James' World 2

Hmmmm … The Trump Administration  has made us second rate in the world!

Click the link below the picture

.

The warning, buried in an obscure government report this summer, was unflinching.

The Defense Department’s vaunted network of research laboratories — whose scientists helped develop satellite communication, radar technology, and even the computer mouse — was in trouble.

The labs lost a significant share of their staff last year, largely in response to the Trump administration’s efforts to thin the federal work force, the report found. Refilling critical positions was proving difficult due in part to President Trump’s demand that new hires be screened for their loyalty to his goals. The report, issued by the Pentagon, pointed to “potentially grave consequences for the future of national defense.”

The turmoil inside scientific research has extended beyond the Pentagon. The Energy Department, a key hub of nuclear and quantum research, has lost more than 1,000 scientists and technical staff. The National Science Foundation, for decades a primary backer of long-term, foundational research, has withheld more than $1 billion in funding. And at the National Institutes of Health, the biggest funder of medical research, officials delayed or canceled more than 2,000 grants to biomedical researchers focused on topics such as Alzheimer’s, cancer and other diseases.

Under Mr. Trump, the federal government is still spending roughly as much on research — about $200 billion this year — as the administrations that came before. Scientists across the country are still receiving grants; universities are still being funded. But beneath the surface, the system of federally funded science that helped make the United States a global superpower is under intense strain from Trump policies, jeopardizing the nation’s advantages in defense, medicine and technology, a New York Times examination has found.

The White House regularly proclaims that it is advancing American interests. Yet its actions are eroding the country’s scientific edge as global rivals challenge U.S. dominance in fields that will help define the 21st century, according to interviews with scientists, university leaders, government officials and analysts and a review of documents and budgets.

The damage is the byproduct of three pillars of Mr. Trump’s broader agenda.

One is the sweeping job cuts and grant cancellations engineered last year by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, the Elon Musk-led effort that viewed much of federal spending as wasteful and whose effects are still reverberating across the bureaucracy.

A second is the administration’s continued pressure on research universities, in which the White House used funding cuts to push schools into adhering to its demands for ideologically driven policy shifts.

The third is a campaign by Mr. Trump’s budget director, Russell T. Vought, to impose more political control over how the government spends money appropriated by Congress, further infusing politics into decisions around scientific research.

If not for the courts curbing the administration’s campaign against universities and lawmakers in both parties rejecting cuts to research funding, the impact on science would have been far deeper. Still, the effects of the broader agenda have rippled through nearly every facet of the nation’s research machine.

Aspiring scientists have seen their career paths thwarted, with fewer available spots for Ph.D. students. The number of Ph.D. applications from foreign students, typically a significant share of U.S. science programs, shrank by 21 percent this year at leading universities, according to data gathered for the Association of American Universities. Total Ph.D. admissions at those schools have dropped as universities try to make do with less resources.

Even the agencies working on topics that Mr. Trump and his aides have called priorities — including national defense, artificial intelligence, quantum computing and nuclear energy — have been depleted.

Taken together, the changes underscore how Mr. Trump’s policies have disrupted scientific research beyond the areas the administration has targeted more directly, such as vaccines and climate science, endangering U.S. power and pre-eminence.

By many measures, China is closing the gap with the United States as the world’s research leader. Some organizations that rank global universities show China’s best schools increasingly displacing American universities at the top. And the impact of Chinese research papers, as measured by citations from other scientists, has caught up with the United States, according to Clarivate, a data and analytics company.

By the time the full consequences of the administration’s actions become apparent, experts warn, it could be too late to fix. That’s because basic research funded by federal grants often takes decades to mature into the technology, medical treatments and consumer products that change American life.

Federally funded work on atomic clocks starting in the late 1940s, for example, paved the way for GPS technology. In 1976, federally funded research yielded a major discovery about the origins of cancer-causing genes, which led to a Nobel Prize and, two decades later, lifesaving cancer drugs. Some of the early precursors to artificial intelligence date to U.S.-backed research in the 1980s, which used an algorithm to teach neural networks to learn from mistakes.

“Science is the long game,” said Marcia McNutt, who was president of the National Academy of Sciences, the country’s top scientific advisory body, until this summer. “By the time we no longer win any Nobel Prizes, we will have lost the capacity to ever recover.”

In response to The Times’ reporting, officials from the White House, Pentagon and other science agencies disputed that administration policies were hampering science. Rather, said White House spokeswoman Liz Huston, the administration is reinvigorating American science by transforming organizations in need of change.

“President Trump is ushering in a new golden age of American science by modernizing our research institutions, refocusing on ambitious national missions, and fully leveraging super intelligence for scientific discovery,” Ms. Huston said in a statement, using Mr. Trump’s preferred term for artificial intelligence. “Revitalizing our national scientific enterprise requires supporting the best American scientists and funding the best research based on merit.”

.

President Harry S. Truman, seated center, congratulating scientists for their work in the Office of Scientific Research and Development, including director Vannevar Bush, rear third from left, author of the landmark report “Science: The Endless Frontier.” Credit…Byron Rollins/Associated Press

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

Buy a new car, and you’re free to repaint the exterior or add new wheels. But you aren’t supposed to edit the code controlling the dash display and other electronics. Once software is packaged up and shipped, it’s meant to stay the way the manufacturer intended it.

Morluto, a software engineer who spoke with Scientific American on the condition that he remain pseudonymous, took that as a challenge. His tool, Reverse Engineer Anything, or REA, lets artificial intelligence agents pull apart programs and reconstitute them to their users’ liking.

His interest began with game decompilation, a corner of reverse engineering in which fans painstakingly rebuild the code of video games. Such work has taken years without AI assistance. Now Morluto—whose name comes from an old video gaming alias—sees much broader uses. REA’s Discord community includes examples of people modifying everything from printers to televisions. The project has more than 400,000 stars on GitHub, a rough gauge of its popularity.

“We’ve gotten used to the fact that software is all around us, but none of it is anything that we can influence,” he says. He hopes AI-enabled reverse engineering could fix this: “If code is magic, then we are all capable of it,” Morluto says.

For decades, software makers have enjoyed a sense of security through tedium: taking apart a compiled program was such a grind that few people bothered. But the packaging also kept us out of the guts of our own gadgets. If anyone with a ChatGPT subscription or an open-weight model can hand off that work, control over a device tilts toward whoever’s curious to look inside—no matter their intentions. “This is going to pose a crisis for trade secret and copyright law,” says James Grimmelmann, a law professor at Cornell Tech.

Morluto sees this as a natural progression in the relationship between people and the technology they use. Throughout our conversation, he kept invoking tech founders who shaped his work—Apple’s Steve Jobs, Nvidia’s Jensen Huang, Y Combinator’s Paul Graham. “A lot of the creators in the past,” he says, “were all hackers and tinkerers, experimenters growing up.” He believes REA can turn its users into that kind of creator. “You are capable not just of magic but of creating beautiful things,” Morluto says.

In his view, tech has become an industry full of walled gardens, and thanks to AI, “their walls were not as robust as they had thought.”

Those walls come from the way software is bundled into executable programs. Before a program can run, the code people write in a programming language such as Python has to be translated, or compiled, into binary, a sequence of 1’s and 0’s that actually tells the computer what to do. Reverse engineering software involves running that translation backward, turning binary back into code a person can read in the process of decompilation.

Reverse engineers have long done this with tools such as Ghidra, a program the U.S. National Security Agency developed as part of its cybersecurity efforts. REA provides the pipelines that let an AI agent orchestrate Ghidra and other programs on its own.”Reverse engineering is a little bit like pattern matching,” says Morluto. “AI has extremely strong reasoning and pattern matching skills.”Before 2026 decompilation was the domain of a select few experts, according to Zion Basque, an assistant professor at the University of Georgia, who studies reverse engineering. Now, he says, nearly anyone can play. His research group developed Kuna, one of the decompilers REA can equip AI agents with. The kinds of reverse engineering he sees people doing with REA could have been done before, just never at this scale. “I haven’t seen what the limits of this are yet,” he says.

Done by hand, that kind of work would take experts months, if they managed it at all, according to Grimmelmann. Now the limit, he says, is what you can afford. “If you have the tokens, you can set it loose on almost any piece of software,” he says.

For some corners of the software industry, that’s an existential problem that the law cannot easily patch. Copyright protects a program’s code, Grimmelmann says, but not the algorithms and ideas the code implements. “This opens up a whole world of mods and remixes and interoperable new clients that really reduce the lead time people get from deploying software,” he says.

REA isn’t the only thing eating into that head start. In early October Anthropic’s Claude Opus 5.5 helped a developer build open-source clones of Adobe’s Creative Cloud programs, which are known for their tight controls and steep prices.

Joey Castillo, an open-source developer and technologist in residence at Cornell Tech, went after something smaller. He has reverse engineered various tools in the past, but his first brush with using AI to do it came when he tried to modify a smart ring he had bought in Shenzhen, China. He was impressed that the AI model could reverse engineer the ring and teach him at the same time. “I learned a lot just by watching Claude work,” he says.

The desire to tinker comes from wanting to take control of the things you buy, according to Castillo. “I bought this object, and it’s being gatekept from me,” he says. “Now I’m going to have the power to make it do what I want.”

Some of those gates serve an important purpose, though. Much as AI is proving adept at breaking into security systems, it is also very good at breaking things like digital rights management and the protected firmware baked into devices.

Projects like REA may also make it too easy for amateurs to gain a sort of synthetic expertise. Castillo and his open-source friends worry about people digging around in devices they don’t fully understand. “This is all going to be very fun and games until someone vibe codes firmware and it causes the battery to catch fire midflight,” Castillo says. He doubts AI models have the foresight that reverse engineering experts bring to deciding which modifications to make because AI “can only ‘yes, and.’ It can’t ‘no, but.’”

Since our first conversation with Morluto, some social media users have reported OpenAI and Anthropic banning or blocking their use of REA. In a reply on X, an OpenAI researcher called the block on reverse engineering “mostly accidental.”

Morluto isn’t worried. If anything, he says, the “fiasco” just brings more attention to the project and to the kind of discovery he was aiming for. “That’s the core of Reverse Engineer Anything,” he says. “It’s a road that leads you to question what it is that you want.”

Accidental or not, such obstacles are unlikely to stop people who really want to reverse engineer their devices. Castillo already has a fallback in GLM-5.3, an open-weight model from the Chinese company Z.ai. Once it’s downloaded, no one can take it away. “If Anthropic and OpenAI decide they’re going to ban my account for reverse engineering, I’m going to fire up GLM-5.3 and reverse engineer the smart ring,” he says, “because I think it’s really cool to make this thing do what I wanted.”

.

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

Take a fall photography walk through the landscape surrounding the Pool near the West 100th Street entrance.

Led by Art in the Park, participants will explore composition and perspective while photographing some of Central Park’s best fall foliage viewing, with red maples, sweetgums, and willows along the shoreline displaying spectacular color.

A Central Park Conservancy Tour Guide will share context about the landscape, wildlife, and history of the area.

Cost

Free

Type of Activity

Nature, Events

Tags

Fall, Nature Lovers, Parkwide

Location

West 100th Street and Central Park West

.

Take a fall photography walk

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Hmmmm … The Trump Administration Hurting people because they hate ObamaCare!

Click the link below the picture

.

Millions of Americans who depend on Obamacare for their health insurance face another double-digit price increase next year, adding to the financial toll that has already driven millions of others to drop coverage since last year.

The price increases largely reflect higher medical costs across the country. But they also are a signal of the latest blow to Obamacare under the Trump administration, which has overseen the expiration of tax credits that helped Americans pay for coverage and has erected new barriers to enrollment in an effort to root out what it describes as widespread fraud.

The average price of health insurance in the Obamacare marketplaces will rise by 13 percent next year, according to an analysis on Friday by KFF, the health research group.

The Trump administration on Friday published new prices for 2027 in 30 states with markets managed by the federal government. Using that data and state figures, KFF calculated the increase nationwide.

The large premium increases for Obamacare plans are similar to changes expected in other health insurance markets, though slightly higher. Reports by several consulting firms projected that premiums for employer plans, which cover around 150 million people, could go up by about 10 percent in 2027. Premiums for federal workers are increasing by more than 10 percent.

Public opinion polls have shown that the cost of health care has been among voters’ top economic concerns going into the midterm elections on Tuesday. In a recent poll from KFF, about 60 percent of registered voters said they were worried about being able to afford health care for themselves and their families.

Kate and Mark Dwyer, a couple in rural Oregon, have been wrestling with whether their budget can handle another annual increase. They had already shifted to the cheapest available Obamacare plan, leaving them on the hook for thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs.

Next year, the least expensive plan will increase their costs by more than $500 a month, to nearly $3,000, Ms. Dwyer said. That amounts to more than a third of her earnings at a nonprofit.

“We are looking at going without next year,” Ms. Dwyer said. “There is no middle ground. It’s either $3,000 or nothing.”

In an apparent nod to such concerns, the Trump administration sent many Obamacare customers $500 checks this month to offset their insurance premiums — a one-time payment just before the election.

Across the private and public health sectors, the increases have been driven by rising hospital prices, high payments under a consumer protection law that changed how some doctors are compensated, and the growing use of artificial intelligence in doctors’ offices, according to benefits consultants and industry analysts. Several large employers also pointed to a rising bill for expensive specialty prescriptions, like cancer drugs and GLP-1 medicines.

The Trump administration released the numbers quietly on Friday afternoon as a data file. A government fact sheet about open enrollment published shortly afterward did not mention the premium increase, but noted that three-quarters of Obamacare customers with subsidies can still find plans for less than $50 a month.

Open enrollment and shopping for plans begins Sunday, just two days before the midterm elections, in which affordability and the higher prices for groceries, gasoline and health care have been a central issue.Although the federal government reported that 19.2 million people were enrolled in Obamacare coverage early this year, more recent estimates indicate a lower total.

Roughly 10 percent are older consumers who earned more than $63,840, a group largely composed of self-employed workers, such as chiropractors, dentists, ranchers and farmers, as well as many early retirees. Many already faced premium increases exceeding $1,000 a month in 2026.

“This is a really small number of people,” said Cynthia Cox, the director of KFF’s program on the Affordable Care Act. “But these people are getting hit the hardest by rising health care costs, and they don’t get any help.”

The average cost for the cheapest bronze plan with a high deductible will be about $700 a month for a 50-year-old single person, according to Ms. Cox.

Obamacare customers who earn less than $64,000 a year make up most of the people enrolled in the program and will still benefit from income-based subsidies and will not have to pay higher out-of-pocket premium costs next year. For those people, taxpayer dollars will cover the extra cost.

But many with strained household budgets are struggling to pay their portion since their Obamacare premiums went up in 2026, and many have been forced to switch to plans with higher deductibles.

In 2026, premiums rose by an average of 26 percent, with the cost for all consumers more than doubling on average for the same plan, after the Republican-led Congress decided to let temporary federal subsidies expire.

Recent estimates from KFF, based on insurance filings with regulators, suggest that enrollment fell by nearly five million people, as of June.

A recent large survey released by the Commonwealth Fund, a foundation and research group that supports the Affordable Care Act, found the uninsured rate among working-age adults had risen since two years ago.

Democrats forced a record 43-day government shutdown last year, as they tried to leverage government funding on an extension of the subsidies or health care tax credits. Aides to the House minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, a Democrat from New York, have said he will schedule a vote to restore the extra subsidies in the first days of the next Congress if Democrats win a majority in the midterm elections.

The data on premium costs were published on Friday just before the start of next year’s enrollment period, which runs from Nov. 1 to Jan. 15. People in most states who want to buy Obamacare insurance for next year need to sign up during that period. (A handful of states keep the enrollment period open longer.)

Increases for consumers who renew their current plans could be higher than the average increase.

“We really do encourage people to shop and compare” among the plans they are offered, said Anthony Wright, the executive director for Families USA, a left-leaning consumer advocacy group. The average price increase can mask tremendous variation in the cost of a policy, he said.

To lower the cost of coverage, many people switched from more comprehensive plans to so-called bronze coverage this year, which often offers lower premiums and much higher deductibles. The average A.C.A. deductible rose to a record high of nearly $4,000 in 2026. As they consider plans for next year, those people may no longer be able to avoid a price increase by switching to a skimpier plan.

Caroline Pearson, the executive director at the Peterson Center on Healthcare, a group focused on lowering health care spending, said she had been watching the market closely for signs of instability, given last year’s big price shock. But she described the newly published increase as “consistent with the rate increases we are expecting” for employers and their workers.

But few people covered by an employer health plan are exposed to the full cost of insurance like unsubsidized Obamacare consumers. Employers pick up more than half of the tab for the typical person in work-based coverage, and such insurance premiums are deductible from people’s taxes.

Administration officials attribute some of that drop-off to its efforts to reduce fraudulent enrollment, arguing that brokers had enrolled fake consumers in subsidized coverage.

In September, Vice President JD Vance announced the government had canceled coverage that he said brokers arranged for about 750,000 people whose records lacked Social Security numbers and who had not used or contacted their health insurer through August. He and other administration officials argued there was evidence of additional fraud.

But the Commonwealth survey suggests that some people who have dropped Obamacare coverage may now be going without any health insurance.

.

The average price of health insurance in the Obamacare marketplaces will rise by 13 percent next year. Credit…Scott McIntyre for The New York Times

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

It is a windy day in London when I meet physicist Sabrina Pasterski on the sidelines of a conference – which turns out to be a problem. We had agreed to chat in a tent, but the canvas is flapping so loudly that we can barely hear each other. In the end, we retreat to a nearby church hall.

But then again, maybe this ad-hoc venue is strangely fitting. As a choir sings tunefully about heaven a few doors down, Pasterski tells me that her work is all about the celestial sphere – and has something in common with the Christian concept of the Holy Trinity, the idea that God is three persons in one.

“Duality is almost like the Trinity,” Pasterski tells me, referring to one of the principles at the core of her work. “I’m not religious, but I was raised Catholic. It’s the sense that there can be different manifestations of something equivalent.”

It isn’t the introduction I expected to Pasterski’s research, a subtle and complex idea known as celestial holography, which seeks to show how two separate descriptions in physics can be equivalent. But given that she is often called “the next Einstein” in the press in reference to her fierce intellect, I am excited to try to wrap my mind around her work, regardless of the venue.

It helps to start with the two key pillars of physics. On the one hand, there is general relativity, Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity, the key ingredient of which is a smoothly curving fabric of space-time. On the other, quantum theory wonderfully explains the world of particles and envisages reality as not smooth at all, but instead coming in chunks with discrete amounts of energy. Suffice it to say that both are fundamentally incompatible.

The dearest wish of many a physicist would be to find a way to unify the two, and so produce a theory of quantum gravity. That is what Juan Maldacena was attempting back in 1997 when he proposed an exciting kind of duality.

Imagine a three-dimensional cylinder of space-time with a two-dimensional surface. Maldacena constructed a model like this where, inside the volume of the cylinder, you have a description of space, time, particles, gravity – the lot – but the surface is purely quantum. But here was the crucial point: he showed that the two descriptions of the model – the surface and the internal volume – were equivalent. They were a duality, two inter-translatable descriptions of the same thing. Put another way, it suggested that the universe was like a hologram: that the reality we live in could merely be a projection of a simpler, lower-dimensional foundation.

All very exciting. The only trouble was that Maldacena’s idea – which came to be known as the AdS/CFT correspondence – worked for only a specific type of curved space-time. And that isn’t the same as the “flat” kind we really live in. Inevitably, physicists have wondered if the trick could be made to work for the real universe. It has been devilishly hard to pull off, but that is what celestial holography promises.

Meeting Pasterski, it is obvious she has a formidable brain. She speaks so quickly, it’s as if time is running out. And as she speaks, she gesticulates, energy levels sky-high as sharp gel nails scratch the air between us. My impression is that she processes information faster than the average person. I begin by asking how she feels about being labelled the next Einstein? “It’s bullshit,” she says, smiling. “I don’t think I deserve it, first of all. The positive I try to turn it into now is that hype gets you a platform.”

This energy appears to have driven her since she was a child. At a young age, she told her parents she wanted a flying broomstick; in response, they got her flying lessons. At 12, she began to build her own plane from a kit, and by 16, she could fly it. She dreamed of working for Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic or SpaceX, viewing the founders of those companies as heroes. As a young adult, her version of rebellion was to then turn against this idea – “you’re basically just helping them build their thing” – and decide to major not in aerospace engineering, but in physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology instead.

I wonder if these tech founders are still her heroes? She will always appreciate Jeff Bezos, she says. He encouraged her as a child, penning a “nice letter”. But when it comes to Elon Musk, she is more circumspect, going back and forth. “A lot more people have seen [his] flaws, and yet he has done a lot of cool stuff,” she says. But the fact that “someone like him can do all that cool shit”, she says, raises the question, “Why can’t we?”

Pasterski began to lay some of the mathematical groundwork for celestial holography during her PhD with Andrew Strominger at Harvard University in around 2018, but she now works at the Perimeter Institute in Ontario, Canada. Pasterski’s hypothesis starts with particle collisions. She imagines the debris spraying off in all directions and that each piece of quantum shrapnel can be marked as a point on a sphere infinitely far away, along with information such as energy. Pasterski thinks of this sphere as being essentially like the night sky. “You see the stars, you think of them as being infinitely far away, like a sphere around you,” she says. “That 2D sphere is the celestial sphere.”

Instead of wrestling with the mess in the middle, celestial holography reconstructs the entire universe from the pattern written around the edge. You can think of it like a new, improved version of Maldacena’s idea, except with a sphere that, this time, corresponds to the real space we live in. At least, almost. “I also cheat,” admits Pasterski. We know that real space is expanding ever-faster, but hers isn’t.

Over the past few years, Pasterski has been developing ways to translate between the boundary of the sphere and real space. Initially, the focus was on modelling how single particles behave, but she and Justin Kulp at Stony Brook University in New York have recently taken the big step of showing how to do this for multiple particles.

She has also been exploring the concept of entanglement, the mysterious quantum process in which two particles can be connected so that if you measure one, you can immediately infer something about its partner – even if they are very far apart. In AdS/CFT, physicists have shown that entanglement between quantum particles at the boundary can directly produce the fuller dimensional world we experience. In celestial holography, things are more complicated. “That’s really well understood in AdS/CFT,” says Pasterski. “It’s harder to generalise to flat space.”

One reason it’s so tricky is that it is hard to keep the boundary part of celestial holography free of gravity – it isn’t a neat wall of a box or a cylinder like it is in Maldacena’s theory, it is a sphere infinitely far away. This makes the mathematics messier. But Pasterski and her colleagues have made a start in working it out, in particular, the connection between the entanglement present on the boundary of the sphere and the geometry of flat space-time. In the models they studied, the flat-space region was associated with reduced entanglement in the boundary compared with what you get when you use AdS/CFT.

.

Gabriela Secara/Perimeter Institute

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

Key Points

• Your body may be better able to handle carbs early in the day, but fruit can fit anytime.
• Pair fruit with protein, fat and fiber to reduce any blood sugar spikes.
• Moving your body after eating fruit can help with better blood sugar.

If you have diabetes, you may have wondered whether eating an apple at breakfast is better for your blood sugar than enjoying one after dinner. The short answer is that fruit consumed earlier in the day may offer some metabolic advantages, but most experts say there’s no universally best time to eat fruit.

“Research suggests our bodies are generally better at handling carbohydrates earlier in the day, when insulin sensitivity tends to be higher,” says Erin Palinski-Wade, RD, CDCES. “But that doesn’t mean you need to stop eating fruit after a certain time. I tell my patients that what matters more is how much fruit you’re eating, what you’re pairing it with, and your overall eating pattern,” she concludes.

That flexibility matters, especially when you consider that only about 12% of U.S. adults meet fruit intake recommendations.1 Rather than worrying about the clock, let’s look at how to make fruit work for your blood sugar.

Why Earlier in the Day May Be Best for Eating Fruit

Adding fruit to an earlier meal or snack, such as breakfast or lunch, is a reasonable place to start if you want to support your blood sugar while still enjoying your favorite fruits. Research suggests that your body’s ability to process glucose changes throughout the day, with carbs generally better tolerated earlier than later.

Consider the following reasons why enjoying fruit earlier in the day, especially as part of a balanced meal or snack, may be helpful.

1. Your Body May Handle Carbohydrates Better Earlier in the Day

Your body’s internal clock does more than tell you when to wake up and get sleepy. It also regulates hormones and metabolic processes involved in digestion and glucose control. Insulin sensitivity, or the degree to which your cells respond to insulin, varies throughout the day.

Research suggests that glucose tolerance is generally better earlier in the day than during the biological evening and night. That means the same carbohydrate-containing meal may produce a different blood sugar response depending on when you eat it.2 This is one reason that adding strawberries to your oatmeal in the morning or enjoying an apple with lunch may be a useful strategy for some people with diabetes.

But don’t mistake this general advice for a hard-and-fast rule. Your sleep schedule, work hours, medications and individual glucose patterns play a big role when deciding how your body responds to a nutritional change. For example, if you’re eating a bowl of berries after dinner and your blood sugar is within target range in the mornings, you don’t necessarily need to change anything.

2. It’s an Opportunity to Pair Fruit with Other Blood Sugar–Friendly Foods

Whole fruit naturally contains carbohydrates, including natural sugars. Fruit also provides fiber, water, vitamins, minerals and other beneficial plant compounds. Eating it alongside protein, healthy fats and additional fiber can make a snack more satisfying and change how quickly the meal is digested.3

“Enjoying fruit as part of a balanced meal, rather than eating a large portion on its own, can be a simple way to help minimize blood sugar spikes,” Palinski-Wade says. For example, consider the difference between eating an apple by itself and pairing apple slices with peanut butter. Or compare a handful of berries to eating them with a bowl of plain Greek yogurt and chopped nuts. You’ll get fruit either way, but the paired options also supply protein and fat. If you notice that fruit by itself leaves you hungry shortly afterward or produces a larger glucose rise than you’d like, try pairing it with another food.

3. You Are More Likely to Move After Eating Fruit Earlier in the Day

Physical activity is another piece of the blood sugar puzzle. After breakfast, you’re likely heading into a day of errands, work, walking the dog or chasing after your kids. After a late-night snack, you may be settling into the couch or bed for the night. That difference in activity matters for blood glucose.

When you move, your muscles pull glucose from your bloodstream to use for energy. This helps your body manage the carbohydrates you eat, including the natural sugars in fruit. “If your morning routine includes any form of exercise, whether a quick walk around the block or a strength session, you can expect a smaller glucose spike from any carbohydrates you’re eating, including fruit,” says Kelsey Kunik, RD. “Even a 10-minute brisk walk after eating breakfast or a snack can improve your blood sugar, as it becomes easier for your muscles to draw glucose out of the bloodstream.”4

Eating fruit earlier in the day may give you more opportunities to move afterward, whether that means taking a walk after breakfast, doing a few body-weight squats between meetings or strolling around the grocery store. These small bursts of activity can add up, even if you’re not fitting in a huge workout later.

.

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

American spy agencies had gathered striking intelligence.

A top executive at a Singapore-based data center company was under scrutiny for possibly steering advanced Nvidia A.I. chips to China. And now American officials had concluded that she was a Chinese intelligence asset, funneling information to Beijing.

But what came next was even more alarming. Surveillance of the executive, Alice Huang or Huang Le, a Chinese citizen, revealed that she had developed a close relationship with Jensen Huang, Nvidia’s chief executive.

For years, Washington has worked to deny China the technology needed to match or surpass the United States in the intense global competition for superiority in artificial intelligence. The discovery that Beijing was getting reports from someone with direct access to Mr. Huang, one of the most powerful figures in the A.I. revolution as well as an influential ally of President Trump’s, set off alarms at the White House.

Roughly a year ago, Mr. Trump was briefed about the intelligence findings, which have not been previously reported, and chose not to do anything with the information. Mr. Trump has been wary of disrupting Nvidia’s chip sales, which are helping to drive the economy and the stock market, and of further complicating the trading relationship with China.

This account is based on interviews with people briefed on the surveillance, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the findings are drawn from classified intelligence, as well as other officials and industry executives and analysts.

American officials already suspected that Ms. Huang was helping China evade constraints on its ability to gain access to advanced A.I. chips.

But the revelation that she was feeding information directly to Beijing raised more troubling possibilities, including that Mr. Huang had insights into Mr. Trump’s thinking on an issue of vital importance to both nations, one likely to come up when the president visits China next month. And it left questions about whether she could be gleaning information about Nvidia, which as much as any company accounts for the lead the United States has maintained in developing cutting-edge A.I. models.

Mr. Huang has not received a defensive briefing, warnings sometimes given to Americans who are being targeted by foreign intelligence services, people briefed on the surveillance said.

The surveillance of Ms. Huang continues, they said, and companies that have been affiliated with her continued this year to purchase Nvidia chips.

Nvidia said the company that employed Ms. Huang, Megaspeed, was like any other regional customer and that it had previously investigated and debunked claims the Singaporean company was smuggling chips to China. John Rizzo, a spokesman for Nvidia, said: “Jensen’s interactions with Ms. Huang are not unusual or unexpected. Meetings with customers are part of a C.E.O.’s job; Jensen talks with thousands of customer executives every year.”

Nvidia is “confident that if the U.S. government believes that any person is a threat to American industry, it would let us know,” Mr. Rizzo said. Customers like Megaspeed, he added, “receive ordinary business information — not sensitive Nvidia trade secrets — and zero information relevant to national security.”

The White House, the C.I.A. and the National Security Agency all declined to comment. In a statement to The New York Times, Megaspeed said that its “current leadership” takes the matter “extremely seriously and is committed to getting to the facts behind these allegations.” It added that “outside counsel has been retained to conduct a thorough internal investigation and has notified the U.S. government that we are fully committed to cooperating.”

Ms. Huang did not respond to requests for comment. It is not clear how closely she is still connected to Megaspeed. A person familiar with Megaspeed’s operations said that Ms. Huang had become less active in the company in the wake of the American investigations.

Asked about the American conclusion that Ms. Huang has been collecting intelligence on behalf of Beijing, Liu Chang, the spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, said the United States was pursuing a campaign of “groundless smears and slanders” against China.

When Mr. Trump was initially briefed on the intelligence last year, U.S. officials did not believe the Nvidia executive knew that Ms. Huang was gathering information for the Chinese. It is unclear whether intelligence officials have since updated their assessment, but some senior officials inside the Trump administration doubt that Mr. Huang could have remained unaware of what they had concluded was her intelligence-gathering role for China.

Questions about whether Megaspeed was providing A.I. chips to China became public through articles published last year by The New York Times and Bloomberg News.

Mr. Huang has successfully lobbied the administration during Mr. Trump’s second term to loosen regulations on artificial intelligence companies and roll back tighter restrictions on the sales of Nvidia’s chips to China. He also negotiated a deal with Mr. Trump that allowed the U.S. government to take a 25 percent stake of certain Nvidia chips that the government allows to be sold to China.

The close relationship between the president and Mr. Huang has impeded efforts to clamp down on Nvidia’s chip sales abroad, current and former U.S. officials said. They described some investigations and proposed trade sanctions involving China or Nvidia as having ground to a halt within the Commerce Department, the agency in charge of regulating chip exports.Nvidia has said that it complies with the law and that there is no evidence of its chips being smuggled to China. Mr. Rizzo said China’s government has “blocked U.S. AI chips, protecting its own industry.”

.

Jensen Huang, the chief executive of Nvidia, is influential at the White House on technology policy and has developed a close relationship with President Trump. Credit…Manuel Orbegozo for The New York Times

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________