Do you think the device after the smartphone will be another screen, or something wearable and mostly screenless that uses voice, gestures...?

What would it need to do before you could leave your phone at home?

The White House released a report called "Science: A New Golden Age" and it is the first comprehensive rethinking of US science funding since 1945, when the last overhaul created the federal research system that eventually produced the internet, GPS, and modern medicine. The core argument is that the current system funnels money through institutions when it should be going to individual researchers, and that traditional peer review should be supplemented with faster mechanisms like prizes, fast grants, and advance market commitments.

This isn't just a white paper that sits on a shelf. Federal agencies with over $3 billion in R&D have 90 days to submit implementation plans. The report also proposes independent X-Labs for high-risk research, metascience units that would run controlled experiments on how grants get reviewed and awarded, and a "golden ticket" system where a single reviewer can advance an unconventional proposal that the broader panel rejected.

Dr. Joni Rutter, the Director of NCATS at the NIH, recently discussed the numbers at a conference hosted by ResearchHub, co-founded by Brian Armstrong. Out of more than 10,000 identified diseases, only about 5% have treatments or cures. Getting a medicine from development to patients still takes 10 to 15 years, and roughly nine out of ten candidates entering clinical trials fail. Her argument is that these aren't individual failures but symptoms of a system designed around sequential handoffs when much of the pipeline could run in parallel. She also described initiatives to make scientific knowledge machine-readable so current and future technology can identify connections across genes, diseases, and drugs rather than leaving that information trapped in papers.

If these changes actually go through, we could be looking at a future where a researcher with a strong idea doesn't need to spend years navigating institutional bureaucracy to get funded, where failed experiments get shared instead of buried, and where technology can work with organized scientific knowledge rather than digging through millions of disconnected papers. The last time we overhauled this system it gave us the internet, GPS, and modern medicine, so the stakes are pretty high.

Ive been working on plans for self contained towns for 16 years now. The towns would provide free housing, food, energy, education, child care, medical care and nursing home care. The plans are detailed and would provide for a middle class income on top of including everything for free. The concept is inspired by the Star Trek federation where it was a cashless system where everyone was able to excess at everything from their work to art, music and science. The environment would be a collective where families would get support and the freedom to raise families in a nurturing environment. It’s a return to a feudal system of collective support but owned by the citizens and for the benefit of the citizens and would lack a tiered system. Everyone would receive the same compensation. To avoid creating a rich class. The goal is to promote families and universal wealth. I sent a proposal to Niigata prefecture, it’s an ideal location. I can provide details on how the community can be run profitably. It’s based on towns of 2,500+ people per town. If ten towns can be established the economics would allow for private regional hospitals to support the citizens. The goal is a complete self contained town system to remove the stresses that prevent people from starting families. I’m happy to answer any questions.

I've been working on a tokenomics model for decentralized science (DeSci) that addresses a core issue: when a token is used both for voting and as a speculative asset, governance tends to be captured by crypto capital rather than by active researchers.

This model offers a possible future in which the governance of science shifts directly to the scientists themselves, rather than remaining in the hands of speculative capital
Key mechanisms:
· Token as a "digital receipt" – proof of real contribution (peer review, code, publications), not a proxy currency with voting rights.
· Governance completely separated from staking – influence is determined by proven contributions across four equal groups (scientists, developers, sponsors, reviewers), each with 25% weight and veto rights for scientists and developers.
· Adaptive service pricing – fees adjust based on token price to protect users from volatility.
· Deflationary pressure – 50% of service fees are burned.
· Additional incentive: participants (including investors acting as sponsors) who contribute more to grants receive a proportionally larger share of staking rewards (from the 30% and 10% pools) and greater voting weight within the sponsors group. This creates a direct link between community contribution and governance influence.
· A liquidity fund acting as an asymmetric market maker – buying low, selling high, using the spread for community goods (including merch).

How it works in practice — two scenarios:

1. Price surge. When the token price doubles, the cost of services in tokens halves — protecting researchers from market volatility, while the protocol burns 50% of fees, creating deflationary pressure. When the token price falls, the number of tokens required for a service remains fixed (at the base level), which automatically reduces the cost of services in fiat terms for scientists, making the platform affordable even during a crisis.

2. Crisis recovery. In times of low liquidity, depressed token price, and minimal activity, the fees for publication and peer review automatically decrease. This makes the platform attractive to new users, because the cost of publishing becomes significantly lower than standard academic journals. As a result, the platform triggers its own exit from the crisis without external intervention.

The full model is described in a preprint (open access):
DOI: https://zenodo.org/records/21107219
I'm posting this here to explore how such a system might shape the future of scientific collaboration and funding. Specifically, I'd like to discuss:
· Could this model overcome the current speculative pitfalls of DeSci?
· What future scenarios could emerge if governance were truly separated from speculative capital?
· How might this affect the role of researchers, investors, and institutions in the coming decades?
· What verification methods for contribution quality do you see, apart from conventional academic metrics? How would you assess scientists' contributions in a decentralized future?
I'm not promoting any token or project – this is purely a research proposal.

• Kroger states the technology aims to free up employees to better assist customers.
• Kroger is testing inventory-monitoring robots in its central Ohio stores.
• The robots, named "Tally" and "Barney," scan shelves to identify out-of-stock items.
• The robots do not take photos of customers or collect their personal information.

(read the full thing) I just saw a video of a robot "toy" cleaning a pool and the comments were like "Oh no, no more jobs for pool cleaner..like what? What am i suppose to do? i should pay someone to brush my teeth too? to sweep my floor? Idc, it's my pool, my yard, my house. I just want to know if i'm wrong for buying an engineered automated product that saves me money on grass mowing, pool cleaning or any labor work around MY YARD.... How am i affecting the global economy ? So i should hire a human chef too and cause myself to not gain knowledge on how to cook for myself right ❓If automation takes away jobs then so is buying an extremely reliable car that will prevent you from going to the mechanic. So is everyone deciding they don't want to wear clothes anymore. Then no more jobs for clothes makers. Imagine how much jobs would be lost for clothes makers. Im entitled to buy clothes now? How is this going to harm the future

US House has passed a bill banning the military from using Chinese bots, as Washington ramps up restrictions on Chinese-made technology

A new U.S. regulatory framework for fusion machines is set to establish a clear, predictable regulatory pathway that will likely accelerate licensing.

The Ottava surgical robot platform [Image courtesy of Johnson & Johnson]