FlashFeed

Full text

TL;DR

T-Mobile is retiring some older plans, forcing subscribers to migrate to new ones.

This is resulting in larger bills for some customers.

At least one customer says he’s complained to the FCC, and that the agency is taking action.

T-Mobile ruffled some feathers last month when it confirmed that it was retiring some of its old plans , forcing subscribers to migrate to newer ones that may be more expensive. Affected customers are understandably annoyed, and at least one has gone so far as to lodge a complaint with the FCC.

As reported by Fierce Network , T-Mobile customer Alex Gerwer was notified late last month that two legacy plans he was subscribed to were being deprecated and that he’d automatically be moved to newer plans on July 13. In response, he filed complaints with T-Mobile, the California Attorney General, and the FCC, citing a very plain 2024 guarantee T-Mobile made that “We won’t raise your internet rate. Ever.”

Full text

I had thought science denial would hit a bottom — that once people began to experience the direct consequences of being wrong, of holding fast to beliefs that were demonstrably at odds with well-established science, they would drop those beliefs. It turns out I was wrong.

As a research scientist who’s also dedicated many years to science communication, coming to grips with this truth has been hard. It leaves us all facing difficult questions about how science and society can — or cannot — co-evolve when so many are opting out of science. How we address these questions may determine the fate of democratic societies in a world where excellence in science translates directly into both soft and hard power.

Science denial has little to do with science

My first experience with this kind of science opt-out (I’ll also call it “denial”) came in the late 2000s when I was writing a science blog for a major U.S. news outlet. Anytime I’d write a piece about climate change, the comments section would quickly fill up with the most aggressively ignorant opinions I’d ever encountered. People would claim the science was a hoax. They would claim scientists were only in it for the money. They would say things that even a freshman taking a planetary science class would know were glaringly wrong.

Being committed to the ideals of science communication, I did my best to engage with the commenters. I would explain what scientists knew about radiation transfer through an atmosphere (the basis of the greenhouse effect). I would lay out how hard-won evidence — from ice cores to tree rings — allowed us to unravel millennia of Earth’s response to changing atmospheric and ocean chemistry. Finally, I would detail how consensus works in science and how communities of researchers build a public understanding of their field.

None of it mattered.

One notable example of my encounter with science opt-out came when I tried engaging with a reader on a personal level. In response to a climate post, he had sent me an email telling me that I should be arrested for my climate lies. I replied and asked him about himself. What did he do for a living? He said he owned a dry-cleaning business. I asked some questions about the business. After a bit, I made a purposefully ridiculous claim about dry-cleaning chemicals. When he responded that I was clearly ignorant of the work he did every day, I said, “Yes, and that’s what your claims sound like to a climate scientist.”

The point was lost. Nothing would shake him from his beliefs. From this, and many other encounters, I learned that science denial is not about science — that reader and others I’ve engaged with expressed no curiosity about how planetary climates actually worked. Instead, it is about a kind of tribalism: If you identify as a member of certain groups — usually ones that have a particular political orientation — then you oppose certain kinds of science.

This opposition comes regardless of whether they know any of the deep (and often difficult) details required to make sweeping claims about that science. So, what might have been an interesting back-and-forth with a reader about what determines a planet’s temperature becomes a tiring slog through their fixations on Al Gore or long-refuted claims that 1970s climate science predicted “global cooling.”

Seeing was not believing

Despite these experiences, I still believed that once we all saw firsthand the reality that a field of science was predicting, denial would have to fall. Then came COVID-19. I was already watching the new resistance to vaccines rise with its all-too-predictable outcomes, like the 2017 measles outbreak at Disneyland . But with COVID-19, the willingness to ignore what was right before people’s eyes rose to a new level.

Before I go further, though, I want to be clear that the CDC and others in public health did make mistakes during this difficult period. It was, after all, a “novel” coronavirus and the first pandemic of the modern age. Also, I’m all in for discussions about whether and how some measures taken by public health officials went too far. If we don’t have these discussions, then how else can we learn what to do in the next pandemic? What we can’t argue over, however, is the reality of COVID-19 or the ability of the vaccines that scientists developed to save lives.

With COVID-19, just like with climate, lines were drawn, and tribalism kicked in. The famous cases of people dying of COVID-19 and still proudly proclaiming their resistance to a vaccine that might have saved them told the tale in no uncertain terms. They’d opted all the way out.

Now we live in a time when science denial inhabits the highest levels of power and receives broad acceptance. At the institutional level, climate science in the U.S. (along with many other types of science) is being decimated. The U.S. government lost 10,000 STEM PhDs in 2025 (compared to about 4,500 in 2024 ) in the wake of the present administration’s aggressive funding cuts to its own world-renowned scientific institutions. At the popular level, social media is awash with influencers routinely hosting guests claiming the Moon landings never happened.

As part of my work in science communication, I’ve appeared on podcasts associated with the “manosphere,” including The Joe Rogan Experience . Because of these appearances, I often have conversations with young men who have a clear interest in science, but who’ve also been led into strange vortices of science denial. “So, you really think we went to the Moon?” they ask. Or, “Scientists are always hiding the truth about stuff, right?”

I was not routinely fielding questions like these in 2010. There has been a shift in the cultural current. We now live in a kind of mirror-verse where opinions, if repeated often enough, can replace the decades of work needed to establish a scientific truth. Building off a narrative that falsely associates expertise with oppressive authority, influencers seeking clicks have driven viewers like the people I encounter into a haze of impossible claims presented as revealed truth.

So, where does it end? Surely there must be consequences for so many people opting out of science in a world that is, in fact, dominated by science.

The price of denial

Yes, there are consequences, but they aren’t occurring on an individual scale, as I expected them to a decade ago. Instead, they are playing out for society as a whole.

If you were interested in the cutting edge of science in 1600, you would have traveled to Italy. That is where wealthy government patrons were supporting Galileo and other scientists’ efforts to push the frontiers of telescope design, mechanics, and other fields. But if you were interested in the cutting edge of science in 1700, you did not go to Italy anymore. The baton of scientific excellence had already been passed to England and France. Likewise, if you wanted to be where the most important scientific discoveries were being made in 1900, you went to Germany, but by 1960, you would be on a plane to the U.S. instead.

The reasons for this ever-shifting localization of the best science have everything to do with a nation’s broad commitment to science. History shows that once a nation begins to slip in those commitments, the frontier of scientific progress moves elsewhere. Just as important, history shows that the nations making this commitment are the ones that prosper from the latest scientific breakthroughs.

It’s already becoming clear how the infection of science denial — of opting out of a commitment to science — is affecting the U.S. Because the current administration has embraced climate denial, it also remains in denial about the world’s ongoing energy transition away from fossil fuels. In 2025, global electric vehicle sales increased by 20% , but in the US, the growth rate was less than 10%. Today, the largest producer of new EVs is China.

Science and science leadership don’t stand still. When a society becomes infected with science denial, when its populace thinks it’s OK to opt out of treating science as a source of public truths, it elects leaders who lead with that vision of the world. But the bill always comes due. When those leaders slash science budgets for political reasons and create chaos in their own world-renowned scientific institutions, it becomes impossible to plan on the decades-long timescales required to ensure the nation is still a scientific leader well into the future.

Worse, the rest of the world is always watching. The best and brightest students from across the globe — the ones who used to come to your universities to learn and then stick around to start businesses — go where they will be supported and not harassed.

In the long run, the price you pay for science denial is the denial of your own scientific capacities.

This article Who pays the cost when Americans opt out of science? is featured on Big Think .

Full text

In the small city of Martigny is a wonderfully pleasant bridge named 'le Pont de la Bâtiaz'. Its outward beauty aside, it is the last wooden bridge in the entire French speaking canton of Valais that can still withstand vehicular usage.

Spanning the Drance river, several different iterations of the bridge have existed at the location. The original version was built in the 14th century, but was washed away during severe flooding in 1635. The bridge was rebuilt, but this newer version was destroyed by the break-up of the Giétroz glacier in 1818.

The Pont de la Bâtiaz was eventually rebuilt in 1829, utilizing larch wood arches, meaning it is also Valais's last remaining arched bridge. Further strengthening was undertaken in 1920, adding an impressive fortifying network of timber trestles to the structure that are still present today.

The bridge was built to afford easier access to the Chateau de la Bâtiaz, perched on the mountainside overlooking the Drance and Martigny. Being one of the city's most popular attractions, many visitors will trek up to the castle by traversing the bridge en route, somewhat unwittingly following a route that has been undertaken by many since the 1300s.

Full text

Rebecca Yarros, author of the widely popular fantasy romance book series Fourth Wing (The Empyrean series), announced the title of a new book called Threshing Day, which will be released on September 29, 2026.

Yarros originally revealed the hotly rumored book without a title, but with the ability to preorder back in April. Fans instantly speculated on what it was; Yarros had disclosed it was an "Untitled Empyrean" book, but that it was not book 4. Despite the lack of details, the preorders shot the book to #2 on Amazon .

It turns out the official title reveal was being held for Conscription Day, July 15, which is a day in the series where cadets need to prove themselves by surviving through a life-or-death challenge in order to become dragon riders.

Yarros shared the announcement and details in an Instagram post , stating the book will contain a collection of 13 stories from fan-favorite characters during their Threshing Day (the day they get their dragons).

The deluxe edition will have 16 original art pieces in full color by the artist Joe Requeza .

Yarros also confirmed Xaden's story – one of the main characters of the series, which has been a long-time POV request from readers – will be included in the book, as well as published on her website.

Yarros confirmed she is still in the process of writing book 4, and readers are waiting patiently for any release date news. Book 1 in The Empyrean series, Fourth Wing, was published on May 2, 2023. Book two, Iron Flame, came out on November 7, 2023, and book 3, Onyx Storm, released January 21, 2025.

Due to the bursting popularity of The Empyrean series and the fantasy romance genre in general, a Fourth Wing TV series is in the works at Amazon MGM Studios and Michael B. Jordan’s Outlier Society. It's unknown if any character details from Threshing Day will be included in the show.

For more on The Empyrean series, check out our Fourth Wing hub with everything from latest news to how to buy the books to cool board games to play with fellow dragon riders!

For those looking to get your gloved hands on Threshing Day, you can preorder the book right here , which will release in stores on September 29, 2026.

Jessie Wade is Associate Director of Editorial Programming at IGN. You can find her playing cozy games on her Switch or watching the latest rom-com and drama shows, as well as getting lost in way too many fantasy romance books. She would be a dragon rider at Basgiath War College (even though a Scribe also sounds cool).

Full text

Credit: Tushar Mehta / Android Authority

TL;DR

A recent report claims that Google Search’s AI Overviews and AI Mode are an “unacceptable risk” for children.

Google has offered a response, categorically denying many of the claims made in the report.

In a recent report , Common Sense Media’s Youth AI Safety Institute alleges that Google Search’s AI tools — AI Overviews and AI Mode — are unsafe for children. The nonprofit even went as far as to deem these features an “unacceptable risk.” Google has now responded to the report, categorically denying the claims.

A Google spokesperson has reached out to Android Authority to offer a statement regarding the Youth AI Safety Institute’s study. In that statement, the tech giant says: