road, Your question reminds me of another would-be lawyer: a very bright American woman named Ruth Chang. When she was graduating from college, she felt torn between two careers: Should she become a philosopher or should she become a lawyer? She loved the learning that life in a philosophy department would provide. But she'd grown up in an immigrant family, and she worried about ending up unemployed. Lawyering seemed like the financially safe bet. She got out some notepaper, drew a line down the middle, and tried to make a pro/con list that would reveal which was the better option. But the pro/con list was powerless to help her, because there was no better option. Each option was better in some ways and worse in others, but neither was better overall. Have a question you want me to answer in the next Your Mileage May Vary column? Feel free to email me at or fill out this anonymous form! Newsletter subscribers will get my column before anyone else does and their questions will be prioritized for future editions. Sign up here! So Chang did what many of us do when facing a hard choice: She chose the safe bet. She became a lawyer. Soon enough, she realized that lawyering was a poor fit for her personality, so she made a U-turn and became — surprise, surprise — a philosopher. And guess what she ended up devoting several years to studying? Hard choices! Choices like hers. Choices like yours. The kind where the pro/con list doesn't really help, because neither option is better on balance than the other. Here's what Chang came to understand about hard choices: It's a misconception to think they're hard because of our own ignorance. We shouldn't think, 'There is a superior option, I just can't know what it is, so the best move is always to go with the safer option.' Instead, Chang says, hard choices are genuinely hard because no best option exists. But that doesn't mean they're both equally good options. If two options are equally good, then you could decide by just flipping a coin, because it really doesn't matter which you choose. But can you imagine ever choosing your career based on a coin toss? Or flipping a coin to choose whether to live in the city or the country, or whether to marry your current partner or that ex you've been pining for? Of course not! We intuitively sense that that would be absurd, because we're not simply choosing between equivalent options. So what's really going on? In a hard choice, Chang argues, we're choosing between options that are 'on a par' with each other. She explains: When alternatives are on a par, it may matter very much which you choose. But one alternative isn't better than the other. Rather, the alternatives are in the same neighborhood of value, in the same league of value, while at the same time being very different in kind of value. That's why the choice is hard. To concretize this, think of the difference between lemon sorbet and apple pie. Both taste extremely delicious — they're in the same league of deliciousness. The kind of deliciousness they deliver, however, is different. It matters which one you choose, because each will give you a very different experience: The lemon sorbet is delicious in a tart and refreshing way, the apple pie in a sweet and comforting way. Now let's consider your dilemma, which isn't really about whether to do nonprofit work or to become a corporate lawyer, but about the values underneath: advocating for marginalized populations on the one hand, and feeling financially secure enough to raise a family on the other. Both of these values are in the same league as each other, because each delivers something of fundamental value to a human life: living in line with moral commitments or feeling a sense of safety and belonging. That means that no matter how long you spend on a pro/con list, the external world isn't going to supply reasons that tip the scales. Chang continues: When alternatives are on a par, the reasons given to us — the ones that determine whether we're making a mistake — are silent as to what to do. It's here in the space of hard choices that we get to exercise our normative power: the power to create reasons for yourself. By that, Chang means that you have to put your own agency into the choice. You have to say, 'This is what I stand for. I'm the kind of person who's for X, even if that means I can't fulfill Y!' And then, through making that hard choice, you become that person. So ask yourself: Who do you want to be? Do you want to be the kind of person who serves profitable clients, possibly to the detriment of marginalized people, in order to be able to provide generously for a family? Or do you want to advocate for those who most need an advocate, even if it means you can't afford to own property or send your kids to the best schools? What is more important to you? Or, to ask this question in a different way: What kind of person would you want your future children to see you as? What legacy do you want to leave? Only you can make this choice and, by making it, choose who you are to be. I know this sounds hard — and it is! But it's good-hard. In fact, it's one of the most awesome things about the human condition. Because if there was always a best alternative to be found in every choice you faced, you would be rationally compelled to choose that alternative. You would be like a marionette on the fingers of the universe, forced to move this way, not that. But instead, you're free — we're free — and that is a beautiful thing. Because we get the precious opportunity to make hard choices, Chang writes, 'It is not facts beyond our agency that determine whether we should lead this kind of life rather than that, but us.' Bonus: What I'm reading Chang's paper ' Hard Choices ' is a pleasure to read — but if you want an easier entry-point into her philosophy, check out her TED talk or the two cartoons that she says summarize her research interests. I cannot stop thinking about the cartoon showing a person pulling their own marionette strings. In the AI world, when researchers think about how to teach an AI model to be good, they've too often resorted to the idea of inculcating a single ethical theory into the model. So I'm relieved to see that some researchers in the field are finally taking value pluralism seriously. This new paper acknowledges that it's important to adopt an approach that 'does not impose any singular vision of human flourishing but rather seeks to prevent sociotechnical systems from collapsing the diversity of human values into oversimplified metrics.' It even cites our friend Ruth Chang! We love to see it. Nobel-winning Polish poet Wisława Szymborska has a witty poem, ' A Word on Statistics ,' that asks how many of us, out of every hundred people, exhibit certain qualities. For example: 'those who always know better: fifty-two. Unsure of every step: almost all the rest.' It's a clever meditation on all the different kinds of people we could choose to become.
