Seven months after ditching paper screening for @trycreyos, Claremedica is catching over 90% of new dementia cases at the earliest stage. #longevity# #dementia# #screening# #healthcare# #Creyos#

Jake Schreier says his ‘X-MEN’ movie will include a lot of things never done before for the X-Men on film. “Digging into those comics like the Chris Claremont run and the newer Jonathan Hickman stuff. There are so many stories that are still untold.” (Source: @GMA)

JD Vance represents everything wrong with the Republican party. He should do everyone a favor and retire from politics altogether. He has no principles, only a reading of the polls. In January, as Trump weighed war with Iran, Vance personally asked Rasmussen to add questions on how many American combat deaths the public would tolerate. A regime that has made war on Americans since 1979 is a matter of self-defense. Vance treated it as a matter of public opinion. He defended the war this summer, and now that Republicans have lost seven Senate seats, including his old seat in Ohio, he blames the war and says the party must change its relationship with Israel. The tariffs get none of the blame, because he champions them. He rejects the idea the country was founded on. He told the Claremont Institute that defining America by the Declaration of Independence is over-inclusive and under-inclusive at the same time, and that men whose ancestors fought in the Civil War have more claim to America than those who say they don't belong. Rights belong to every man by his nature, not by his bloodline. He praised Lina Khan's war on successful companies, and his new memoir has a chapter attacking free market economics. The Republican party does not need an heir. It needs men who will defend individual rights and capitalism on moral grounds, whether the polls agree or not. Ten years of Vance's record show he is not one of them.

Ep. 282: Breaking down our 2027 College Free Speech Rankings Harvard, institutional neutrality, how we determine the rankings, partisan censorship, how schools can improve their ranking, and more! Joining us to break it all down is @TheFIREorg's @NicoPerrino; vp of research Angela Erickson; chief researcher Sean Stevens; general counsel Ronnie London; and campus advocacy chief of staff @ConnorMurnane. Timestamps: 00:00 Intro 03:18 Learn about our inaugural Soapbox conference 04:02 Preorder Nico’s book Free Speech Generation 5:00 Check out FIRE’s 2027 College Free Speech rankings 06:05 Who are the top- and bottom-ranked schools? 09:27 What’s new with the Harvard evaluation? 13:08 How does FIRE choose which schools to rank? 13:46 What can universities do to improve their ranking? 15:54 What is institutional neutrality? 18:05 What exactly are students being asked about campus speech? 21:25 How does FIRE make sure defending free speech doesn’t inadvertently protect censorship in the classroom? 25:19 Is campus censorship coming more from the “right” or the “left”? 26:53 Did the University of Washington settlement involving Professor Stuart Reges affect its ranking? 30:45 What does it mean to pre-register our methodology? 31:35 Why did Claremont McKenna drop in the rankings? 33:07 What advice does FIRE have for students at low-ranked schools facing censorship? 36:47 Do politically homogeneous campuses make students more comfortable speaking freely? 40:26 Do low-ranked colleges tell FIRE how they are improving? 42:56 What can administrators do now to improve next year’s ranking? 43:50 Does FIRE account for turnover in university leadership? 45:47 What do the rankings reveal about different student demographic groups? 49:41 Does FIRE account for differences between types of institutions? 52:00 What’s up with MIT? 56:02 Should attacks on tenured professors carry more weight than actions against other faculty? 57:02 Who does FIRE contact when evaluating a university? 58:09 Are there regional patterns in the rankings? 58:57 Were there bigger ranking swings than usual this year? 01:00:44 Outro