A classic study found that people can fail to notice a gorilla when they are focusing on something else, but new experiments suggest this "inattentional blindness" might not tell the whole story

We are on the cusp of a voice AI boom, with tech companies such as Apple and OpenAI rolling out the next generation of artificial-intelligence-powered assistants. But the default voices for these assistants are often white AmericanBritish, if youre luckyand most definitely speak English. They represent only a tiny proportion of the many dialects and accents in the English language, which spans many regions and cultures. And if youre one of the billions of people who dont speak English, bad luck: These tools dont sound nearly as good in other languages. This is because the data that has gone into training these models is limited. In AI research, most data used to train models is extracted from the English-language internet, which reflects Anglo-American culture. But there is a massive grassroots effort underway to change this status quo and bring more transparency and diversity to what AI sounds like: Mozillas Common Voice initiative. The data set Common Voice has created over the past seven years is one of the most useful resources for people wanting to build voice AI. It has seen a massive spike in downloads, partly thanks to the current AI boom; it recently hit the 5 million mark, up from 38,500 in 2020. Creating this data set has not been easy, mainly because the data collection relies on an army of volunteers. Their numbers have also jumped, from just under 500,000 in 2020 to over 900,000 in 2024. But by giving its data away, some members of this community argue, Mozilla is encouraging volunteers to effectively do free labor for Big Tech. Since 2017, volunteers for the Common Voice project have collected a total of 31,000 hours of voice data in around 180 languages as diverse as Russian, Catalan, and Marathi. If youve used a service that uses audio AI, its likely been trained at least partly on Common Voice. Mozillas cause is a noble one. As AI is integrated increasingly into our lives and the ways we communicate, it becomes more important that the tools we interact with sound like us. The technology could break down communication barriers and help convey information in a compelling way to, for example, people who cant read. But instead, an intense focus on English risks entrenching a new colonial world order and wiping out languages entirely. It would be such an own goal if, rather than finally creating truly multimodal, multilingual, high-performance translation models and making a more multilingual world, we actually ended up forcing everybody to operate in, like, English or French, says EM Lewis-Jong, a director for Common Voice. Common Voice is open source, which means anyone can see what has gone into the data set, and users can do whatever they want with it for free. This kind of transparency is unusual in AI data governance. Most large audio data sets simply arent publicly available, and many consist of data that has been scraped from sites like YouTube, according to research conducted by a team from the University of Washington, and Carnegie Mellon andNorthwestern universities. The vast majority of language data is collected by volunteers such as Blent zden, a researcher from Turkey. Since 2020, he has been not only donating his voice but also raising awareness around the project to get more people to donate. He recently spent two full-time months correcting data and checking for typos in Turkish. For him, improving AI models is not the only motivation to do this work. Im doing it to preserve cultures, especially low-resource [languages], zden says. He tells me he has recently started collecting samples of Turkeys smaller languages, such as Circassian and Zaza. However, as I dug into the data set, I noticed that the coverage of languages and accents is very uneven. There are only 22 hours of Finnish voices from 231 people. In comparison, the data set contains 3,554 hours of English from 94,665 speakers. Some languages, such as Korean and Punjabi, are even less well represented. Even though they have tens of millions of speakers, they account for only a couple of hours of recorded data. This imbalance has emerged because data collection efforts are started from the bottom up by language communities themselves, says Lewis-Jong. Were trying to give communities what they need to create their own AI training data sets. We have a particular focus on doing this for language communities where there isnt any data, or where maybe larger tech organizations might not be that interested in creating those data sets, Lewis-Jong says. They hope that with the help of volunteers and various bits of grant funding, the Common Voice data set will have close to 200 languages by the end of the year. Common Voices permissive license means that many companies rely on itfor example, the Swedish startup Mabel AI, which builds translation tools for health-care providers. One of the first languages the company used was Ukrainian; it built a translation tool to help Ukrainian refugees interact with Swedish social services, says Karolina Sjberg, Mabel AIs founder and CEO. The team has since expanded to other languages, such as Arabic and Russian. The problem with a lot of other audio data is that it consists of people reading from books or texts. The result is very different from how people really speak, especially when they are distressed or in pain, Sjberg says. Because anyone can submit sentences to Common Voice for others to read aloud, Mozillas data set also includes sentences that are more colloquial and feel more natural, she says. Not that it is perfectly representative. The Mabel AI team soon found out that most voice data in the languages it needed was donated by younger men, which is fairly typical for the data set. The refugees that we intended to use the app with were really anything but younger men, Sjberg says. So that meant that the voice data that we needed did not quite match the voice data that we had. The team started collecting its own voice data from Ukrainian women, as well as from elderly people. Unlike other data sets, Common Voice asks participants to share their gender and details about their accent. Making sure different genders are represented is important to fight bias in AI models, says Rebecca Ryakitimbo, a Common Voice fellow who created the project's gender action plan. More diversity leads not only to better representation but also to better models. Systems that are trained on narrow and homogenous data tend to spew stereotyped and harmful results. We dont want a case where we have a chatbot that is named after a woman but does not give the same response to a woman as it would a man, she says. Ryakitimbo has collected voice data in Kiswahili in Tanzania, Kenya, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. She tells me she wanted to collect voices from a socioeconomically diverse set of Kiswahili speakers and has reached out to women young and old living in rural areas, who might not always be literate or even have access to devices. This kind of data collection is challenging. The importance of collecting AI voice data can feel abstract to many people, especially if they arent familiar with the technologies. Ryakitimbo and volunteers would approach women in settings where they felt safe to begin with, such as presentations on menstrual hygiene, and explain how the technology could, for example, help disseminate information about menstruation. For women who did not know how to read, the team read out sentences that they would repeat for the recording. The Common Voice project is bolstered by the belief that languages form a really important part of identity. We think its not just about language, but about transmitting culture and heritage and treasuring peoples particular cultural context, says Lewis-Jong. There are all kinds of idioms and cultural catchphrases that just dont translate, they add. Common Voice is the only audio data set where English doesnt dominate, says Willie Agnew, a researcher at Carnegie Mellon University who has studied audio data sets. Im very impressed with how well they've done that and how well they've made this data set that is actually pretty diverse, Agnew says. It feels like theyre way far ahead of almost all the other projects we looked at. I spent some time verifying the recordings of other Finnish speakers on the Common Voice platform. As their voices echoed in my study, I felt surprisingly touched. We had all gathered around the same cause: making AI data more inclusive, and making sure our culture and language was properly represented in the next generation of AI tools. But I had some big questions about what would happen to my voice if I donated it. Once it was in the data set, I would have no control about how it might be used afterwards. The tech sector isnt exactly known for giving people proper credit, and the data is available for anyones use. As much as we want it to benefit the local communities, theres a possibility that also Big Tech could make use of the same data and build something that then comes out as the commercial product, says Ryakitimbo. Though Mozilla does not share who has downloaded Common Voice, Lewis-Jong tells me Meta and Nvidia have said that they have used it. Open access to this hard-won and rare language data is not something all minority groups want, says Harry H. Jiang, a researcher at Carnegie Mellon University, who was part of the team doing audit research. For example, Indigenous groups have raised concerns. Extractivism is something that Mozilla has been thinking about a lot over the past 18 months, says Lewis-Jong. Later this year the project will work with communities to pilot alternative licenses including Nwulite Obodo Open Data License, which was created by researchers at the University of Pretoria for sharing African data sets more equitably. For example, people who want to download the data might be asked to write a request with details on how they plan to use it, and they might be allowed to license it only for certain products or for a limited time. Users might also be asked to contribute to community projects that support poverty reduction, says Lewis-Jong. Lewis-Jong says the pilot is a learning exercise to explore whether people will want data with alternative licenses, and whether they are sustainable for communities managing them. The hope is that it could lead to something resembling open source 2.0. In the end, I decided to donate my voice. I received a list of phrases to say, sat in front of my computer, and hit Record. One day, I hope, my effort will help a company or researcher build voice AI that sounds less generic, and more like me. This story has been updated.

Drinking alcohol in moderation was thought to be healthy, but research now suggests there is no safe level.Alcohol harm expert Richard Piper used to drink heavily.His 'dry by default' rule helped him reduce the risks of drinking without going sober.At 52, Richard Piper runs often, feels full of energy, weighs less, and enjoys concerts and holidays more than he did at 42. He puts this down to being what he calls "dry by default."Piper told Business Insider that he drank heavily daily for years. But after becoming the CEO of harm reduction charity Alcohol Change UK in 2017, he realized he needed to address his drinking habits.He joined the growing number of people who are drinking less, particularly Gen Zers and millennials. A survey of US adults carried out by Gallop between 2021 and 2023 found that 62% of respondents aged 18 to 34 drank alcohol, down from 72% between 2001 and 2003. A separate Gallup poll published earlier this year found that 86% of the US adults surveyed thought that alcohol was "very" (33%) or "somewhat" (53%) harmful.Being "dry by default" means Piper will drink on rare occasions rather than most days, for example when non-alcoholic alternative to a beer he likes isn't available. He prefers being dry by default to sober because he doesn't have to follow "permanent lifelong rules," he said, but he can lower his risk of alcohol-related harm."There is no such thing as healthy drinking," Piper said. "But there's more risky drinking, or there's less risky drinking. And the less you drink, the healthier it is." Piper mostly drinks alcohol-free beers, but will have an alcoholic one from time to time. Niall Carson/PA Images via Getty Images Research suggests all drinking is harmful even in moderationSome evidence suggests that moderate drinking could be better for youNow, growing evidence suggests that no amount of alcohol is safe. A 2021 study published in the European Journal of Public Health found that in 2017, light to moderate drinking caused 13.3% of cancers related to alcohol in the European Union. That was defined as two shots of spirits, just under two bottles of beer (20.2 ounces), or a little more than a glass (6.76 ounces) of wine a day.Drinking doesn't only bring health risks. "Alcohol can lead to poor decision-making about getting home safely, about who you talk to, and what you say to them and makes many of us do things that we wouldn't do otherwise," Piper said.You don't have to quit drinking to lower the health risksThe US Department of Health and Human Services recommends adults don't drink, or drink moderately, meaning fewer than one to two drinks a day.Piper said that one to two units of alcohol a week is genuinely low risk for dying from alcohol and alcohol-related issues, in line with Canada's guidelines.People should make sure that the benefits of drinking outweigh the risks, and generally, most people would see benefits from drinking less, he said. Benefits might include losing weight, saving money, sleeping better, easing depression and anxiety, having more energy, and things you can't see, such as lower cancer risks."Basically the less you drink, the better for your health, your mental health, and your well-being," he said, even if you don't give up completely."Make sure you have a really good reason for having a drink," he said. "And it's always good to have a few days off a week. Alcohol should be on the periphery of our lives, not at the center."

As America's grocery king, Walmart sources a high share of its products from the US.Target, by contrast, relies more on merchandise that is often imported, such as apparel and housewares.The difference puts more of Target's business at risk of being impacted if Trump follows through on his tariff promises.For all their similarities, Walmart and Target have key distinctions that could spell big differences in how each would be affected by rising import costs if Donald Trump follows through with his promised tariffs."Target is actually much more exposed than Walmart because Walmart is grocery-heavy and groceries are predominantly domestic," Jason Miller, supply chain professor at Michigan State University, told Business Insider.As America's grocery king, Walmart US makes nearly 60% of its revenue from the grocery category and only about a quarter of sales from general merchandise.In addition, grocery as a share of sales has been increasing in recent years as the general merchandise share has declined, according to Walmart's annual report.Target, by contrast, relies much more heavily on merchandise that is often imported, such as apparel, housewares, and beauty. Food and beverage sales accounted for less than a quarter of Target's sales last year.TD Cowen retail analyst Oliver Chen told BI that Target's apparel segment presents another potential complication, as fashion is more sensitive to seasonality. That could make it more difficult to pull orders forward ahead of possible tariffs or line up new suppliers in time to still be in style."When you miss apparel timeline, you don't get it back, and Target has more apparel exposure," he said.Beyond its grocery-to-merchandise ratio, Walmart has another key advantage over Target: scale."Walmart is much bigger," Kantar analyst Gina Logan told BI. "And I'm not just talking about sales."They have a much more advanced supply chain," she added. "They have a wider range of suppliers, they have more ability to pivot and predict demand, and can use their automation and forecasting in order to react to this in a much faster, more predictive way than Target."This is not the first time the Spark has found a competitive advantage over the Bullseye in the grocery aisle.When US shoppers began to cut spending back in 2023, prioritizing essentials like groceries in their weekly budgets, sales at Walmart chugged along while Target struggled.Target has since found success by taking a much more Walmart-like stance with price cuts and bargain brands, and its share of grocery sales has increased by 1-2 percentage points per year over the last three years.Logan says tariffs, if announced by the Trump administration, would likely push Target harder into the grocery game, especially with its portfolio of private-label food brands.Target and Walmart both report earnings next week. Walmart declined to comment for this story, citing the quiet period, and Target did not respond to BI's request.The last time the companies' executives discussed tariffs on earnings calls was in 2019, according to data from AlphaSense.At the time, Walmart said it would not raise prices on food impacted by tariffs and would instead look to offset the cost elsewhere."As a guest-focused retailer," Target CEO Brian Cornell said in May 2019, "we're concerned about tariffs because they lead to higher prices on everyday products for American families."He later said in a November call that then-President Trump's tariffs were amounting to $50 million to $60 million in added costs per quarter, adding that "obviously we're all facing the same tariff issues together."But as Target's and Walmart's financials show, not everyone is likely to be impacted by potential tariff increases to the same degree.

In the aftermath of Donald Trumps presidential victory, journalists and analysts have rushed to diagnose the causes of Vice President Kamala Harriss defeat and the Democratic Partys broader losses. One of the emerging theories is that voters felt Democrats had drifted far from mainstream concerns by focusing too much on culture issues particularly transgender rights.The GOP weaponized transgender rights on the campaign trail, pouring over $200 million into ads this cycle that painted Harris as out of step. Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you, blared one ad that launched in September. At rallies, Trump stoked fears with lies about gender-affirming surgery in schools, while promising to ban transgender women from sports.The Trump campaign maintains that their anti-trans ads resonated not only with Black and Latino men but also with moderate suburban white women concerned about school sports. Galvanize Action, a progressive organization focused on mobilizing moderate white women, did find that 53 percent of respondents on their most recent September survey believed people advocating for the rights of transgender people have gone too far. After the election, some Democrats echoed the concern. I dont want to discriminate against anybody, but I dont think biological boys should be playing in girls sports, Rep. Tom Suozzi, a New York moderate, said in an interview with the New York Times. Democrats arent saying that, and they should be. Rep. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts made similar remarks: I have two little girls. I dont want them getting run over on the field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat, Im supposed to be afraid to say that.Franklin Foer, a journalist for the Atlantic and author of a book on Joe Bidens presidency, reported last week that some members of Bidens inner circle were dissatisfied with Harriss defense against right-wing accusations that she supported the most extreme version of transgender rights, including gender-affirming surgery for prisoners. Bidens allies claimed the president never would have let such attacks stand and would have clearly rejected the idea of trans women competing in womens sports.While it will take time to fully understand why voters cast their ballots as they did, one thing is already clear: Neither Harris nor Biden made any effort to talk about what the Biden administration actually proposed to do on school sports. What the Biden administration proposed on transgender athletesIn 2023, over strong objections of activists on the right and left, the Biden administration announced a proposed change to Title IX, the law that prohibits discrimination based on sex in any federally funded educational program. Their suggested change would prohibit outright bans on transgender athletes, but would permit schools to restrict transgender students from participating if they could demonstrate that inclusion would harm educational objectives like fair competition and the prevention of injury. This more nuanced stance marked the first time the Biden administration took the position that sex differences can matter in school sports, something hotly disputed by leading LGBTQ rights organizations. The proposed rule also reflected research that suggests sex differences emerge over time, so the standard for inclusion in high school should not necessarily be the same as that in younger grades.Contrary to the post-election grumblings from Biden allies in the Atlantic, the president has been virtually silent on his own administrations proposal for the last 18 months. Hes never spoken about it, and it was never mentioned by any other Biden official, including in any White House briefing on transgender issues. The White House declined to comment for this story. A spokesperson for the Department of Education said their rulemaking process is still ongoing, as they consider the 150,000 public comments they received. We do not have information to share today on a timeline, they added. In polling, voters consistently ranked transgender rights as a very low priority compared to other issues. But there is some evidence that Republicans years of attacks have taken their toll on public opinion. Gallup found in 2023 that 69 percent of Americans believe transgender athletes should only be allowed to compete on sports teams that match their sex assigned at birth, an increase from the 62 percent who said the same in 2021. Tellingly, Bidens proposed policy on transgender athletes allowing targeted restrictions for fairness and safety while rejecting blanket bans would likely resonate more with average Americans than the hardline stances typically associated with Republicans, who leaned on transgender fearmongering in the midterms only to see their candidates flop, or Democrats, who many voters perceive as having no nuance on the topic at all. Yet the Biden administrations reluctance to clearly communicate their middle-ground position left a vacuum that Republicans were happy to fill. Its a dynamic that political observers say has become increasingly common: Democratic leaders stake out a position but, wary of internal rifts, default to strategic ambiguity even on issues where their stances might resonate with voters.The White House could have said something in the election, they could have said Democrats want rules too, said Lanae Erickson, the senior vice president for social policy at Third Way, a centrist think tank. The number one big messaging advice from 2022 we had is that Democrats want sports to be fair and athletes to be safe.The Biden administrations proposed school sports rule in 2023 marked a shift from its first two yearsBiden has long stood out for his support of transgender rights. In 2012, as vice president, he called it the civil rights issue of our time, something he reiterated again while campaigning for his own presidential run in 2020. He named passing the Equality Act, an LGBTQ anti-discrimination bill, a top legislative priority, and on his first day in office issued a sweeping executive order that called on all federal agencies to review their rules to ensure that any sex discrimination protection includes sexual orientation and gender identity, too. As the Biden administration prioritized LGBTQ rights, social conservatives were in the midst of shifting their focus to new cultural battles following their decisive losses on marriage for same-sex couples both at the Supreme Court in 2015 and in the court of public opinion. Right-wing activists did not hide that they were searching for a new galvanizing cause to rally donors and grassroots voters. We threw everything at the wall, Terry Schilling, the president of American Principles Project, a social conservative advocacy group, told the New York Times. While their early efforts to focus on bathroom bans backfired, Schillings group discovered in 2019 that focusing on school sports bans appeared much more effective, even though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had found just 1.8 percent of high school students even identified as transgender.In 2020, Idaho became the first state to ban transgender girls from school sports and within four years, half of all states had passed similar laws, as well as laws banning gender-affirming health care. It happened super fast. It came out of nowhere, said Erickson of Third Way. People werent prepared to deal with it because it wasnt on the radar.Athletes proved potent for them because theres always winners and losers in sports, added Gillian Branstetter, a communications strategist with the American Civil Liberties Union. And thats not a particularly new tool for the right. In terms of policy, the Biden administration initially staked out a position that said theres no legitimate basis to discriminate based on sex differences. In 2021, Bidens Justice Department intervened in a lawsuit filed by parents of an 11-year-old transgender girl against the state of West Virginia, affirming this view.[West Virginia] cannot point to any valid evidence that allowing transgender girls to participate on girls sports teams endangers girls athletic opportunities, the department said in its filing. Instead, the State legislated based on misconceptions and overbroad assumptions about transgender girls.While praised by major LGBTQ groups like the Human Rights Campaign, this position obscured quieter disagreement among transgender leaders. Some questioned whether sports participation should be a top priority for the movement, while others doubted whether litigation was the best approach for advancing inclusion, given the state of public opinion. The Justice Departments position also masked divides within the Democratic Party. Though its a complex topic and more research is needed, some existing scientific evidence suggests that transgender girls and women who do not suppress testosterone can have advantages in sports, particularly if they have gone through male puberty.The West Virginia lawsuit wasnt the only federal suit in the works. Happening at the same time was another case involving two transgender girls that was quickly drawing national attention. In response to Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood winning multiple state track titles in Connecticut, competitors parents and the Christian right-wing legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom filed a lawsuit against Connecticuts policy of including transgender athletes. Though initially dismissed in 2021, a federal judge just this month said the Title IX case could proceed.As more of these politically charged lawsuits and bills mounted, the Biden administration announced it would be delaying its proposed changes to Title IX, despite its Day 1 executive order. Sources involved said the delay was largely understood as a political move driven by the upcoming midterm elections. When the Education Department finally released its proposed school sports rule in 2023, its language represented more of a compromise. The rule marked the Biden administrations first time saying that sex differences can matter in school sports and schools can discriminate in some cases, while also saying schools do not have to thus permitting blue states like Connecticut to continue with existing policy. While its merits were debated, the federal proposal was on the table.The draft regulation recognizes that there are real sex differences and that these matter in competition, Doriane Coleman, a law professor at Duke University who focuses on sports and gender, told Vox. For the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, which takes the position that all sex differences are just myth and stereotype, that was a big, maybe even treasonous move.Even as conservatives barraged Democrats with attacks that they were extremists on school sports, the White House and then later the Harris campaign never sought to talk about the direction they thought Title IX policy ought to go. Sources with close knowledge of the White Houses thinking, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told Vox the administration worried that talking about the rule would have unintended consequences for transgender individuals already facing threats, and they didnt want to give political fodder for Republicans to twist their words. So they said nothing. Some progressive communications strategists warned against generally staying silent on transgender rights. We Make the Future Action and ASO Communication tested different strategies and found messaging that didnt directly reference transgender people tended to weaken support for progressive positions among certain voter groups who were otherwise confronted with anti-trans ads. Or, put differently, saying nothing could hurt more than saying something proactive. When Democrats are silent about race or immigrants or trans people, all that conflicted voters hear are the siren songs of hate peddling from Republicans about said other, Anat Shenker-Osorio, who led the messaging research, told Vox. Ignoring doesnt make the attack go away. It makes it all that voters hear about the topic.Erickson agreed with this critique. In addition to not wanting to get yelled at by progressive leaders on X, she said, Democrats believed they should avoid talking about transgender rights to change the subject. I think that is so idiotic, especially when the issue is high-salience, she stressed, emphasizing that leaders could have focused on shared values of freedom, dignity, and privacy.Mara Keisling, a longtime transgender advocate and founding director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, told Vox she wasnt bothered that Harris hadnt focused on trans people on the campaign trail and that its understandable Harris would prioritize issues that mattered to all voters. Its more important to me who won the election than whether or not trans people are mentioned, Keisling said. On the question of where the Biden administration was headed on school sports participation, Kiesling said she just didnt think people would care about the process of an Education Department rule. They used to say in politics that if youre talking about process, youre losing, she said. Branstetter emphasized that its not as if national Democrats didnt have good models to emulate when it comes to messaging, noting that red-state Democrats like those in Arkansas, Kansas, and Oklahoma have demonstrated clearly over the last half-decade how to stand up to anti-trans legislative attacks. Democrats are overestimating the electoral potency and letting themselves get lost in the issue instead of framing the oppositions attacks within the broader fight for equality, she said. Moving forward, a series of federal lawsuits including the aforementioned Connecticut case and one the Supreme Court is set to hear in December could affect how rules, laws, and guidelines on issues of transgender rights develop. The NCAA is also currently reviewing its own policies for transgender athletes at the college level. Given the Supreme Courts ruling earlier this year in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, federal agencies may have far less leeway to make policy decisions of all kinds without Congress getting involved. My colleague Ian Millhiser called the ruling a radical reordering of the US separation of powers and likely to be one of [the Courts] most consequential modern-day decisions.Coleman, of Duke Law, thinks the Loper Bright decision and broader changes in administrative law will mean the school sports issue ultimately gets decided legislatively, not in the courts. Until then, though, the matter will likely continue to play out in politics. Democrats may be well-intentioned in seeking to avoid heated and sensitive issues, but their strategy of silence can fuel the perception that the party cannot craft politically viable solutions, and more importantly, contribute to the myth that theres a major ongoing crisis in school sports.There arent trans athletes everywhere beating women, Keisling said. There are a lot of 6-year-olds and 10-year-olds who just want to play soccer with their friends. Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

Donald Trump announced Thursday that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would be his nominee to lead the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), setting the stage for a potentially radical remaking of the nations health care. Kennedys nomination was not a surprise. Last month, Kennedy said Trump had promised him control of the department and its many subagencies, which include the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS), and others. Trump himself pledged during the campaign to let Kennedy go wild on health.Its a perplexing pick. Kennedy has spent decades spreading anti-vaccination pseudoscience, and the organization he leads, Childrens Health Defense, has been one of the foremost anti-vaccine advocacy groups in the US and abroad. His work in support of a Samoan anti-vaccine group helped fuel a wave of vaccine hesitancy in the island nation, leading to a 2019 measles epidemic that killed 83 people, most of them children.Hes expressed a range of other conspiracy-laden ideas about health: He says fluoride is industrial waste linked to a range of diseases, and suggested it should be removed from all US water systems. He has speculated that gender dysphoria may result from herbicide exposure and implied mass shootings are linked to antidepressants. Kennedy does hold other views that align with many scientists: He traces Americas high levels of chronic disease to the widespread availability of highly processed, non-nutritious food, which he and nutrition policy experts blame in part on broken agriculture policy. Hes railed against corruption and conflicts of interest in the FDAs drug approval process that favor big pharmaceutical companies over the interests of individuals something economists, scientists, and consumer advocates agree on. No matter where a person stands on the political spectrum, they can probably find something to agree with Kennedy on. He is the personification of the growing distrust of science and the public health establishment that many Americans have felt in the post-pandemic era.HHS secretaries are usually seasoned bureaucrats with a lot of experience moving policy through government agencies a state insurance commissioner in Barack Obamas case or a tenured pharma executive in Donald Trumps first term. They typically understand how science is done and what it means for a health intervention to be grounded in evidence. Kennedy doesnt have that rsum far from it. Now hell be in charge of much of US health care, which raises the question: How much damage can he actually do in this role?The answer will depend on a few things. First, he has to be confirmed by the Senate (unless the White House attempts to circumvent that chambers constitutional advise and consent powers) and Republicans have only a narrow majority. Even if Kennedy is confirmed, Trump has other important health care appointments to make particularly for CMS, NIH, FDA, and CDC and those people will hold sway over the administrations health care agenda too. They could be in the Kennedy vein or, as we have seen with Trumps foreign policy picks, a mix of the conventional and the iconoclastic. For now, however, Kennedys appointment is a watershed moment that could portend enormous changes to the American health system. Republicans in Congress will control the HHS budget, and Kennedy, if confirmed, could have broad discretion to pursue his Make America Healthy Again agenda with Trumps blessing. If the Trump administration attempts to remove civil servants across the government, including the health agencies, decades of public health knowledge could be lost at the CDC, FDA, and elsewhere. It is uncertain if the Republican-dominated judiciary would step in to stop any of it.Heres what we know about the Trump health departments plans and what hurdles may await them.What RFK Jr. can and cant do on vaccines, briefly explainedOver the last 30 years, vaccines have saved the lives of more than 1.1 million children in the US alone. Over the same period, theyve also saved Americans $540 billion in direct health care costs and trillions in social costs. Routine vaccines protect American children from 16 diseases.Trump himself suggested blocking funding for local schools with vaccine requirements during the campaign, though the federal government has limited authority to do so. Despite Kennedys long history of anti-vaccine rhetoric, he said in early November he wasnt planning to take anyones vaccines away. Related:Trumps campaign against public health is back onPeople ought to have choice, and that choice ought to be informed by the best information, Kennedy said in an NBC News interview. So Im going to make sure scientific safety studies and efficacy are out there, and people can make individual assessments about whether that product is going to be good for them. However, a co-chair of Trumps transition team recently said Kennedy hoped to access federal health data with the goal of proving vaccines are unsafe and pulling them from the US market.Thats not as easy to do as it sounds. Undoing the approval of an already approved vaccine would require submitting evidence of harm that meets the FDAs standards to prove harm, which simply doesnt exist. Although a Trump-installed loyalist could theoretically rewrite the FDAs standards, that would likely lead to opposition from the pharmaceutical companies that produce these vaccines. There would be a wave of expensive and prolonged lawsuits for the federal government. Drugmakers also wield influence in Congress, which writes the law that sets pharmaceutical industry fees that cover nearly half of the FDAs budget. That law will need to be reauthorized before the end of Trumps term, setting up a potentially vicious fight if the two sides are at odds over vaccines. There is a more realistic move Kennedy could take to address his concern about vaccine side effects: He could resuscitate the National Vaccine Program Office, which monitored vaccine safety with particular rigor but was shuttered under the first Trump presidency.Although it would be difficult to pull vaccines from the American market, and Kennedy says he wont, there are other ways he could exert influence to reduce vaccine uptake. Kennedy could try to influence the CDC. That agency has two important roles in promoting vaccines in the US: It convenes an Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to provide expert recommendations on who should get which vaccines and at what age, and it administers the Vaccines for Children program, which provides free vaccines for children in low-income families. The advisory committee is not mandated by federal law it is convened only if the CDC wants it to be. A vaccine skeptic appointed to run the CDC under Kennedy could either staff the committee with anti-vaccination activists or dissolve it entirely. That would mean the agency would no longer provide widely accepted guidelines for vaccination that state health departments and hundreds of thousands of clinicians nationwide now rely on. The Vaccines for Children program is funded by a pot of money that Congress sets aside for the CDC every year. Kennedy could press Congress and the White House to simply cut that funding, ending the program entirely. That would leave low-income families having to pay out of pocket to vaccinate their children.Kennedy will also be ultimately responsible for two giant public insurance programs: Medicare, which covers seniors, and Medicaid, which is overseen by the states and covers low-income people.In both programs, the amount of money disbursed by the federal government is in part determined by how good of a job the states and private insurers do in vaccinating children and older adults enrolled in these programs. Kennedy could pressure the CMS administrator to eliminate that vaccination requirement, one reason Trumps choice at CMS will be one to watch. Its not clear what the timeline would be to accomplish any of these tasks; theres no precedent for a president and HHS secretary who are so openly hostile to US public health infrastructure assuming control of it. Even if it takes a while, theres widespread concern that giving such a platform to someone who denies vaccine science could further degrade public trust not only in the vaccines, but in the many other health recommendations and interventions that together comprise American public health and health care. Already, more isolated outbreaks of measles and other diseases that had previously been stamped out by vaccines are occurring at the same time vaccination rates are slipping.Paul Offit, a pediatric infectious disease doctor who directs the Vaccine Education Center at the Childrens Hospital of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, said Kennedy has had such a big platform for so long that its unlikely hell be able to scare people about vaccines more than he already has. Its in delivering the vaccines through programs like Vaccines for Children where he could perhaps do the damage: If he were able to disrupt that, that would be a problem.Can RFK Jr. really remove fluoride from US water?The US began fluoridating drinking water in 1945. An estimated 209 million Americans now drink tap water that contains added fluoride. The intervention is considered a historic public health win: It dramatically reduces tooth decay in children and also reduces tooth loss in adults. Kennedy, however, has said he would immediately advise the removal of fluoride from local water supplies. Why? Because he is exaggerating the actual risk. Most of the fluoride and US tap water is added by water utility companies, but some tap water contains naturally occurring fluoride it absorbs from the local water table. The resulting high-fluoride tap water, which about 2 million Americans drink, contains about twice the amount of fluoride the US government recommends. According to a recent report from the US National Toxicology Program, drinking high-fluoride water might be linked to slightly lower IQ scores by 2 to 5 points in some children though IQ scores are an uncertain measure of intelligence. However, there is no indication that tap water containing normal fluoride levels poses this risk and its benefits to childrens and adults dental health are immense.The decision to fluoridate water is one that happens at the state and local level, which is why Kennedy could only advise fluorides removal. However, his leadership at HHS could give an opening to anti-fluoride action at the state level, where Republican leaders are increasingly hostile to what had been settled public health practices.Kennedys Make America Healthy Again campaign on food and chronic diseasesKennedy has called for a campaign against chronic disease that hes branded as Make America Healthy Again. It is an ambiguous and wide-ranging platform, but the consistent theme is undoing what Kennedy sees as Big Pharma and Big Agricultures undue influence on what Americans eat and how they manage their health over time.Some of the ideas share the same pseudoscience as Kennedys views on vaccines. Kennedy recently posted on social media that the FDA had waged a war on public health by aggressive suppression of Americans access to raw milk, among other things. States arent required to pasteurize milk, but the FDA requires milk sold across state lines to be pasteurized. Despite raw milks risk of causing life-threatening diarrheal diseases (and now, bird flu), states can already carve out exceptions that allow their residents to drink it. Some of Kennedys ideas about food are more rooted in reality. For example, his take on nutritions role in chronic disease: He has correctly noted that the US has developed a terrible record on preventing diabetes, heart disease, and unhealthy weight, and places the blame where nutritional experts do on permissive government policies and dietary guidelines that promote eating lots of ultra-processed foods and low levels of physical activity in schools. As part of his fight against ultra-processed foods, Kennedy recently said he wants to do away with entire departments at the FDA, including the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. According to recent reporting in Science, he could indeed pressure whoever is appointed to lead the agency to eliminate that center, which makes Trumps choice for FDA commissioner a critical one in setting his administrations public health agenda. However, if Kennedy wants to restrict the use of already-approved food additives, he needs more resources not fewer: The process involves rigorous reviews of data, issuing public warnings, and actively monitoring the food supply. If Kennedy succeeded in closing the food safety office, that would reduce the number of people who could be dedicated to the job, making it harder rather than easier to rein in the use of these products.Other actions could be taken by the Trump administration to reduce the amount of ultra-processed food in the American food supply, but many of them would be taken outside of HHS. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) sets the guidelines that govern school lunch programs, which means much of what children eat is determined by that agency; Trump has not yet nominated a USDA commissioner. The USDA is also primarily responsible for overseeing factory farming, another industry Kennedy has heavily criticized throughout his public career and pledged to target if he were to take a role in the federal government. He would likely need to work with the USDA to follow through. Kennedy is correct that food safety regulation in the US is currently a mess, says David Acheson, an infectious diseases doctor who has led food safety efforts at both the USDA and the FDA. Meat, poultry, and egg plants are inspected daily under the auspices of the USDA, while every other kind of food production facility including the farms whose produce is responsible for most of the food-borne illness in the US and the nations countless other industrial food manufacturers are inspected by FDA inspectors at most once a year. It would make far more sense to unify these functions under one agency and harmonize the frequency of food production facility inspections so none are falling through the cracks. That is the kind of organizational shake-up that could actually make a difference. Acheson would also like to see Kennedy take on the FDAs process for regulating supplements, which are currently subject to lax oversight despite obvious health risks.What happens to NIH in a second Trump term?At a town hall earlier this year, before dropping out of the race for president, Kennedy said that if elected, hed tell the NIH to pause drug development and infectious diseases research for eight years and instead focus on chronic diseases. He also pledged during his own campaign for president that he would block gain of function research in which scientists purposefully make viruses more dangerous in hopes of learning how to better combat them that has come under more scrutiny since the pandemic. Apart from the fact that the NIH already spends about $20 billion annually on chronic disease, this would be disastrous: The basic research the agency funds and conducts in its own institutes lays the groundwork for therapies pharmaceutical companies develop to treat most medical conditions. Kennedy has called for firing 600 of the agencys nearly 19,000 employees and replacing them with new ones, who presumably would be more keen to carry out his priorities. Conservatives have also floated restructuring the NIH, and Trump proposed cutting its $48 billion budget during his first term.Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

Stalker 2 is one of the year's most exciting gaming releases, but could be banned in Russia with the potential for "tough measures" according to government officials

Call of Duty fans have been comparing notes on what iconic maps they want brought back for Black Ops 6 and beyond, and there are some bonafide classics among them

10 good reasons why Im getting a PS5 Pro Readers FeatureGameCentralPublished Nov 16, 2024, 9:00amTime for an upgrade (Sony Interactive Entertainment)A reader decides to finally upgrade from a PS4 to a PS5 Pro and lists the 10 games that have convinced him to make the purchase.Now that the PS5 Pro has been released theres finally enough games to justify an upgrade from the PlayStation 4, arguably the slowest generation to necessitate an upgrade (some of this years best games are still available for PlayStation 4!).Now at the end of 2024 we have enough titles to realistically debate the top 10 games, exclusively available for the ninth generation of games consoles.As such, see below my likely controversial top 10:10. Stellar Blade If you can get past the waifu simulator aspect theres a fantastic character action game to be enjoyed with elements of the greatest the genre has to offer, crammed into a beautiful looking world that shows off the ninth gen hardware.9. Final Fantasy 16 For its first seven chapters, Final Fantasy 16 offers the most compelling story in the franchise since its PlayStation 2 iterations. Unfortunately, the interesting plot threads, and easily one of the best battles in gaming history, wraps up by Chapter 8 (out of 12), leaving a very generic and dull conclusion to a game that could have been the best in decades.8. Spider-Man 2 A great 1.5 iteration of the original 2018 game. Nothing groundbreaking but an entertaining sequel and visual showcase for the PlayStation 5.7. Silent Hill 2 I still prefer the PlayStation 2 original and the monsters in the remake have made me audibly laugh on occasion, but this is still a survival horror worth experiencing.6. Final Fantasy 7 Remake and Rebirth Kind of a cheat but taking both Remake and Rebirth as a whole experience is the way to enjoy this games. If you have held off already, Id suggest waiting for Final Fantasy 7 Requiem in 2026 to enjoy this reimagining of this gaming classic in its full.5. Astro Bot The first 3D platformer in a decade to hold its own against Mario! This charming platformer is great for all ages and the nostalgia for an older gamers is intoxicating.4. Demons Souls The remake of one of my favourite games of all time didnt disappoint. Despite being a launch title, arguably one for the best-looking games of this generation and a joy to revisit after a decade of Soulslikes.3. Baldurs Gate 3 2023s game of the year has had nothing but praise but from a novice to the genre and Dungeons & Dragons this is easily the most daunting single-player games Ive ever experienced. The systems depth, the worlds lore; it took an investment of time and education to grasp a basic understanding, which is why its not my number on but I will herald it as one of the greatest co-op games of all time.2. Alan Wake 2 There is no other media experience quite like Alan Wake 2. A Scandi-noir/psychological survival horror game doesnt sound too different, but the way it weaves its dreamlike world between two campaigns is like nothing Ive enjoyed before. I could write a whole article about how great it is, but if anyone in your friends or family has access to ninth gen console and enjoys crime dramas, they should give it a go pronto.1. Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty I wont defend this choice as I wasnt privy to the hype train and failed launch. What I played was CD Project Reds best game to date and the most immersive, detailed open world ever created, with unforgettable characters and cinematic moments on par with the best movies in history. Im sure we all have our own opinion about the best Gen 9 games to date but at least now theres plenty to argue over (only took four years!).By reader Carl GoldsmithCyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty the best reason to get a PS5 Pro? (CD Projekt)The readers features do not necessarily represent the views of GameCentral or Metro.You can submit your own 500 to 600-word reader feature at any time, which if used will be published in the next appropriate weekend slot. Just contact us at gamecentral@metro.co.uk or use our Submit Stuff page and you wont need to send an email.MORE : Why are there no big name video games being released this month? - Reader's FeatureMORE : My top 10 PlayStation video games of the last 30 years Readers FeatureMORE : As a parent I would be perfectly happy with banning GTA 5 - Reader's FeatureSign up to all the exclusive gaming content, latest releases before they're seen on the site.Privacy Policy This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Steam is Valves big money maker (Valve)A report has accused Valve of allowing the proliferation of hate on Steam, including Nazi symbols and other extremist imagery.After being on the receiving end of a lawsuit, over claims of overcharging players earlier this year, Valve has now come under fire for allegedly allowing extremist content on its digital storefront, Steam.The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), an organisation founded to combat antisemitism and other forms of discrimination, conducted an investigation into Steam which spanned over 458 million user profiles, 152 million profile and group avatar images, and over 610 million comments on user profiles and groups.In its results, the ADL claims it identified 1.83 million unique pieces of extremist or hateful content, and 1.5 million unique users and 73,824 groups who used at least one potentially extremist or hateful symbol, copypasta or keyword on the platform.According to the published investigation, this hateful content includes antisemitic symbols, Nazi imagery like the Totenkopf and swastika, and tens of thousands of instances where users expressed support for terrorist organisations like ISIS.Its also claimed over 1.18 million unique instances were discovered of potentially extremist and hateful copypastas, which are blocks of text copied and pasted to the internet, usually for use in viral memes. The most popular copypasta is said to be variations of the swastika.The investigation identified 827,758 user and group profiles with avatars that contained extremist or hateful symbols, including white supremacist skull masks, variations of the Pepe the frog meme, and the Nazi eagle.While Steam does have rules to prohibit hate speech and discrimination, the ADL is critical of Valves attempts to moderate the platform. The report notes: The fact that extremist and hateful conduct is relatively easy to locate on Steam, raises questions regarding the efficacy of Steams moderation efforts.The ADL adds: While Steam appears to be technically capable of moderating extremist and hateful content on its platform, the spread of extremist content on the platform is due in part to Valves highly permissive approach to content policy.In rare notable cases, Steam has selectively removed extremist content, largely based around extremist groups publicised in reporting or in response to governmental pressure. However, this has been largely ad hoc, with Valve failing to systematically address the issue of extremism and hate on the platform.The ADL is calling for Valve to adopt and enforce policies to prohibit extremism on Steam. Valve needs to take greater responsibility in enforcing their policies on Steam, once expanded, and do so accurately at scale, the ADL concludes.GameCentral has reached out to Valve for comment.Earlier this year, Roblox was also accused of exploiting children and failing to stop illegal content from circulating on the platform, claims which the platform denies.Valve also makes games like Half-Life: Alyx (Valve)Emailgamecentral@metro.co.uk, leave a comment below,follow us on Twitter, andsign-up to our newsletter.To submit Inbox letters and Readers Features more easily, without the need to send an email, just use ourSubmit Stuff page here.For more stories like this,check our Gaming page.MORE : Black Ops 6 and GTA 5 are being beaten on Steam by a hot new beta demoMORE : Ukraine is using Steam Deck to operate machine guns on the battlefieldMORE : Valve closes loophole on early access and advanced access game refundsSign up to all the exclusive gaming content, latest releases before they're seen on the site.Privacy Policy This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.