Martin O’Malley signed the ban into law in May 2013

'Rapidly collapsing re-election effort'

Our interview series, 10 Albums That Changed My Life, has been one of our website’s most popular article series. These interviews are a little different from our typical rock star question-and-answer interviews. The 10 Albums That Changed My Life series focuses on the albums that have changed the lives of so many musicians. It is incredibly fascinating to hear different stories from these artists. What were the albums that inspired them and why? As we have done so many of these over the past couple of years, it has also become quite fascinating to discover some of the albums that The post ’10 Albums That Changed My Life’ Interview Directory appeared first on ClassicRockHistory.com.

Movies & TV Doctor Who Doctor Who Averts Most of the Explosions in “Boom” With themes of war profiteering and medical care, this episode was a doozy By Emmet Asher-Perrin | Published on May 20, 2024 Comment 0 Share New Share We’re back with a landmine of an episode! (Get it? No, you’re right, it was bad. I feel bad.) Recap A man named John Francis Vater (Joe Anderson) is making his way home out of a war zone to see his daughter Splice (Caoilinn Springhall), but the ambulance (Susan Twist) in the area notices that he’s temporarily blinded and determines that his recovery rate is too slow—it terminates and compresses his body into a cylinder. The Doctor and Ruby land on this world, called Kastarion 3, and the Doctor wanders out first, accidentally stepping on a landmine. He cannot move, lest he set the thing off, and Ruby has to help him shift his weight by handing him Vater’s cylinder. They sing to one another to distract from how terrifying the ordeal is, and the Doctor manages to shift his weight a little with the cylinder in hand. Back at the camp, Mundy Flynn (Varada Sethu) is helping to look after Splice, one of the medics in the army. She asks Canterbury James Olliphant (Bhav Joshi) to switch shifts with her—Olliphant clearly has a crush on her and Mundy hasn’t entirely figured that out. When Splice runs out to look for her father, she hears his voice, generated by an AI projection of her father connected to the cylinder that the Doctor is holding, and almost sets off the mine. Mundy arrives and the Doctor begins to put together what’s going on here. The equipment for the war is manufactured by Villengard, the biggest supplier of arms in the universe, and the company has parameters in place that ensure enough casualties to continue conflicts so they keep making money. He asks Mundy who they’re fighting and she tells him there are creatures in the mud or the fog, that they’ve been attacking since the Anglican soldiers landed. The Doctor informs her that there is no war, and her people are fighting shadows, which is exactly what the Villengard algorithm wants them to do. The ambulance arrives and wants to treat the Doctor, meaning it will likely set off the mine, but the Doctor tells Mundy to scan him—if he dies in this explosion there will be enough energy to take half the planet with it. In order to stop the ambulance, Mundy tells Ruby to shoot her. While they’re busy arguing over logistics, Olliphant shoots Ruby, believing her to be a threat to Mundy. The ambulance scans Ruby, finding all sorts of information on her, but it cannot tell them who her parents are. It also won’t treat her because she isn’t insured. In the panic to try and stop the system Munday and Olliphant start talking about their feeling for each other, but Olliphant is killed by the ambulance—his AI has a message for Mundy that it’s okay that she didn’t love him, even though he loved her. The Doctor tells the AI version of Vater to remember the part of him that’s a dad, and to go into the system to stop all of this. The ambulance claims to have deleted him, but Vater resurges, becoming a virus that destroys the algorithm, saving the planet. After a moment looking out at the planet, the Doctor tells Ruby it’s time to go because they’ve seen enough and human lifespans are too short to stand around. Commentary Image: Disney+ For some folks, I’m sure that this is the breath of seriousness they were hoping for in the wake of two very goofy opening episodes. But when I’m watching, what I see is a redux of Davies’ favorite mechanisms and tropes followed by a redux of Steven Moffat’s favorites. And I’m a little worried for it, knowing that we’re only getting one episode written by new writers (that’s episode six, a few weeks off yet). That doesn’t mean there’s nothing good in this episode because Moffat’s strengths on encapsulated Who stories have created some of the best stories the show has ever seen: “Blink,” “Silence in the Library/Forests of the Dead,” “The Girl in the Fireplace”… There are things that make these entries sharp, snappy, and plain good television—tense plot mechanics, high key emotions, occasionally gorgeous use of repetition (I did punch the air at the reuse of “everywhere’s a beach eventually”). One of those strengths is giving the lead actor(s) a chance to showcase their extreme talent, and Ncuti Gatwa took that opportunity with both hands and wrestled it into a marble flipping sculpture with this episode. It’s a great challenge for an actor, having to showcase all that visceral emotion while rooted to the spot, and he was ready for it. Absolutely gorgeous. Having said that, this is literally the “The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances” condensed into a shorter format. It’s using the story to highlight different things, which I appreciate—war profiteering, blind religious obedience, capitalism run wild, the myriad problems around medical care, problems with AI—but the beats are the same. The ambulance is messing with people in a war zone; there’s an eerie child, this time looking for daddy instead of mommy (Splice isn’t a gas mask zombie, but she might as well be for how oddly her dialogue is written); the power of being a parent solves the problem and saves the day. They’re good beats, of course, and they still worked on me emotionally, but the recycling is a bit too obvious to miss. There’s also Moffat’s endless well of romances where a man is sad that a woman doesn’t love him as well or much as he loves her. Which annoyed me enough with Amy and Rory—either leave or ask for what you’re worth, guy, you’ve had years to figure this out—but here it’s particularly egregious and bogged down in TV Problems that should not be an issue in this, the year of our Time Lord 2024. It’s clear that we’re supposed to feel heartbroken over Olliphant’s message for Mundy because we know that she did care for him: that’s the TV drama plight here. But whether or not you care about that context, it doesn’t change the fact that this man recorded a post-death message to let a woman he loved know that it was okay that he died without her loving him in return—which is massively manipulative and utterly fucked as a choice for a person to make. Why would you leave this weird guilt-trippy aside for her, dude? Suck it up and tell this to her face in life; you don’t wait until after you’re dead to leave this little video note, the universe’s most passive-aggressive Nice Guy epitaph, and get kind thoughts for it. And it’s extra upsetting because up until then, the romance had been kinda cute? So there’s that ruined by an afterlife WhatsApp message. These points are a true shame, because when the episode is on, it is gorgeous. The growing bond between the Doctor and Ruby is good stuff, and it’s exciting to see the Doctor be more forthcoming with a companion, not only about history, but about his feelings. The transition from Thirteen to Fourteen to Fifteen can be felt keenly here, this sudden bend toward emotional honesty and a desire to be known now that the Doctor realizes they don’t fully know themselves. That’s where the heart is, and it hits just right every time they find it. More of this, please. The mystery around Ruby also works better in this episode, I think, because it’s just the right amount of distraction without feeling overwrought and shaping too much of the episode itself. And the little bits and pieces of the Doctor’s past that keep barging in are so moving and also get the mystery balance just right: We’ve had the Doctor talk specifically about being a dad before, but the moment where he talks to Vater’s hologram about what that means, what being a father is, it’s the very first time we’ve seen how much it mattered to him. We have no details and I genuinely hope we never will on that, but we don’t need them—we can find what we need to know in Gatwa’s face. Also, I love a sci-fi mechanism that requires a character to stay calm—that should get used way more often. Just a note from me, personally. All of which is to say that there was so much to love about this episode and so much to deride that I’m feeling thoroughly whiplashed. Which generally describes my feelings about most of what Steven Moffat writes, so at least you can say he’s consistent. Time and Space and Sundry Image: Disney+ The song that the Doctor is singing to calm himself down once he’s stepped on the mine is “The Skye Boat Song,” which was actually rewritten in the 19th century to be about Bonnie Prince Charlie, not originally about him. But the real deep cut of this is that the Second Doctor played this song on his recorder in the serial “The Web of Fear” back in 1968. I am loving the throughline we’re getting now of different Doctors preferring different instruments—Two had the recorder, Twelve had the guitar, Fifteen prefers to use his voice (and a gorgeous one it is, too). Vater is German for father, of course. That’s why Darth Vader is kind of a give away. Yes, Mundy is played by Varada Sethu, who is playing the new companion next season. And she said via a PR statement that this is the end of Mundy Flynn’s journey, so the question of how she gets onto the TARDIS is still up in the air. We don’t know if she was cast in this episode before or after the choice to bring her on as a companion, and it certainly wouldn’t be the first time someone guest-starred as a different character before starring on the show: Colin Baker was a guard on Gallifrey before he became the Sixth Doctor; Martha Jones made a comment about her cousin dying at the Battle of Canary Wharf to make sense of Freema Agyeman’s first appearance on the show; Peter Capaldi’s Twelfth Doctor had an entire lesson attached to bringing back the face of a man from Pompeii that he played in 2008; Karen Gillan was thankfully behind facepaint in that same Pompeii episode, so no one was the wiser when she got cast as Amy Pond. The ambulance being played by Susan Twist plays into an unfortunate tendency in Doctor Who to vilify middle-aged and elderly women as nameless figures of menace, and it would be nice if that could lay off for a bit? At least this one wasn’t Moffat’s usual dressing, a fancy updo and blood red lipstick. (I only accept Missy in that pantheon, the rest can go home.) There are moments when the show is so aggressively British that you have to laugh, and Mundy Flynn saying “I’m Anglican,” like it’s this upsetting, powerful thing is definitely one of them. That’s not really going to read the same to anyone outside of the U.K., methinks. See you next week! The post <i>Doctor Who</i> Averts Most of the Explosions in “Boom” appeared first on Reactor.

Studies like these have caused many to refer to the Covid vaccines as 'lethal injections'.

The Senate will hold a second vote on the touted “bipartisan” border bill this week, more than three months after the bill failed to pass the first time, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Sunday. The bill—which Sens. James Lankford, R-Okla.; Chris Murphy, D-Conn.; and Kyrsten Sinema, I-Ariz., originally negotiated—is expected to fail again this week. Schumer, D-N.Y., acknowledged in a letter to his colleagues Sunday that he “does not expect all Democrats to support this legislation,” adding “nor do I expect all Republicans to agree to every provision.”   Schumer laid blame for the bill’s failure in February on former President Donald Trump, who, according to the New York Democrat, “demanded congressional Republicans kill the legislation.”   The Senate is prepared to take up the bipartisan Border Act this weekA tough, serious, bipartisan proposal to secure our borderTrump had urged the GOP to kill this bill—saying “blame it on me”But Democrats’ commitment to act never wanedAnd the American people want action pic.twitter.com/J3NkZZMd4L— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) May 20, 2024 On Feb. 5, two days before the Senate voted on the border bill the first time, Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social, “Only a fool, or a Radical Left Democrat, would vote for this horrendous Border Bill, which only gives Shutdown Authority after 5,000 Encounters a day, when we already have the right to CLOSE THE BORDER NOW, which must be done.” Trump went on to call the bill a “gift to the Democrats,” declaring the legislation “takes the HORRIBLE JOB the Democrats have done on Immigration and the Border, absolves them, and puts it all squarely on the shoulders of Republicans.”   The bill does, as Trump said in February, direct the Department of Homeland Security to close the southern border “during a period of seven consecutive calendar days, [if] there is an average of 5,000 or more aliens who are encountered each day.”  More than 1.8 million illegal aliens a year still would be permitted to enter the United States under the legislation. The bill also would give the president the authority to “direct the [Homeland Security secretary] to suspend use of the border emergency authority on an emergency basis.”    The reintroduction of the bill comes as President Joe Biden is expected to soon take executive action on the border, and border and immigration issues remain a top concern for voters. “I hope Republicans and Democrats can work together to pass the bipartisan Border Act this coming week,” Schumer said in Sunday’s “Dear Colleagues” letter. “At the end of the day, the American people deserve political leaders who will work towards bipartisan solutions, and that is what we are prepared to do in the United States Senate this coming week.”   In response to Schumer’s announcement, the pro-border security organization The Immigration Accountability Project labeled the bill a “joke” and called on Schumer to “Pass HR 2, not this bill that codifies the Biden border crisis!”   The House passed HR 2, or the Secure the Border Act of 2023, a year ago. The bill would end “catch-and-release,” restart construction of the border wall, and reinstate the Trump-era ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy. The Senate has yet to take up HR 2.   The post Senate Will Try Again to Pass Border Bill, Schumer Says appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The internet’s most frequented page is on the verge of a transformation unlike any in its 25-year history. Last week, at Google I/O 2024, as Liz Reid, Google’s head of Search, gushed on stage about their AI-powered future, one couldn’t help but feel a pang of irony. “Google will do the Googling for you,” she proclaimed, envisioning a future where Google’s AI sifts through the web’s content and spits out neatly packaged summaries, removing the need to visit any websites. Google’s AI Overview feature, as shown at Google I/O How convenient – for Google, that is. An ideologically driven monopoly further inserting itself between people and content, filtering out what it thinks you should be allowed to see (and what you shouldn’t) at a level never seen before. What could possibly go wrong? At the event, the tech behemoth unveiled its latest shiny toys – an AI agent named Astra, a potentially reincarnated Google Glass, and something called Gems. Amidst the fanfare, though, there was a glaring omission: any mention of the voices who populate the web with the very work that makes Google’s empire possible. But the origins of Google’s powerful monopoly and control over much of the internet’s content came a couple of decades ago when publishers and website creators made a deal with a devil whose motto was, at the time, “Don’t be evil.” The Early Days of Google “Two decades ago, Google became the darling of Silicon Valley as a scrappy startup with an innovative way to search the emerging internet,” the Department of Justice wrote in its 2020 complaint. “That Google is long gone. The Google of today is a monopoly gatekeeper for the internet, and one of the wealthiest companies on the planet.” There was a time when newspapers and magazines were kings, when people paid for their daily dose of information. The morning ritual of reading the paper was as sacred as the first cup of coffee. And as for publishers, those subscriptions allowed them to have a direct relationship with their readers and customers, without being influenced by an intermediary. But as the internet dawned, this once-untouchable industry found itself on the brink of an existential crisis. The transition was swift and brutal. In the early days of the web, news outlets and publishers thought they saw a digital gold rush, envisioning a future where their reach extended beyond the physical limitations of print. They rushed online, eager to embrace this new medium. Initially, some charged for access, mirroring their print subscription models. However, it soon became clear that the internet of the time operated on a different set of economics. The vast expanse of free information available online made many people recoil at the idea of paying for original content. The Fox News website 1997 Enter Google. As the internet became the primary source of news, Google’s search engine emerged as the gateway to the web. With its innovative algorithms, Google quickly became the preferred tool for navigating the sprawling chaos of online information. Users could find articles, blogs, videos, and any other content they desired with just a few keystrokes. Google soon amassed a monopolistic 90+% market share in the United States. United States Search Engine Market Share 2024 But Google’s rise wasn’t just about superior technology; it was also about a business model that would forever change the landscape of online publishing. Google offered a “free” service to users, including the email service Gmail, instead monetizing its platform through advertising, tracking people’s entire digital life, and harvesting people’s most personal data. Its AdSense program allowed websites to host ads, earning revenue based on user clicks or impressions. For news outlets facing an audience that was, in those days, wanting to avoid putting their payment information online (something alien to today’s internet user) this seemed like a lifeline. Many abandoned subscription models in favor of the ad-supported approach powered by Google. This shift had far-reaching consequences and we’re all still paying the price for it today. Publishers inadvertently handed over immense power to Google, allowing it to monopolize monetization on the web. As the aggregator of the world’s information, Google became the intermediary between content creators and their audiences. This middleman role allowed Google to amass vast amounts of data on user behavior, preferences, and habits. With this data, Google could offer highly targeted advertising, making it an indispensable tool for marketers and further cementing its monopoly. As more publishers adopted Google’s ad model, the company’s dominance grew. Google’s invasive tracking ads became ubiquitous, following users across the web, and collecting data at every click. This allowed Google to refine its ad targeting capabilities, making its platform even more attractive to advertisers. The more advertisers flocked to Google, the more dependent publishers became on the traffic and revenue generated by the search giant. But this relationship came with its own set of handcuffs. As advertisers pumped money into Google’s ad machine, they began to wield significant influence over the content that was produced. Advertisers, ever mindful of their brand image, were keen to avoid associating with controversial or sensitive topics. This led to a chilling effect on journalism and website content. Publishers, desperate for ad dollars to stay afloat, started self-censoring, avoiding stories that might spook advertisers. Publishers skirted around controversial topics to stay in business. For example, publishers don’t want to be critical of Big Pharma if they want to still be paid for their work. The content became increasingly vapid. This advertiser-driven censorship wasn’t subtle. Entire sections of news sites were reshaped to be more “brand-safe,” a euphemism for bland and inoffensive. Investigative journalism took a hit, with fewer resources allocated to in-depth reporting that could ruffle feathers. The very essence of what journalism is supposed to be – a fearless pursuit of truth – was compromised in the name of ad dollars and appealing to the masses. Meanwhile, Google’s power extended beyond just influencing content. With its monopoly over search traffic, Google had the ultimate say in who gets seen and who gets buried. A tweak in Google’s search algorithm could send a website’s traffic plummeting overnight. More insidiously, Google had the power to delist websites entirely, effectively erasing them from the internet for most users. This wasn’t just theoretical – it happened. Websites that ran afoul of Google’s ever-evolving content policies found themselves blacklisted, their lifeline to the public severed without appeal. As publishers became increasingly reliant on Google’s traffic and ad revenue, many neglected to build direct relationships with their readers. Gone were the days of fostering loyal audiences through subscriptions and direct engagement. Instead, publishers relied on the fickle whims of search algorithms and social media trends to drive traffic. This detachment from their audience made them even more vulnerable to the whims of Google and corporate advertisers. The consequences of this abandonment are stark. When Google decides to tweak its algorithm or enforce its content policies, publishers have little recourse. They can be cut off from their audience almost instantaneously. Independent sources, which often rely on niche audiences and controversial content, are particularly vulnerable. Online censorship, whether through de-indexing or ad demonetization, can sever the connection between these publishers and their readers, effectively silencing them. Many mainstream publishers were happy to play by Google’s rules, as long as the tech giant kept sending them lots of traffic. But all of that could be about to change. Last week, during the event, Google unveiled a sweeping redesign of its search results page, heavily incorporating artificial intelligence. This new format significantly alters how users interact with search results. Instead of the familiar “10 blue links” dominating the screen, these traditional results now make a fleeting appearance before being displaced by a vibrant AI-generated summary. This change relegates Google’s other links to the depths of the page, often making them nearly invisible. Google’s AI Overview feature, as shown at Google I/O While Google’s current search results page is far from perfect—cluttered with links from sites that have mastered optimization trickery—the new format represents a radical shift in information retrieval. Some might see these changes as improvements, but they also come with considerable drawbacks. Google’s idea is that it’s just giving people directly what they want. Liz Reid’s comments underscore Google’s stance: “People’s time is valuable, right? They deal with hard things,” she remarked to Wired. “If you have an opportunity with technology to help people get answers to their questions, to take more of the work out of it, why wouldn’t we want to go after that?” Google’s trajectory towards this AI-centric model has been evident for years. These tools are convenient for straightforward queries, such as time conversions and quick math, delivering quick answers at the expense of pushing traditional links further down the page. The company has progressively introduced features like the Knowledge Graph and featured snippets, designed to keep users within Google’s ecosystem rather than directing them to external sources. Increasingly, the company has tried to not only keep more of the traffic for itself but also influence more of the conversation surrounding a topic. This was noticeable during the COVID era when Google’s “authoritative sources” messaging was presented to YouTube users when they searched for a related topic. The company forced sources such as The World Health Organization, even when some of that information turned out to be untrue. Those that contradicted the WHO’s claims were buried or deleted. While some might find comfort in these changes, those who prefer to sift through sources themselves are likely to be dismayed by the relegation of these links. Google is making it difficult for people to consider investing time, money, and effort in sharing their expertise if their contributions are hidden from those actively seeking information. When their posts, filled with valuable insights and knowledge, don’t reach an audience, it diminishes the incentive to contribute. Instead of serving their intended purpose of educating and informing others, these posts risk becoming mere fodder for AI. The situation worsens when ads are added to the mix as the traditional links get pushed further down the page. Google champions AI’s transformative power in searches, arguing that it justifies the new format. “With this powerful new technology, we can unlock entirely new types of questions you never thought Search could answer, and transform the way information is organized, to help you sort through and make sense of what’s out there,” wrote Elizabeth Reid, VP and GM of Search at Google when the early ideas of this were first unveiled last year. While AI summaries may indeed be useful for some queries, their reliability is questionable. AI language models are notorious for confidently presenting false information, and the AI Overview feature could exacerbate this issue on a large scale. Google’s current search accuracy is already suspect. Google has already shown its immense bias within its AI, allowing its particular Silicon Valley ideological bent to show across its AI system Gemini. Tech research company Gartner estimated that traffic to the web from search engines will fall around 25 percent by 2026. Raptive, a company offering digital media, audience engagement, and advertising services warns that upcoming changes to search could spell substantial financial losses for content creators, particularly independents. The company estimates that creators might face a staggering $2 billion in losses, with certain websites potentially seeing their traffic plummet by up to 66%. This cycle raises concerns about the future of the internet. Google scraped everyone’s content on the open web, monetized it, and is now using it to serve answers to its users with reduced publisher involvement. Google’s push for “efficiency” could lead to a diluted version of the web, dominated by biased and ideologically-driven AI-generated summaries, devoid of in-depth exploration. Those most at risk are those independent publishers that were late to the game in building up email subscriptions and direct relationships with readers. More and more publishers could increasingly have to lock up their content just to survive, let alone flourish. The open web is at risk. The shift towards AI-dominated search results is more than just a technological evolution; it’s a power grab. Google’s transformation from a simple search engine into the ultimate gatekeeper and filterer of information has profound implications. This isn’t just about making searches more efficient; it’s also about control. By prioritizing AI-generated summaries over traditional links, Google is further tightening its grip on what information gets visibility and what gets buried in the digital abyss. It’s a shift that threatens to further undermine independent publishers and erode the diversity of information available to the public. The need for a resilient, independent media ecosystem and independent voices has never been more critical. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Google’s AI-First Ambitions Sideline Publishers, Boost Its Ability To Filter and Control Information appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Condolences Pour in From World Leaders For Iranian President

June Could Be a Tough Month for the Biden Family

If you’re wondering what health and disease might look like in 30 years time – what conditions might be dominating and how that will affect our lives – then wonder no more. According to the latest findings from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD), the landscape will look quite different by 2050, with an increase in life expectancy and a switch toward non-communicable diseases like heart disease and cancer.The GBD study is the most comprehensive effort to quantify health loss around the globe over time. Since 1991, it has helped us better understand the changing health challenges facing people across the world and informed clinicians, researchers, and policymakers working in the health sphere.Earlier this year, data from the 2021 edition of the GBD revealed that neurological conditions had overtaken cardiovascular disease as the number one cause of ill health worldwide. Now, The Lancet has published more findings from the 2021 study in a series of six articles. As you might expect, COVID-19 took center stage: It “has been the largest setback in global health over the past 71 years, as measured by life expectancy”, Professor Christopher Murray, Director of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, writes in a viewpoint summarizing the GBD findings. Global life expectancy dropped by 1.6 years between 2019 and 2021, Murray explains, with the greatest decreases seen in Peru, which had a 6.5-year decline.However, the GBD also highlighted other health trends that have continued as the world has navigated a global pandemic, with articles focusing on fertility, causes of death, disability-adjusted life-years, and risk factors to highlight the complexities of disease burden across the world beyond COVID-19. It has even looked to the future to predict what the disease landscape will look like in coming decades. “Our Article on forecasts for GBD [...] highlights that future trends might be quite different to past trends because of factors such as the obesity epidemic, the increase in substance-use disorders, and climate change, while also underlining the tremendous opportunities to alter the trajectory of health for the next generation,” Murray adds.The study focused on 204 countries and territories, forecasting “the most likely future” of disease burden up to 2050, as well as alternative scenarios based on certain risk factors being eliminated.Of course, the researchers didn’t have a crystal ball to tell them what would happen to global health in the next 30-odd years. Instead, they relied on forecasts of major drivers of health, as well as risk factor trajectories – things like climate models and predicted particulate matter pollution (PM2·5) – to inform their predictions.In the most likely scenario, life expectancy is predicted to increase – by 4.9 years in males and 4.2 years in females – although this rise is slower than in the three decades preceding the COVID-19 pandemic. Increases are expected to be largest in countries where life expectancy is lower.“Despite the rising burden due to climate change, BMI, high fasting plasma glucose, drug use, and, in some places, PM2·5, we expect life expectancy and healthy life expectancy to increase up to 2050,” Murray writes. However, he cautions that “the expected progress is fragile,” and could easily be derailed by threats such as food insecurity, antimicrobial resistance, nuclear escalation of conflicts, and increases in diabetes, obesity, addiction, and aging.Forecasts also predicted that “health will improve in the coming decades”, but that there will be a shift in disease burden from communicable, maternal, neonatal, and nutritional diseases (CMNNs) to non-communicable diseases (NCDs) – diseases that are not transmissible directly from one person to another, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes.There will also be an increase in years lived with disability (YLDs), indicating a shift away from premature death and toward morbidity – i.e. people will live for longer but with more years in poorer health.Meanwhile, geographic discrepancies in life expectancy are expected to lessen: “While health inequalities between the highest- and lowest-income regions will remain, the gaps are shrinking, with the biggest increases anticipated in sub-Saharan Africa," Murray said in a statement.The alternative future scenarios – which involved minimizing environmental risks, risks associated with CMNNs, risks associated with NCDs, and the combined effects of these three scenarios – demonstrated that by eliminating certain risks we can dramatically improve health outcomes in the future, particularly if major NCD risks are addressed."There is immense opportunity ahead for us to influence the future of global health by getting ahead of these rising metabolic and dietary risk factors, particularly those related to behavioral and lifestyle factors like high blood sugar, high body mass index, and high blood pressure," concluded Murray.The study is published in The Lancet.