The lyricist Ira Gershwin outlived his composer brother by more than 40 years, but never quite escaped Georges shadow.

The American revolution produced a new idea: a nation-state united by something other than ethnic affiliations.

Beyond BCIs Werner Herzog muses on mysteries of the brain in Theater of Thought Auteur director's latest documentary runs the gamut from BCIs and how we construct reality to whether fish can dream. Jennifer Ouellette Dec 13, 2024 1:12 pm | 16 Credit: Argot Pictures Credit: Argot Pictures Story textSizeSmallStandardLargeWidth *StandardWideLinksStandardOrange* Subscribers only Learn moreWerner Herzog has made more than 60 films over his illustrious career. His documentaries alone span an impressive topical range, from the life and death of bear enthusiast Timothy Treadwell (Grizzly Man) to people who choose to live and work in Antarctica (the Oscar-nominated Encounters at the End of the World) or a haunting exploration of the oldest human paintings in France's Chauvet Cave (Cave of Forgotten Dreams). His latest offering, Theater of Thought, tackles what might be his most ambitious subject yet: the mysterious inner workings of the brain.Theater of Thought premiered in 2022 at the Telluride Film Festival in Colorado and is now getting a theatrical release. Herzog's inspiration grew out of his conversations with Rafael Yuste, a Columbia University neurobiologist who also served as scientific advisor on the film. "How can we read thoughts?" he writes in his director's statement. "Can you implant a chip in your brain and in my brain, and see my new film without a camera? Why is it that some young people immerse themselves in video games and become addicted to completely artificial worlds? Sometimes mice even prefer invented cartoon worlds, so who is the ghost writer of our mind, of our reality?"The topic might be scientific in nature, but Theater of Thought is not really a science documentary, despite Herzog's use of the classic talking head format. It's more of a personal, almost quixotic quest, with plenty of random branching digressions along the way. "It was like a road movie, one Monument Valley and one Grand Canyon, then one Mount Everest after the other," Herzog told Ars. "You just couldn't stop wondering and enjoying." For the viewer, it's as much a journey through the eccentric workings of Herzog's endlessly curious, nimble mind.That mind is partly revealed through Herzog's running narration, such as when he muses about collective behavior and whether fish have soulsa digression sparked by his interview with Siri co-inventor Tom Gruber. "In the background, I saw his TV screen still on, we didn't switch it off, and I saw some very, very strange school of fish," said Herzog. "I asked him about the school of fish, which he had filmed himself. And all of a sudden, I'm only interested in the fish and common behavior. Why do they behave in big schools, in unison? Why do they do that? Do they dream? And if they think, what are they thinking about? I immerse the audience into a very strange form of underwater landscape and behavior of fish." Werner Herzog's inspiration for Theater of Thought arose from conversations with Columbia University neuroscientist Rafael Yuste, who served as science advisor on the film. Argot Pictures Werner Herzog's inspiration for Theater of Thought arose from conversations with Columbia University neuroscientist Rafael Yuste, who served as science advisor on the film. Argot Pictures Yuste (left) with Kernel founder Bryan Johnson (right). Argot Pictures Yuste (left) with Kernel founder Bryan Johnson (right). Argot Pictures The University of Washngton's Rajesh Rao specializes in human brain-to-brain communications. Argot Pictures The University of Washngton's Rajesh Rao specializes in human brain-to-brain communications. Argot Pictures Yuste (left) with Kernel founder Bryan Johnson (right). Argot Pictures The University of Washngton's Rajesh Rao specializes in human brain-to-brain communications. Argot Pictures University of Washington neuroscientist Eberhard Fetz Argot Pictures Herzog's camera captures a brain surgery in progress, Argot Pictures We glimpse the inner workings of Herzog's mind in the kinds of questions he asks his subjects, such as when he queries IBM's Dario Gil, who works on quantum computing, about his passion for fishing, eliciting an enthusiastic smile in response. He agrees to interview University of Washington neuroscientist Christof Koch after Koch's early-morning row on the Puget Sound and includes music from New York University neuroscientist Joseph LeDoux's band, the Amygdaloids, in the film's soundtrack. He asks married scientists Cori Bargmann and Richard Axel about music, their dinner conversations, and the linguistic capabilities of parrots. In so doing, he brings out their innate humanity, not just their scientific expertise."That's what I do. If you don't have it in you, you shouldn't be a filmmaker," said Herzog. "But you see, also, the joy of getting into all of this and the joy of meeting these scientists. We are talking about speaking parrots. What if two parrots learned a language that is already extinct and they would speak to each other? What would we make of it? So I'm asking, spontaneously, because I saw it, I sensed it, there was something I should depart completely from scientific quests. And yet there's a deep scientific background to it."This sense leads Herzog to make some unexpected connections. Case in point: He deftly segues from an interview with LeDoux on his work mapping the mechanisms of fear in the brain to a visit with veteran tightrope walker Philippe Petit. Petit famously performed a high-wire walk between the twin towers of the World Trade Center in 1974, so he knows something about confronting and conquering fear.At one point, he asks a subject whether it's possible to use brain-reading technology to ask someone who has just died if they are in heaven or hell. Herzog is a filmmaker, so this naturally leads him to a 1930 Soviet silent film called Earth. "It has to do with the joy of filmmaking," Herzog said of his decision to include a clip from Earth. "The beginning of the film, an old peasant is dying under an apple tree, on a big heap of apples. And all the other peasants surround him, and one of them asks, 'Can you give us some sort of sign, when you are dead, whether there is paradise?' It's such a beautiful beginning of a movie."For Herzog, making the documentary was about the journey and following the whims of his insatiable curiosity; he was less concerned about finding definitive answers. It's a wise approach, given how much we have to learn about how the physical mass of tissue that is the brain gives rise to complex human thought and consciousness. "Not a single one of the scientists, not one, could even tell you what a thought is, and not a single one could even tell you what consciousness is," he said. "There are open questions that will remain open for probably a very, very long time. But it doesn't matter. Let's engage in finding out. I'm comfortable that certain things we'll never know. At the same time, there's this great joy of exploration and trying to get answers, even if they're only incomplete."Theater of Thought is now playing in select theaters. Trailer for Werner Herzog's Theater of Thought. Jennifer OuelletteSenior WriterJennifer OuelletteSenior Writer Jennifer is a senior reporter at Ars Technica with a particular focus on where science meets culture, covering everything from physics and related interdisciplinary topics to her favorite films and TV series. Jennifer lives in Baltimore with her spouse, physicist Sean M. Carroll, and their two cats, Ariel and Caliban. 16 Comments

Musk vs. the government Elon Musk slams SEC as agency threatens charges in Twitter stock probe SEC offered settlement in stock probe and is investigating Neuralink, Musk says. Jon Brodkin Dec 13, 2024 12:20 pm | 112 Elon Musk leaves federal court in New York on Thursday, April 4, 2019 after a hearing in a case involving the SEC. Credit: Getty Images | Bloomberg Elon Musk leaves federal court in New York on Thursday, April 4, 2019 after a hearing in a case involving the SEC. Credit: Getty Images | Bloomberg Story textSizeSmallStandardLargeWidth *StandardWideLinksStandardOrange* Subscribers only Learn moreElon Musk has at least one more battle to wage against Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Gary Gensler, who will be leaving the agency when President-elect Trump takes over in January.Musk yesterday posted a copy of a letter sent to Gensler by Musk's attorney, Alex Spiro. The letter dated December 12 says the SEC issued a settlement demand in its investigation into whether Musk violated federal securities laws in connection with 2022 purchases of Twitter stock, and that the SEC is investigating Neuralink. The Spiro letter said:Yesterday the Commission Staff issued a settlement demand that required Mr. Musk agree within 48 hours to either accept a monetary payment or face charges on numerous counts. They indicated that this demand was the result of a directive from their superiors and that charges would be brought imminently unless Mr. Musk acquiesced. This demand follows a multi-year investigation and more than six years of harassment of Mr. Musk by the Commission and its Staff. More recently, the Staff subpoenaed me, Mr. Musk's attorney, for testimony and threatened to send a process server if I did not immediately cooperate. I categorically refused. This week, the Commission has also reopened an investigation into Neuralink.Spiro accused the SEC of "an improperly motivated campaign" against Musk, his companies, and people associated with him. "We demand to know who directed these actionswhether it was you or the White House," Spiro wrote. "These tactics and misguided scheme will not intimidate us. We reserve all rights."Musk wrote in his post sharing the letter, "Oh Gary, how could you do this to me?" He wrote in an earlier post yesterday that "the SEC is just another weaponized institution doing political dirty work."Late disclosure of Twitter stock buyThe SEC began its investigation in April 2022 after Musk acquired a 9 percent stake in Twitter and failed to disclose it within 10 days as required under US law. He bought the company later that year.Musk previously tried to avoid giving a third round of testimony in the probe, but a federal judge ruled in December 2023 that he had to testify again. The SEC has said its investigation "relates to all of Musk's purchases of Twitter stock in 2022 and his 2022 statements and SEC filings."An SEC spokesperson told Ars today that the commission's policy is "to conduct investigations on a confidential basis to preserve the integrity of its investigative process. The SEC therefore does not comment on the existence or nonexistence of a possible investigation."A Reuters source confirmed the settlement offer. "The SEC sent Musk a settlement offer on Tuesday seeking a response in 48 hours, but extended it to Monday after a request for more time, the source said," according to a Reuters article today.The settlement offer was also confirmed by a source who spoke to The Washington Post. "One person familiar with the probe, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a confidential law enforcement proceeding, confirmed that Musk had been sent a settlement offer in recent days," the Post wrote last night. "But the person said they believed the tech billionaire had actually been given until Monday to evaluate the offeradding that rejecting a settlement still would not immediately trigger charges by the SEC, which typically sends formal notices before such cases are brought."Musk has had several legal battles with the SEC. In 2018, he and Tesla each agreed to $20 million payments in a settlement over the SEC's complaint that "Musk's misleading tweets" about taking Tesla private caused the stock price to jump "and led to significant market disruption." He has tried and failed to get out of that settlement, claiming that he was "forced" into signing the deal and that the SEC used the 2018 consent decree to "micro-manage" his social media activity.Musk to have influence in Trump adminMusk won't have to worry as much about government regulation once Trump takes over. Trump picked Musk to lead a new Department of Government Efficiency, or "DOGE," which will make recommendations for eliminating regulations, cutting expenses, and restructuring federal agencies.As Reuters wrote today, Musk "is set to gain extraordinary influence after spending more than a quarter of a billion dollars to help Donald Trump win November's presidential election. His companies are expected to be well insulated from regulation and enforcement measures."The SEC's November announcement of Gensler's planned departure from the agency touted his work to adopt "several rules to ensure that investors get the disclosure they need from public companies and companies seeking to go public."Trump chose Paul Atkins to replace Gensler as SEC chair, calling Atkins an advocate "for common sense regulations." Atkins, a former SEC commissioner who founded the Patomak Global Partners consultancy firm, testified to Congress in 2019 that the SEC should reduce its disclosure requirements.Jon BrodkinSenior IT ReporterJon BrodkinSenior IT Reporter Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry. 112 Comments

Exercise has many health benefitsJane Williams/AlamyGetting a good nights sleep and other healthy habits could slow the biological ageing of your brain, potentially protecting against conditions like dementia.These habits, known as the Lifes Essential 8 checklist, were originally intended to help people boost their cardiovascular health. They include getting the equivalent of at least 150 minutes of moderate exercise, such as brisk walking, per week and eating a healthy diet rich in nuts, fruits, vegetables and whole foods.The

Psilocybe ochraceocentrata mushrooms, a new species found in Zimbabwe and South AfricaCathy SharpPsychedelic mushrooms growing in southern Africa have been identified as a new species that is the closest relative of Psilocybe cubensis, the most well-known magic mushroom species. The discovery brings scientists a step closer to understanding the evolutionary origins of these psychoactive fungi.Alex Bradshaw at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts, and his colleagues have named the newly described species Psilocybe ochraceocentrata, because of the ochre colour in the centre of the cap. It was collected from multiple sites across Zimbabwe and South Africa between 2013

The internet loves a good neologism, especially if it can capture a purported vibe shift or explain a new trend. In 2013, the columnist Adrian Wooldridge coined a word that eventually did both. Writing for the Economist, he warned of the coming techlash, a revolt against Silicon Valleys rich and powerful fueled by the publics growing realization that these sovereigns of cyberspace werent the benevolent bright-future bringers they claimed to be. While Wooldridge didnt say precisely when this techlash would arrive, its clear today that a dramatic shift in public opinion toward Big Tech and its leaders did in fact happenand is arguably still happening. Say what you will about the legions of Elon Musk acolytes on X, but if an industry and its executives can bring together the likes of Elizabeth Warren and Lindsey Graham in shared condemnation, its definitely not winning many popularity contests. To be clear, there have always been critics of Silicon Valleys very real excesses and abuses. But for the better part of the last two decades, many of those voices of dissent were either written off as hopeless Luddites and haters of progress or drowned out by a louder and far more numerous group of techno-optimists. Today, those same critics (along with many new ones) have entered the fray once more, rearmed with popular Substacks, media columns, andincreasinglybook deals. Two of the more recent additions to the flourishing techlash genreRob Lalkas The Venture Alchemists: How Big Tech Turned Profits into Power and Marietje Schaakes The Tech Coup: How to Save Democracy from Silicon Valleyserve as excellent reminders of why it started in the first place. Together, the books chronicle the rise of an industry that is increasingly using its unprecedented wealth and power to undermine democracy, and they outline what we can do to start taking some of that power back. Lalka is a business professor at Tulane University, and The Venture Alchemists focuses on how a small group of entrepreneurs managed to transmute a handful of novel ideas and big bets into unprecedented wealth and influence. While the names of these demigods of disruption will likely be familiar to anyone with an internet connection and a passing interest in Silicon Valley, Lalka also begins his book with a page featuring their nine (mostly) young, (mostly) smiling faces. There are photos of the famous founders Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, and Sergey Brin; the VC funders Keith Rabois, Peter Thiel, and David Sacks; and a more motley trio made up of the disgraced former Uber CEO Travis Kalanick, the ardent eugenicist and reputed father of Silicon Valley Bill Shockley (who, it should be noted, died in 1989), and a former VC and the future vice president of the United States, JD Vance. To his credit, Lalka takes this medley of tech titans and uses their origin stories and interrelationships to explain how the so-called Silicon Valley mindset (mind virus?) became not just a fixture in Californias Santa Clara County but also the preeminent way of thinking about success and innovation across America. This approach to doing business, usually cloaked in a barrage of cringey innovation-speakdisrupt or be disrupted, move fast and break things, better to ask for forgiveness than permissioncan often mask a darker, more authoritarian ethos, according to Lalka. One of the nine entrepreneurs in the book, Peter Thiel, has written that I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible and that competition [in business] is for losers. Many of the others think that all technological progress is inherently good and should be pursued at any cost and for its own sake. A few also believe that privacy is an antiquated concepteven an illusionand that their companies should be free to hoard and profit off our personal data. Most of all, though, Lalka argues, these men believe that their newfound power should be unconstrained by governments, regulators, or anyone else who might have the gall to impose some limitations. Where exactly did these beliefs come from? Lalka points to people like the late free-market economist Milton Friedman, who famously asserted that a companys only social responsibility is to increase profits, as well as to Ayn Rand, the author, philosopher, and hero to misunderstood teenage boys everywhere who tried to turn selfishness into a virtue. The Venture Alchemists: How Big Tech Turned Profits into PowerRob LalkaCOLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING, 2024 Its a somewhat reductive and not altogether original explanation of Silicon Valleys libertarian inclinations. What ultimately matters, though, is that many of these values were subsequently encoded into the DNA of the companies these men founded and fundedcompanies that today shape how we communicate with one another, how we share and consume news, and even how we think about our place in the world. The Venture Alchemists is strongest when its describing the early-stage antics and on-campus controversies that shaped these young entrepreneurs or, in many cases, simply reveal who theyve always been. Lalka is a thorough and tenacious researcher, as the books 135 pages of endnotes suggest. And while nearly all these stories have been told before in other books and articles, he still manages to provide new perspectives and insights from sources like college newspapers and leaked documents. One thing the book is particularly effective at is deflating the myth that these entrepreneurs were somehow gifted seers of (and investors in) a future the rest of us simply couldnt comprehend or predict. Sure, someone like Thiel made what turned out to be a savvy investment in Facebook early on, but he also made some very costly mistakes with that stake. As Lalka points out, Thiels Founders Fund dumped tens of millions of shares shortly after Facebook went public, and Thiel himself went from owning 2.5% of the company in 2012 to 0.000004% less than a decade later (around the same time Facebook hit its trillion-dollar valuation). Throw in his objectively terrible wagers in 2008, 2009, and beyond, when he effectively shorted what turned out to be one of the longest bull markets in world history, and you get the impression hes less oracle and more ideologue who happened to take some big risks that paid off. One of Lalkas favorite mantras throughout The Venture Alchemists is that words matter. Indeed, he uses a lot of these entrepreneurs own words to expose their hypocrisy, bullying, juvenile contrarianism, casual racism, andyesoutright greed and self-interest. It is not a flattering picture, to say the least. Unfortunately, instead of simply letting those words and deeds speak for themselves, Lalka often feels the need to interject with his own, frequently enjoining readers against finger-pointing or judging these men too harshly even after hes chronicled their many transgressions. Whether this is done to try to convey some sense of objectivity or simply to remind readers that these entrepreneurs are complex and complicated men making difficult decisions, it doesnt work. At all. For one thing, Lalka clearly has his own strong opinions about the behavior of these entrepreneursopinions he doesnt try to disguise. At one point in the book he suggests that Kalanicks alpha-male, dominance-at-any-cost approach to running Uber is almost, but not quite like rape, which is maybe not the comparison youd make if you wanted to seem like an arbiter of impartiality. And if he truly wants readers to come to a different conclusion about these men, he certainly doesnt provide many reasons for doing so. Simply telling us to judge less, and discern more seems worse than a cop-out. It comes across as almost, but not quite like victim-blamingas if were somehow just as culpable as they are for using their platforms and buying into their self-mythologizing. In many ways, Silicon Valley has become the antithesis of what its early pioneers set out to be. Marietje Schaake Equally frustrating is the crescendo of empty platitudes that ends the book. The technologies of the future must be pursued thoughtfully, ethically, and cautiously, Lalka says after spending 313 pages showing readers how these entrepreneurs have willfully ignored all three adverbs. What theyve built instead are massive wealth-creation machines that divide, distract, and spy on us. Maybe its just me, but that kind of behavior seems ripe not only for judgment, but also for action. So what exactly do you do with a group of men seemingly incapable of serious self-reflectionmen who believe unequivocally in their own greatness and who are comfortable making decisions on behalf of hundreds of millions of people who did not elect them, and who do not necessarily share their values? You regulate them, of course. Or at least you regulate the companies they run and fund. In Marietje Schaakes The Tech Coup, readers are presented with a road map for how such regulation might take shape, along with an eye-opening account of just how much power has already been ceded to these corporations over the past 20 years. There are companies like NSO Group, whose powerful Pegasus spyware tool has been sold to autocrats, who have in turn used it to crack down on dissent and monitor their critics. Billionaires are now effectively making national security decisions on behalf of the United States and using their social media companies to push right-wing agitprop and conspiracy theories, as Musk does with his Starlink satellites and X. Ride-sharing companies use their own apps as propaganda tools and funnel hundreds of millions of dollars into ballot initiatives to undo laws they dont like. The list goes on and on. According to Schaake, this outsize and largely unaccountable power is changing the fundamental ways that democracy works in the United States. In many ways, Silicon Valley has become the antithesis of what its early pioneers set out to be: from dismissing government to literally taking on equivalent functions; from lauding freedom of speech to becoming curators and speech regulators; and from criticizing government overreach and abuse to accelerating it through spyware tools and opaque algorithms, she writes. Schaake, whos a former member of the European Parliament and the current international policy director at Stanford Universitys Cyber Policy Center, is in many ways the perfect chronicler of Big Techs power grab. Beyond her clear expertise in the realms of governance and technology, shes also Dutch, which makes her immune to the distinctly American disease that seems to equate extreme wealth, and the power that comes with it, with virtue and intelligence. This resistance to the various reality-distortion fields emanating from Silicon Valley plays a pivotal role in her ability to see through the many justifications and self-serving solutions that come from tech leaders themselves. Schaake understands, for instance, that when someone like OpenAIs Sam Altman gets in front of Congress and begs for AI regulation, what hes really doing is asking Congress to create a kind of regulatory moat between his company and any other startups that might threaten it, not acting out of some genuine desire for accountability or governmental guardrails. The Tech Coup:How to Save Democracyfrom Silicon ValleyMarietje SchaakePRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2024 Like Shoshana Zuboff, the author of The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, Schaake believes that the digital should live within democracys housethat is, technologies should be developed within the framework of democracy, not the other way around. To accomplish this realignment, she offers a range of solutions, from banning what she sees as clearly antidemocratic technologies (like face-recognition software and other spyware tools) to creating independent teams of expert advisors to members of Congress (who are often clearly out of their depth when attempting to understand technologies and business models). Predictably, all this renewed interest in regulation has inspired its own backlash in recent yearsa kind of tech revanchism, to borrow a phrase from the journalist James Hennessy. In addition to familiar attacks, such as trying to paint supporters of the techlash as somehow being antitechnology (theyre not), companies are also spending massive amounts of money to bolster their lobbying efforts. Some venture capitalists, like LinkedIn cofounder Reid Hoffman, who made big donations to the Kamala Harris presidential campaign, wanted to evict Federal Trade Commission chair Lina Khan, claiming that regulation is killing innovation (it isnt) and removing the incentives to start a company (its not). And then of course theres Musk, who now seems to be in a league of his own when it comes to how much influence he may exert over Donald Trump and the government that his companies have valuable contracts with. What all these claims of victimization and subsequent efforts to buy their way out of regulatory oversight miss is that theres actually a vast and fertile middle ground between simple techno-optimism and techno-skepticism. As the New Yorker contributor Cal Newport and others have noted, its entirely possible to support innovations that can significantly improve our lives without accepting that every popular invention is good or inevitable. Regulating Big Tech will be a crucial part of leveling the playing field and ensuring that the basic duties of a democracy can be fulfilled. But as both Lalka and Schaake suggest, another battle may prove even more difficult and contentious. This one involves undoing the flawed logic and cynical, self-serving philosophies that have led us to the point where we are now. What if we admitted that constant bacchanals of disruption are in fact not all that good for our planet or our brains? What if, instead of creative destruction, we started fetishizing stability, and in lieu of putting dents in the universe, we refocused our efforts on fixing whats already broken? What ifand hear me outwe admitted that technology might not be the solution to every problem we face as a society, and that while innovation and technological change can undoubtedly yield societal benefits, they dont have to be the only measures of economic success and quality of life? When ideas like these start to sound less like radical concepts and more like common sense, well know the techlash has finally achieved something truly revolutionary. Bryan Gardiner is a writer based in Oakland, California.

Andre Ware 1989 Heisman winnerAndre Ware was the first Black quarterback to win the Heisman Trophy. George Gojkovich/Contributor/Getty Images Andre Ware made history in 1989 as the first Black quarterback to win the Heisman Trophy.In his third season with the University of Houston, Ware threw for 4,699 yards and 46 touchdowns and set 26 NCAA records.Ware declared for the 1990 NFL Draft and was selected seventh overall by the Detroit Lions. However, he saw little playing time behind starting quarterback Rodney Peete and backup Erik Kramer.In Ware's four seasons with the Lions, he played in 14 games, throwing for 1,112 yards, five touchdowns, and eight interceptions. He later bounced around to other teams, including the Minnesota Vikings, Los Angeles Raiders (now the Las Vegas Raiders), and Jacksonville Jaguars, but never took the field with any of them. He also played in the Canadian Football League and in the NFL Europe League (which existed from 1991-2007) before retiring.Ware was inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame in 2004.Business Insider was unable to reach Ware for comment. Ty Detmer 1990 Heisman winnerTy Detmer won the Heisman Trophy in 1990. Focus on Sport/Contributor/Getty Images Detmer won the Heisman Trophy during his junior year at Brigham Young University in 1990. That season, he led the Cougars to a 10-3 record, passing for 5,309 yards and 42 touchdowns.The win that perhaps solidified Detmer's chances at the Trophy was BYU's 28-21 win over the University of Miami in just the second game of the season. Detmer threw for 406 yards and three touchdowns.Two years later, he was drafted by the Green Bay Packers in the ninth round of the NFL Draft. As the backup for starter Brett Favre, Detmer only had an opportunity to play in seven games for the team. In those games, played in the 1993 and 1995 seasons, he threw for 107 yards, one touchdown, and one interception.In 1996, he was signed to the Philadelphia Eagles, and became the starter after Rodney Peete endured a season-ending knee injury. In 13 games, Detmer threw for 2,911 yards, 15 touchdowns, and 13 interceptions.However, the following season, he was relegated to being a backup quarterback again, and only played in eight games. Detmer went on to play for the San Francisco 49ers, Cleveland Browns, Detroit Lions, and Atlanta Falcons, but remained a backup for the majority of his career, which he finished with 34 touchdowns and 35 interceptions.Detmer did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider. Gino Torretta 1992 Heisman winnerGino Torretta won the Heisman Trophy in 1992. Stephen Dunn/Staff/Getty Images University of Miami quarterback Gino Torretta is a 'Canes football legend. In his Heisman-winning season, he threw for 3,070 yards and 19 touchdowns to lead the Hurricanes to an undefeated regular season. He also won the Davey O'Brien Award, the Walter Camp Award, the Maxwell Award, the Johnny Unitas Trophy, and the Chic Harley Award.But despite his collegiate success, Torretta was selected in the seventh round of the 1993 NFL Draft by the Minnesota Vikings. After not playing at all his rookie season, he was picked up by the Detroit Lions but again as a backup.Torretta only ever played in one NFL game as quarterback of the Seattle Seahawks. He completed five of his 16 passes for 41 yards, one touchdown, and one interception. He retired from the NFL in 1999.Torretta did not respond to Business Insider's request for comment. Danny Wuerffel 1996 Heisman winnerDanny Wuerffel won the Heisman Trophy in 1996. Jonathan Daniel/Stringer/Getty Images Wuerffel's Heisman-winning season with the University of Florida Gators saw him pass for 3,625 passing yards and 36 touchdowns, leading the team to an 11-1 record.The following year, he was selected by the New Orleans Saints with the 99th pick in the 1997 NFL Draft. Across his three seasons with the Saints, Wuerffel played in 16 games, throwing for 1,404 yards and nine touchdowns.He also spent single seasons in Green Bay, Chicago, and Washington before retiring after the 2002 season.In an email sent to Business Insider, Wuerffel said, "While I didn't have the NFL career I dreamt of as a kid, I still consider my time in the NFL a success. I met many amazing people and, more importantly, my pro journey led me to New Orleans where my life's mission of serving others began with Desire Street Ministries."Desire Street Ministries is a religious organization that was founded in 1990. Wuerffel is the executive director. Ron Dayne 1999 Heisman winnerRon Dayne won the Heisman Trophy in 1999. Bob Levey/Stringer/NFLPhotoLibrary/Getty Images Ron Dayne was one of the most prolific rushers in college football history, with a University of Wisconsin career total of 6,397 yards, not including statistics from bowl game appearances.He earned the Heisman Trophy after his senior season, as one of just five players to finish each year of his collegiate career with more then 1,000 rushing yards. He's also the only Big Ten player to win back-to-back Rose Bowl MVP awards.Dayne now holds the record for second-most all-time rushing yards, though if his bowl game statistics were included (like the current all-time leader Donnel Pumphrey), he would lead with 7,125 total yards.In the 2000 NFL Draft, Dayne was selected by the New York Giants. He finished his rookie season with 770 rushing yards for five touchdowns, averaging 3.4 yards per carry. His stats remained similar during his following three seasons with the Giants, recording 1,297 yards for 11 touchdowns and averaging between 3.4 and 3.8 yards per carry.For context, in 2002, the top-10 running backs each rushed more than 1,297 yards that season.Dayne later spent one season with the Denver Broncos and two seasons with the Houston Texans. He finished his NFL career with 3,722 yards and 28 touchdowns across seven seasons.He did not respond to Business Insider's request for comment. Chris Weinke 2000 Heisman winnerChris Weinke won the Heisman Trophy at 28 years old. Gregory Shamus/Stringer/Getty Images Prior to pursuing a career in football, Weinke was actually selected in the second round of the 1990 MLB First-Year Player Draft by the Toronto Blue Jays. He played in the minor leagues until 1997 before attending Florida State University at 25 years old.In his Heisman-winning senior season at age 28 Weinke led the NCAA in passing yards with 4,167. He is the oldest athlete to ever win the Heisman Trophy, and he still leads the Seminoles in all-time passing yards with 9,839.He was selected in the fourth round of the 2001 NFL Draft by the Carolina Panthers. As a rookie, Weinke threw for 2,931 yards, 11 touchdowns, and 19 interceptions; and the Panthers finished the season 1-15. He remained with the Panthers for the following three seasons as a backup, playing in just 12 games and recording three touchdowns.Weinke spent his last season in the NFL with the San Francisco 49ers as a backup quarterback. He played in two games, threw for 104 yards, and one touchdown.He's now an assistant head coach, co-offensive coordinator, and quarterbacks coach at Georgia Tech University. He did not reply to Business Insider's request for comment. Johnny Manziel 2012 Heisman winnerJohnny Manziel played in the NFL for two seasons. Stephen Brashear/Stringer/Getty Images In 2012, Manziel became the first freshman to win the Heisman Trophy after a stellar season at Texas A&M.Nicknamed "Johnny Football," Manziel threw for 3,706 yards and 26 touchdowns and rushed 1,410 yards for an additional 21 touchdowns. He returned to the Aggies the following year and finished the season with 4,114 passing yards for 37 touchdowns, and 759 rushing yards for nine touchdowns.After just two collegiate seasons, Manziel declared for the NFL Draft and was selected 22nd overall by the Cleveland Browns in 2014.But before he could take his first NFL snap, Cleveland.com reported that the Browns were "alarmed" by Manziel's off-field partying. His troubles continued into the season, from flashing an obscene gesture at the Washington bench during a preseason game in August to seeking treatment in January 2015.In the post-game press conference, Manziel said he gets "words exchanged" with him throughout every game, adding, "I should've been smarter ... I need to be smarter than that. There's always words exchanged on the football field." He also described the moment as a "lapse in judgement."He finished his rookie year having played in just five games, passing for 175 yards, no touchdowns, and two interceptions for a passer rating of 42.0. Manziel returned to Cleveland the following season, where he played in nine games and passed for 1,500 yards and seven touchdowns.However, it was off-field troubles that continued to plague Manziel's career, including a 2016 misdemeanor domestic violence charge. ESPN reported that the charges were dismissed in November 2017 after Manziel met the requirements of a dismissal agreement.The Browns released Manziel in March 2016."When I got to Cleveland, I wasn't in this head space to be able to just go play football," Manziel told Business Insider's Meredith Cash in 2023. "I was struggling to get out of bed in the morning. I was struggling to fight thoughts and feelings that I had never really had before in my life.""I know that I'm still gonna walk down the street or go to a restaurant or go to a football game and people are still gonna recognize me," Manziel added. "But at the end of the day, I wanna live a more normal, simplistic lifestyle now. I'm finding things that truly do make me happy without having to be in a spotlight every day."Manziel did not reply to Business Insider's request for additional comment for this story.

The infamous "lock-in" effect that's restricting home supply may be going away next year.Realtor.com's chief economist expects more homeowners to list their homes for sale in 2025.High levels of home equity and life changes will encourage home sales, Danielle Hale said.2024 has been a tough year for homebuyers.Affordability levels are still low with elevated home prices and mortgage rates. A huge jump in mortgage rates to around 6.8% today from under 3% in 2022 has also created a "lock-in" effect, where existing homeowners don't want to sell into a higher mortgage rate environment than when many of them bought further limiting home inventory coming onto the market and sending prices soaring even higher.There's reason to be optimistic, though. The US housing market will see more favorable buying conditions in 2025, according to Danielle Hale, chief economist at Realtor.com. Hale sees two trends that will help encourage existing homeowners to put their homes up for sale.Existing homeowners have built up home equityExisting homeowners have reaped big home equity gains in recent years thanks to rapidly rising home values.Homeowners are also increasing their home equity by making monthly mortgage payments, as those who bought houses a few years ago have had the opportunity to make a sizable dent in their mortgage, Hale said. Homeowners with a smaller mortgage balance may be less sensitive to the higher interest-rate environment of today's housing market.According to Lawrence Yun, chief economist of the National Association of Realtors, homeowners are feeling richer now thanks to the home equity they've accumulated over the last few years of dizzying home price increases. As a result, more listings are being put on the market.Homeowners can put their home equity to work when they move and buy a new house."If they're using their home equity to make a move, that enables them to either be a cash buyer or take out a very small mortgage," Hale said. "That gives them a bit more flexibility in today's market."Mortgage rates may become less important to buyers and sellersHomebuying decisions can also be influenced by factors other than mortgage rates or home prices, according to Hale.The more time that passes since a homeowner's initial purchase, the more likely it is that they'll have a life change requiring them to move, regardless of the cost of moving, Hale said.People buy houses for reasons other than financial ones, Hale pointed out. Big life changes that could spur a move include a new job, retirement, marriage, or having children."All of these can be reasons that people might make a move even if the costs are more expensive to buy a home," Hale said.Additionally, consumers might be getting accustomed to high mortgage rates, according to Redfin."Buyers realized mortgage rates may not drop below 5%, and probably not below 6%, in the near future," Mimi Trieu, a Redfin real-estate agent, said. Existing homeowners holding off on moving due to high mortgage rates may soon give up on waiting it out.A more "buyer-friendly" housing marketThese changes won't be immediate, but they will have a noticeable impact on the housing market, according to Hale. She believes that the housing market is trending in a more "buyer-friendly direction.""It's going to take more time," Hale said of the lock-in effect. "But as it diminishes, that's going to free up more sellers."Lower interest rates and subsequently, lower mortgage rates would certainly speed up the erosion of the lock-in effect, Hale said. However, even if mortgage rates hover around the 6% range in 2025, which is what Realtor.com expects, the lock-in effect will still fade.Homebuyers could see a notable change by the end of next year, Hale predicted."In mid-2024, 84% of homeowners with a mortgage had a mortgage rate under 6%. We think that by the end of 2025, that share will be 75%," Hale said.

Millions of Syrians around the world are celebrating the sudden fall of the Bashar al-Assad regime dictatorship and the end of 13 years of civil war.The war came to a rapid, stunning end earlier this month, after Syrian rebel forces swept through the country and into its capital of Damascus after less than two weeks of fighting.Now, those Syrian refugees displaced by years of conflict are faced with a difficult decision: whether to return home to a Syria that is free but in ruins or to remain in their host countries.For many, the decision to repatriate depends on where they now live. Millions of Syrian refugees reside in countries bordering Syria Lebanon, Turkey, and Jordan and endure precarious conditions in crowded and destitute refugee camps. Others are internally displaced within Syria.Well more than a million others have been taken in by European countries, the UK, the United States, and Canada, and may want to wait and see what comes next. They may be eager to reestablish ties with family and friends, but hesitant to uproot their families, including children who may have no memory of life in Syria.Some countries arent waiting for refugees to decide for themselves, however, or for Syria to rebuild. Austria, which is home to about 100,000 Syrian migrants, has already announced deportation plans. Austria, Belgium, Germany, Greece, Finland, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and the UK have suspended asylum applications from Syrians, and France is considering similar action.But Syrias future is far from certain. The countrys economy is in tatters, inflation is high, and public infrastructure has been decimated. Basic amenities like clean water, electricity, and housing are difficult to find. The coalition of rebel groups that overthrew the Assad regime is led by an Islamist militant group, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which has ties to al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. HTS is designated by the US and the UN as a terror group, but has also broken with al-Qaeda and attempted to establish itself as a legitimate actor in Syria.Today, Explained host Noel King spoke about the plight of Syrian refugees with Amany Qaddour. She directs the humanitarian nongovernmental organization Syria Relief & Development and is an associate faculty member at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.Below is an excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. Theres much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get your podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, and Spotify.Noel KingYou are Syrian American. Do I have that right? Can you just tell me about your ties to Syria?Amany QaddourMy heritage is Syrian. My parents are Syrian, but I grew up in the US my whole life. I grew up in the Midwest.Noel KingAnd where are we reaching you, Amany?Amany QaddourIm in Gaziantep, Turkey. So for those unfamiliar, its in the southeast of Turkey, one of the cities that was the epicenter of the earthquakes that hit last year.Noel KingI want to get a sense of the scale of movement that happened as a result of Syrias decade-plus-long civil war. There were people who left the country. There were people who moved around inside the country. What are we talking about in terms of numbers and where did people tend to end up?Amany QaddourLets talk about outflow first. This is a country that has probably 6 million to 7 million refugees outside of the country, one of the highest for those that have been following Syria for the past decade-plus. This is one of the highest numbers of refugees across the world, now probably closely tied with Afghanistan and Ukraine. But for quite some time it was Syria. A lot of these refugees ended up in surrounding countries. And then the rest ended up in many, many places: Europe, the UK, the US, Canada. But I would say the bulk of refugee-hosting countries for Syrians have been the surrounding ones, including Turkey, where I reside right now. And then in terms of inflow within the country, across the various governorates, the majority of displaced communities have been in the northwest. This is one of the highest displaced populations across the world right now. Within the country, its about 6 or so million displacements. And in the northwest, its housed about 4 million. These 4 million have come from other parts of the northwest as a result of aerial attacks to civilian infrastructure, hospitals, clinics, schools, marketplaces for those that have followed Syrias catastrophic inflection points, chemical weapons attacks, seizures on various cities so a lot of these people have come from Idlib and Aleppo, essentially just moving from place to place depending on where there have been attacks on civilians. The rest have come from some of the other governorates Damascus, Homs, Hama. A lot of these people may have been fleeing because of how dangerous it was to reside in some of these other governorates. Some were fleeing forced military conscription, particularly young men of military age. So really, a mixture of reasons. But the northwest in particular, I would say, is really housing the majority of the displaced.Noel KingFor those Syrians who were forced to flee outside of Syria, what did it mean for the countries where they ended up?Amany QaddourIts really varied. This has been a microcosm of so many other crises. Over the past 13 years, theres been a lot of really touching solidarity with the Syrian people. I think people have been so tremendously generous in hosting Syrians in different countries. But then there have also been waves of anti-refugee sentiment, where a lot of countries are also looking inward now at their own economic conditions, their own workforce, their own health systems, if theyre able to actually subsidize these health services for their own populations. A lot of this also changed post-Covid, where countries also had serious economic issues, not just developing countries, not just in fragile settings, but also in more developed countries like the US and many countries in Europe as well.Noel KingSo a mix of reactions, some of them very good, some of them not so good. What are you hearing from Syrians who were displaced outside of the country now that Bashar al-Assad is gone? Do they want to go home?Amany QaddourI think yes, but theres a caveat. I think, without getting emotional about this, you can feel the hope and you can see the resilience of the Syrian people across the world right now in scenes of people celebrating in almost every country and real solidarity. I think this is a moment in history, this is a moment in time for people and before discussing whats next, lets let Syrians have this moment. Lets let them celebrate, rejoice. Feel the joy. Feel the pain. Feel the suffering. Feel the loss and the family separation, the detainment, the persecutions. This is a bittersweet moment for a lot of people. And I think its really important to let them process all of this. On the other hand, a lot of Syrians are now either wanting to return or, at a minimum, just get permission to enter the country, to reunite with parents that they havent seen for ten years, young men and women that had to leave the country, separate from their families, out of safety or simply because of how much economic deterioration there was. Im very cautious about what this means when many say they want to return. Is the time necessarily now? No. Is there a firm timeline? I also dont know. What I would say, especially to host countries is, this is not a moment to exploit asylum policies. This is not a moment to sort of weaponize this critical point in time and immediately start discussing returns, especially if theyre not this trifecta: voluntary, safe, and dignified for people. Noel KingThis has been a contentious issue in some European countries. Have any European countries come out since Assad was forced out and said, we actually plan to do things differently now?Amany QaddourSo its been a dizzying few days. I believe Austria has. I am cautious to mention names of other countries, but even prior to this moment in time, a few countries have been looking at their migration policies. Germany has been looking at its migration policies. Holland has been looking. Denmark is really trying to understand what are the conditions in Syria so that they can also reframe or recalibrate their own migration policies and determine, is it safe for returns and can Syrians be sent back now?Noel KingIf people were to choose to go back, what are they going back to? What does Syria look like now?Amany QaddourThats really hard. A lot of people, its just home for them. Its just, Im going back home. Im going back to mom and dad or my brothers and sisters that were 5 years old before, and now theyre teenagers. So many of my colleagues, my team are going back right now and reuniting with family. And its so touching. I think a lot of people had lost hope. There was a clear disillusionment, I would say, with the international system. But I do worry that what people are going back to now, the country needs reconstruction. It needs development. Its been destroyed. So there really isnt, in certain areas, much to go back to. Thats not the case for all parts of Syria. Inflation has hit the country hard. And this is also situated within wider regional instability and also major inflation rates in the region. So generally, economic insecurity in Syria and outside, which also adds to some of the push-pull factors for some Syrians that have struggled also outside of the country, especially in neighboring countries, unable to afford basic services, basic amenities. You have decimated infrastructure. So public infrastructure, schools, and very few job prospects. And across the health system Im a public health practitioner, so this has been my area of focus for many, many years now the hospital and health care infrastructure thats almost completely collapsed in certain areas. Noel KingWe talked to a young man named Omar Alshogre earlier in the show whos 29 years old. He said his hometown is the most beautiful place in the world. But hes been in Europe since he was about 19 or 20. He has a whole life there. And so this is going to be a very, very hard call for someone like this young man. I imagine youre going to hear those types of stories again and again and again over the coming months and years.Amany QaddourYeah, definitely. I think a lot of people now are grappling with this, especially a lot of my colleagues and friends whove had children that have been born in other countries now. And theres this identity, where we hear theres something called Syria that were originally from there. What that actually means, they may be too young to process that. They may feel theyre Jordanian, they may feel theyre Turkish, they may feel theyre British. So really thinking about the identity of not only children that were born outside of the country now and that are now teens or tweens, but also some of these people that left right at the end of university or high school. And the majority of their formative years now have been lived outside of the country.Its a big decision to move back at this point in time, especially when there arent these amenities, there arent these services. Theres also a whole generation that has not been able to access education in the country. Where are you able to secure your own livelihood, your own education? Is that going to be immediately in Syria tomorrow? Absolutely not. Its going to take time. Its a tough decision then to kind of uproot them all over again, especially when some of the ones in Jordan and Lebanon, theyre on their fourth or fifth or sixth displacement. Theyve started their lives over multiple times. So some also just want stability in any form. And I think its just theres only so much a person can handle.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: