The first-ever detection of this rare form of water in a protoplanetary disk suggests that what we drink might have been around for a very long time.

Fourteen down, over 1.8 million species to go.

Despite its astonishing success, JWST has a flaw that made its observations on some targets borderline unusable, but PhD students have found a solution.

A poem praising Saladin seems to reference a galactic supernova, lighting up the skies for 185 days.

Back in 2023, CNN’s Kaitlin Collins spent the entirety of a televised town hall contradicting and interrupting her guest, then-presidential candidate Donald Trump. By contrast, when Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Bernie Sanders joined Collins for a town hall on Wednesday night (October 15), she repeatedly permitted her guests to launch into talking point-laden stump speeches with no pushback. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Analysts found Collins interrupted Trump 12.5 times more than Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders. On average, Collins interrupted or attempted to interrupt Trump once every 22 seconds. In total, Democrats were permitted roughly 50% more time to speak. MRC analysts examined the entirety of both CNN town halls hosted by Collins: one featuring Trump on May 10, 2023, and one featuring Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders on October 15, 2025. In 2023, Collins interrupted Trump 113 times — 12.5 times more than she interrupted either liberal guest. The combined speaking time of both Democrat guests in 2025 totaled exactly 60 minutes — almost 50 percent more than Trump’s 41 minutes two years earlier. Across Trump’s 41 minutes, the 113 interruptions average out to 2.75 interruptions per minute, or one every 22 seconds. For the Democrats, Collins’s nine interjections during their full hour of speaking time means they were interrupted only 0.15 times per minute, or once every 6.6 minutes. Trump often continued speaking despite an interjection by Collins, resulting in an average response duration of 37 seconds during his town hall. Democrats, meanwhile, enjoyed an average response duration of 67 seconds at their event.  The final portion of the October 15 town hall perfectly highlighted Collins’s deference to her Democrat guests. When asked by an audience member about national unity, Ocasio-Cortez responded with a three-minute stump speech in which she claimed Senator Sanders had a “tremendous bipartisan record,” touted her work regulating sexually explicit AI, and complained that labeling others as “un-American” was un-American. This was immediately followed by a  two-minute response by Sanders, which included an enthusiastic plug for the Democrats’ upcoming “no kings day” rally. These combined responses amounted to five minutes and 17 seconds of uninterrupted prognosticating. That’s more than one fifth of the total amount of speaking time allotted to Trump back in 2023.

The government is “shut down.”  Media call this a “crisis.” A “crisis (with) no deal in sight,” says Fox News. Reuters says it's a “key risk to US stability.” But when I look around, I see business as usual -- families raise children, workers work, people play music ...  The media act like government is the most important part of life. It isn't. Fortunately, most of life, and the best of life, happens outside government. Yes, we need government. Limited government. Enough to keep us safe. But most of life doesn't depend on what goes through D.C.  Most of life thrives without government, often, despite government. During shutdowns, government tells “nonessential” workers not to come to work. But if they're nonessential, why do we employ them? The shutdown is certainly a problem for the 1.4 million federal employees currently working without pay or furloughed. But they will likely get paid once government's back in business. That's what happened before. The media claim flights are delayed because of Air Traffic Control staffing shortages. CNN writes, “Delays spread to major airports across the country, as the government shutdown impacts travelers.” But many of these delays happen because government runs Air Traffic Control, and government management isn't good.   In other places (airports in Canada, the U.K., Germany, Australia), Air Traffic Control is privately run. A Government Accountability Office report found that private systems lead to fewer delays. Even security screenings work better when they're private. At San Francisco's airport, security lines move faster, and passengers told me, “The screeners are nicer!”  They're nicer and faster because in San Francisco (also Kansas City and some smaller airports), private companies handle security. The TSA even acknowledges that private screeners are better at finding contraband. So why does government do these things?  It shouldn't. Private operators are better because they must compete. Competition makes everybody sharper. Succeed, or you get fired. But government never fires itself. It's why its incompetent government workers stay incompetent. It's also why the Pentagon flunks audits and uses outdated computers. Shutdowns are supposed to show how vital government is. Instead, they show the opposite. Now, some farmers complain that they're not getting government support checks. But why should farmers get taxpayer funding in the first place?  Politicians said it was needed to “save family farms,” but it doesn't. It mostly subsidizes big agribusiness.  Some claim America needs government aid to “guarantee the food supply.” But we don't. Fruit and vegetable growers get nothing from Washington. There's no shortage of tomatoes, peaches or green beans ...  We should take a chainsaw to much of government. Consider government inspections of food. We're told to be glad USDA inspectors are considered “essential” and will stay on the job to keep us safe. But meat is safe not because of bureaucratically mandated inspections but mostly because of competition. Food sellers have a reputation to uphold. If their food poisons us, people won't buy from them.  As a result, today's food producers take more safety measures than government requires. One told me they employ a thousand more safety inspectors than the government demands.  Stories like that rarely get coverage. Politicians, gathered in D.C., are easy to report on. Journalists lazily obsess about them because they’re easy to interview. It’s impossible to cover millions of individuals pursuing our own interests. But it’s we who make America work. Not bureaucrats bickering in D.C.  Media pundits will continue to act as if shutdowns are a crisis, but they’re not.  We’ve “survived” shutdowns before, and we’ll “survive” this one.

MSNBC’s Jen Psaki delivered a factually challenged monologue on Wednesday’s The Briefing. As Psaki tells it, if the Supreme Court rules that race-based gerrymandering in the form of majority-black districts is unconstitutional, it will be helping Republicans “rig” elections by allowing them to racially gerrymander themselves 19 additional House seats. Of course, that makes zero sense, but this is MSNBC. Psaki wailed, “So, with an unpopular agenda, it's no surprise that Trump and his merry band of MAGA followers is now using this moment to try to game the system and disenfranchise voters. This was the scene outside the Supreme Court today. People standing up in support of voting rights. Signs all over the place.” Nobody’s voting rights are at risk. What is at risk is the idea that some voters are entitled to have their preferred candidate win.     However, Psaki then falsely claimed, “Well, inside the Court, justices heard oral arguments in a case that could further erode the landmark protections of the Voting Rights Act. The case could allow the Court's conservative majority to essentially legalize gerrymandering by race, allowing Republicans to pick up a ton of congressional seats in the process. Here's how Justice Sotomayor spoke about the implications of doing just that.” Fact-check: If the Court overturns Section 2 of the VRA, racial gerrymandering will be outlawed. Sotomayor’s soundbite was even more insane because she claimed, “What you're suggesting is that people of one race—blacks in Louisiana—who will have to be 51 percent of the population before they'll be able to elect another black candidate. [jump cut] That means blacks never have a chance, no matter what their number is, until they reach more than 51 percent.” Even today, majority-black districts do not always elect black representatives and, of course, black people get elected in non-majority-black districts. However, Psaki reacted, “I mean, it also kind of says a lot that the plaintiffs who originally brought the suit described themselves as ‘non-African American voters’ who have been discriminated against. And yet the conservative majority in the Court appear to be leaning toward a decision in their favor.” The truth is Psaki supports racial gerrymandering if it favors Democrats and is worried that her party may lose about five percent of the entire House it is currently legally entitled to with Section 2, “Just to give you a sense of what that would mean for our country. This is what the congressional map of the southeastern United States currently looks like. And this is what it could look like if the Court lets Republicans redraw their maps with[out] these Voting Rights Act protections. In all, Republicans could pick up as many as 19 congressional seats if the judges rule in their favor.” She further added, “That's not 19 seats Republicans win by convincing voters to support them because their agenda is better. It's 19 districts where Republicans would basically have a built-in advantage. And this comes as Republicans are already rigging congressional maps or trying to rig them in seven different states, and they're actively undermining any democratic check on their power in the process.” As it currently stands, those seats mean Democrats automatically start any election cycle with a 19-0 advantage without having to convince anyone of the benefits of their policies. If Democrats can’t win with a 19-seat "built-in advantage," maybe they should look in the mirror before attacking the Supreme Court. Here is a transcript for the October 15 show: MSNBC The Briefing with Jen Psaki 10/15/2025 9:03 PM ET JEN PSAKI: So, with an unpopular agenda, it's no surprise that Trump and his merry band of MAGA followers is now using this moment to try to game the system and disenfranchise voters. This was the scene outside the Supreme Court today. People standing up in support of voting rights. Signs all over the place. Well, inside the Court, justices heard oral arguments in a case that could further erode the landmark protections of the Voting Rights Act. The case could allow the Court's conservative majority to essentially legalize gerrymandering by race, allowing Republicans to pick up a ton of congressional seats in the process. Here's how Justice Sotomayor spoke about the implications of doing just that. SONIA SOTOMAYOR: What you're suggesting is that people of one race—blacks in Louisiana—who will have to be 51 percent of the population before they'll be able to elect another black candidate. [jump cut] That means blacks never have a chance, no matter what their number is, until they reach more than 51 percent. PSAKI: I mean, it also kind of says a lot that the plaintiffs who originally brought the suit described themselves as “non-African American voters” who have been discriminated against. And yet the conservative majority in the Court appear to be leaning toward a decision in their favor. You can see a headline from NBC that says just that. Just to give you a sense of what that would mean for our country. This is what the congressional map of the southeastern United States currently looks like. And this is what it could look like if the Court lets Republicans redraw their maps with these Voting Rights Act protections. In all, Republicans could pick up as many as 19 congressional seats if the judges rule in their favor. That's not 19 seats Republicans win by convincing voters to support them because their agenda is better. It's 19 districts where Republicans would basically have a built in advantage. And this comes as Republicans are already rigging congressional maps or trying to rig them in seven different states, and they're actively undermining any democratic check on their power in the process.

In an incident caught on camera Saturday, a Houston hospital’s intensive care unit (ICU) nurse told a police officer that, if they ever came into her hospital, she’d let him and all his family members die - because "You're not that great a person." Crystal Tadlock, a 35 year-old nurse at Memorial Hermann Greater Heights Hospital, was in the back of a police car and under arrest when she made the threat: "I'm a (expletive) nurse, and when you come through my hospital, don't worry, I'll let you die." "All your family members," Tadlock adds in the video. Asked if she was serious, Tadlock replied, "Well, yeah" and explained her reason: "I mean, you're not that great of a person. You think you can just treat me like this?" When she was pulled over for speeding early Saturday morning, Tadlock failed a field sobriety test, Houston ABC affiliate KTRK reports. She was charged with DWI. Memorial Hermann Greater Heights Hospital has issued a statement saying that, after an investigation of the incident, it has fired Tadlock.

The Ultimate Townhall Media Experience Has Arrived

'What's the Definition of Insanity?' CNN Tries Another Subscription Service (Logo Suggestions Incoming!)