Up From Facebook

“ Prolonged, uninterrupted sedentary behavior was associated with a significantly increased likelihood of dying of cancer, a study of more than 90,000 people showed.   “Every additional hour of prolonged sedentary behavior per day was linked with a 10% higher hazard of cancer mortality. Replacing an hour of sedentary behavior daily with light physical activity or with 30 minutes of moderate physical activity was associated with reduced cancer mortality risk -- which was 22% lower with an additional 5 minutes of vigorous physical activity.” How did they measure physical activity? "The main strength is the use of a reliable instrument [ accelerometer ] to measure people's sedentary and active behavior," Richardson said in a statement on the Science Media Centre. "Studies such as these often use self-reported activity, which is an unreliable way of measuring behavior.” Move your body, peeps. https://www.medpagetoday.com/primarycare/exercisefitness/122041?xid=nl_mpt_DHE_...

I started drinking coffee in high school. Over time, the amount increased, so that by about 15 years ago, I was drinking three pots of coffee a day. It was then that I started experiencing acid reflux. Upon learning that acid reflux is a risk factor for esophageal cancer, I quit cold turkey. Within a week, I found myself sleeping more soundly and waking up completely refreshed. Since then, I’ve never used an alarm clock. After a few months, I started drinking a mug of coffee with breakfast and another mug of coffee with lunch. No coffee after lunch. That’s how its been ever since. I’m glad I was able to resume the coffee habit after reading about a recent study from U.K. Biobank: “ Coffee drinking was associated with lower risks of serious liver disease and related mortality, with the more one consumes the better, data from the U.K. Biobank suggested.   “Over a median 13-year follow-up, drinking five or more cups of coffee per day was tied to reduced risks of cirrhosis (HR 0.68, 95...

Trump refused to sign a housing bill passed by bipartisan veto-proof majorities. But if he refuses to sign it and refuses to veto it, it becomes law. “Speaker Mike Johnson says the   landmark housing affordability package Congress passed earlier this month will become law — and that Republicans won’t have to take an uncomfortable vote to override a presidential veto to make that happen.     “In an interview Monday night, Johnson said President Donald Trump is still “deciding” whether he’ll sign the bipartisan housing bill or just let it go into effect within 10 days of receiving the legislation while Congress is in session. ““There won’t be a veto,” he said. “He’s just trying to decide whether he’s signing it or not. “Shortly thereafter, Johnson reiterated he believed the bill will become law “Trump is withholding his signature to extort Congress over. Trump’s voter-suppression legislation. OK, but if he does nothing at all, it [will] become law.” Not exactly a cliff-hang...

  Ford increasingly relied on AI-driven inspection systems to streamline production and address quality control issues. How’d that work out? “ Ford   has admitted to rehiring hundreds of human workers after its aggressive   AI   adoption strategy backfired.   “The US automaker hired over 350 veteran engineers, referred to internally as “gray beards”, over the past three years in order to address mistakes made by automated systems.   “The staff will lead quality reviews after the automation issues cost the company billions of dollars,   Bloomberg   reported, while some workers will also help improve and train the AI systems.” And how is *that* working out? “After rehiring experienced engineers, Ford experienced a marked improvement in its quality standards. “According to the latest J.D. Power Initial Quality Survey, an annual automotive benchmark that measures the quality of new vehicles, Ford ranked top among mainstream brands – the first time it ...

Apparently, the Supreme Court has decided that what the Constitution *really meant* all along was “disclosure for thee, but not for the VIPs with checkbooks the size of small nations.” Because despite decades of rulings affirming that states can, in fact, require donor transparency to keep democracy from smelling like week‑old fish, the Court has now treated California’s disclosure law—originally enforced back when Kamala Harris was state attorney general—as though it were some kind of unconstitutional boogeyman hiding under a billionaire’s bed. Maybe I’m reading the Constitution wrong, but I’m fairly certain the “informational interest” the Court once praised didn’t mean “voters get information only when it’s convenient for wealthy donors,” yet here we are, pretending that sunlight is dangerous and secrecy is patriotic. ~Lenore Schille

The question I get most often when speaking about Watergate is a version of “what would happen if Watergate happened today with Fox News?” And my answer is always very simple: Nixon would have survived. Not because he didn’t deserve to be forced from office, or because there was a Deep State campaign against him, but because today (a) the conservative noise machine would have defended Nixon and undermined the investigation and (b) because there’s no longer any Republicans left who act for the country over the party. ~Garrett M. Graff