An international team of scientists in South China accidentally discovered the oldest terrestrial fossil ever found, about three times more ancient than the oldest known dinosaur.
Investigations are still ongoing and observations will need to be independently verified, but the international team argues the long thread-like fingers of this ancient organism look a lot like fungi.
Whatever it is, the eukaryote appears to have fossilised on land roughly 635 million years ago, just as Earth was recovering from a global ice age.
During this massive glaciation event, our planet resembled a big snowball, its oceans sealed from the Sun by more than a kilometre (0.6 miles) of solid ice. And then, in a geologic ‘flash’, our world began to inexplicably thaw, allowing life to thrive on land for the first time.
Fungi might have been among the first life forms to colonise that fresh space. The date of this new microfossil certainly supports the emerging idea that some fungi-like organisms ditched the oceans for a life on land even before plants.
In fact, this transition might have been what helped our planet recover from such a catastrophic ice age.
“If our interpretation is correct, it will be helpful for understanding the paleoclimate change and early life evolution,” says geobiologist Tian Gan, from the Virginia Tech College of Science.
Today, the early evolution of fungi remains a big mystery, in large part because without bones or shells, these organisms do not fossilise easily. Not too long ago, many scientists didn’t even think it was possible for fungi to last that long.
The genome of modern-day fungi suggests their common ancestor lived over a billion years ago, branching off from animals at that time, but unfortunately, there could be a 600 million year break before the first obvious fungi fossil shows up in our records.
In recent years, a stream of intriguing and contentious discoveries have helped bridge that gap.
In 2019, scientists reported the discovery of a fungi-like fossil in Canada, which had fossilised a billion years ago in an estuary. The implications were huge – namely that the common ancestor of fungi may have been around much earlier than the common ancestor of plants.
In 2020, a similar fossil with a resemblance to fungi was found in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and it was fossilised in a lagoon or lake between 810 and 715 million years ago.
Controversy still exists over whether or not these ancient organisms were actually fungi, and the new microfossil found in China will no doubt spur similar debate. After carefully comparing the organism’s features to other fossils and living life forms, the authors identify it is a eukaryote and “probable fungi”.
“We would like to leave things open for other possibilities, as a part of our scientific inquiry,” says geoscientist Shuhai Xiao from Virginia Tech.
“The best way to put it is that perhaps we have not disapproved that they are fungi, but they are the best interpretation that we have at the moment.”
That said, the new discovery provides more evidence that fungi-like organisms may have predated plants on land.
“The question used to be: ‘Were there fungi in the terrestrial realm before the rise of terrestrial plants’,” explains Xiao.
“And I think our study suggests yes.”
The next question is: How did that fungi survive?
Today, many species of terrestrial fungi are incapable of photosynthesis. As such, they rely on a mutualistic relationship with the roots of plants, exchanging water and nutrients from rocks and other tough organic matter for carbohydrates.
Because of this relationship, it was thought that plants and fungi emerged together to help populate the land. But the oldest terrestrial plant fossil only dates to 470 million years ago.
The recently unearthed fungi-like microfossil is much older than that and was found hidden within the small cavities of limestone dolostone rocks, located in the Doushantuo Formation in South China.
The rock in which the fossil was found appears to have been deposited roughly 635 million years ago, after our snowball Earth had melted. Once open to the elements, the authors suspect carbonate cement began to fill in the cavities between the sheets of limestone, possibly entombing the micro-organisms living inside these bubbles.
These fungi-like life forms might even have roomed with other terrestrial micro-organisms, which were also widespread at the time, such as cyanobacteria or green algae.
If fungi-like animals were equally ubiquitous, then it’s possible these life forms helped accelerate chemical weathering, delivering phosphorus to the seas and triggering a wave of bioproductivity in the marine environment.
On land, they might have even helped unearth clay minerals for carbon sequestration in Earth’s soil, making a fertile environment for plants and animals and possibly changing the very atmosphere of our planet.
“Thus,” the authors conclude, “the Doushantuo fungus-like micro-organisms, as cryptic as they were, may have played a role in catalyzing atmospheric oxygenation and biospheric evolution in the aftermath of the terminal Cryogenian global glaciation.”
The annual Royal Rumble event, one of the most anticipated annual events on the WWE calendar and a company staple in the month of January, takes center stage on Sunday as the road to WrestleMania 37 opens up. The victors of the men’s and women’s Royal Rumble matches will, as usual, earn world championship opportunities at WrestleMania 37 in April.
In addition to the two Royal Rumble matches, there are two world title matches currently confirmed for the event. Roman Reigns will defend the universal championship against Kevin Owens in a Last Man Standing match, and the legendary Goldberg will return to the ring for the first time since WrestleMania 36 to challenge WWE champion Drew McIntyre.
The Royal Rumble will begin at 7 p.m. ET on Sunday, Jan. 31, with the show expected to last anywhere from 3-4 hours, not counting the kickoff show, which starts one hour prior to the main card at 6 p.m. CBS Sports will be with you the entire way on Sunday with live results, highlights and analysis.
For now, let’s take a look at how our experts believe the Royal Rumble will play out this Sunday.
2021 WWE Royal Rumble predictions
Women’s Tag Team Championship: Asuka & Charlotte Flair (c) vs. Shayna Baszler & Nia Jax
It was ridiculous to put the titles on Asuka & Flair in the first place, and given that each are embroiled in separate singles storylines, it makes even less sense to keep the straps on them. Baszler & Jax were operating perfectly fine as champions and had a nice storyline setup with Mandy Rose & Dana Brooke. With the muscle friends now healthy and back in action, it would be hysterical — albeit depressing — for WWE to flip the titles back to the heels, but I think that’s exactly what they are going to wind up doing, completely eliminating any value from the champions’ current title run. Pick: Nia Jax & Shayna Baszler win the titles — Adam Silverstein (also Brent Brookhouse)
SmackDown Women’s Championship: Sasha Banks (c) vs. Carmella
Carmella has done a good job in her current heel run, and there’s no denying that she has improved as a performer. All that said, Banks is finally enjoying a title reign where she has managed to actually defend the title. It’s hard to see her run coming to an end against Carmella in what has been her first real storyline after winning the belt from Bayley. Banks is an appealing champion heading into WrestleMania, and a match featuring her in the champion role feels like a bigger deal than one with Carmella. It doesn’t feel like there’s much mystery to this one. Pick: Sasha Banks retains the title — Brookhouse (also Silverstein)
Universal Championship: Roman Reigns vs. Kevin Owens (Last Man Standing match)
As fun as a swerve Owens win would be, it just feels entirely unrealistic to expect WWE to cut off Reings’ run ahead of WrestleMania. Reigns has been the best attraction in the company since returning at SummerSlam and Owens has provided a good foil in recent months, but he’s never really seemed a threat to beat Reigns for the title. A Last Man Standing match does provide some outs to keep Owens strong (interference from Jey Uso), but he’s not leaving as universal champion. Pick: Roman Reigns retains the title— Brookhouse (also Silverstein)
WWE Championship: Drew McIntyre (c) vs. Goldberg
Fans were rightly enraged when Goldberg emerged on Legends Night to challenge McIntyre, particularly given the fact that the storyline to create the match did not make a shred of sense. With McIntyre out two weeks due to COVID-19, the temperature of fan resentment cooled down but so did any actual interest in this match. Though Goldberg has defeated heel Kevin Owens and “The Fiend” Bray Wyatt for the universal title twice — and WWE is building this championship as the lone world title Goldberg has never conquered — it would make absolutely zero sense to put him over the company’s top male babyface that it has spent the last year building. This should be a short match with McIntyre overcoming an early barrage of offense from Goldberg to retain the title and keep it at least until WrestleMania.Pick: Drew McIntyre retains the title— Silverstein (also Brookhouse)
Women’s Royal Rumble match
There are plenty of viable options to win the match, but none that accomplish what a Belair win would. She’s a big time talent who just needs the right storyline to fully break through to being a main event player. Belair showing off her strength and athleticism again in the Rumble while outlasting every other woman immediately establishes her in the title picture far better than her current awkward rivalry with Bayley. Pick: Bianca Belair wins — Brookhouse (also Silverstein)
Men’s Royal Rumble match
If there’s one thing WWE loves to do, it’s give legends main spots at the biggest PPV events of the year. That’s why Goldberg is facing McIntyre, that’s why Goldberg held a world title ahead of last year’s WrestleMania, that’s why The Rock’s name was tied to Reigns for WrestleMania before the lack of a sellout live crowd seemed to tank that. Edge wasn’t returning to be a full-time talent, but it seemed he was ready to be in big spots throughout the year. If WWE wants to take a big swing on an underdog to face Reigns at WrestleMania, Edge would tick a lot of the boxes they’re looking for. Daniel Bryan would also nicely fit the bill, but there’s an itch in the back of my mind saying Edge gets the feel-good moment and the Mania slot. Pick: Edge wins — Brookhouse
Edge announcing his return to WWE and entry into the Royal Rumble on Raw felt like a wasted surprise moment even if that’s what we got last year at this very event, but it did add a level of intrigue to the match because Edge (as predicted above) would make a ton of sense as a Royal Rumble winner and future McIntyre challenger. However, prior to Edge’s announcement, I believed that WWE would move in its best possible booking direction, which is putting Bryan over in the match as the WrestleMania challenger of Roman Reigns. There is a ready-made storyline between Bryan and Reigns dating back to 2014 when Bryan made his long-awaited return at the Royal Rumble only to unceremoniously be eliminated as Reigns went on to win the whole thing. Fans revolted, and that moment was the catalyst to continued dissatisfaction with Reigns as a face.
Seven years later, with Reigns now a heel, WWE can easily reach back and play off that storyline. We saw interactions between Bryan, Reigns and Jey Uso a couple of months ago, and I believe those were planting the seeds for the Road to WrestleMania. There are other legitimate possibilities to win this match, but Bryan makes the most sense by far. He could still earn a shot at Reigns through the Elimination Chamber, but why waste the perfect storyline? Pick: Daniel Bryan wins — Silverstein
We truly live on the cusp of a remarkable new era of space exploration, with SpaceX rockets rumbling almost every month and international probes spread out around the Milky Way capturing wondrous images of asteroids, comets, planets, moons, and our own shining Sun.
With all the activity and media coverage of these spacecraft and probes, it’s easy to become complacent or apathetic towards the data and photos their missions are delivering back to Earth. So let’s pause for a moment and gaze into the heavens at these dazzling new pics from NASA/ESA’s Solar Orbiter as it traverses our solar system studying our home star.
The new video footage below, pieced together with a series of photos, shows an incredibly rare cosmic tableaux of Earth, Mars, and Venus, with the faint light of Uranus also winking at us from beyond.
Video of Solar Orbiter snaps Venus, Earth and Mars
These inspiring images were obtained on November 18, 2020 by the SoloHI camera installed aboard Solar Orbiter. Venus (left), Earth (middle), and Mars (right) are clearly visible in the foreground, with a tapestry of bright stars in the background, all captured while the spacecraft loops around the Sun. Eagle-eyed astronomers also noted that Uranus shares the stage near the bottom edge.
“Solar Orbiter is the most complex scientific laboratory ever to have been built to study the Sun and the solar wind, taking images of our star from closer than any spacecraft before,” ESA researchers noted. “The Solar Orbiter Heliospheric Imager (SoloHI) is one of the six remote-sensing instruments onboard the mission. During the cruise phase, these are still being calibrated during specific periods, but are switched off otherwise.”
Venus, Earth, and Mars shift slightly in the SoloHI instrument’s field-of-view. Venus is the brightest object seen, hovering roughly 30 million miles away from the Solar Orbiter. When the shots were taken that day, the distance to Earth was 156 million miles and 206 million miles to Mars. Far off Uranus is a mere dot located beside the official time code.
“At the moment of the recording, Solar Orbiter was on its way to Venus for its first gravity assist flyby, which happened on December 27,” ESA scientists explained. “Venus and Earth flybys will bring the spacecraft closer to the Sun and tilt its orbit in order to observe our star from different perspectives.”
“At the time there were fewer than 100 cases of the disease we now call Covid-19 and no deaths outside China,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said Friday. “This week we reached one hundred million reported cases. More cases have been reported in the past two weeks than during the first six months of the pandemic. A year ago, I said the world had a window of opportunity to prevent widespread transmission of this new virus. Some countries heeded that call, some did not.”
The rare emergency declaration, also known as a PHEIC, is the highest level of alarm under international law. Only six have ever been declared in history.
It’s supposed to notify the world that urgent action is needed, but experts say the reason “some countries heeded that call, some did not” is because the declaration has no teeth.
The declaration gives the WHO “few surge powers and no funding,” according to Lawrence Gostin, a professor of public health law at Georgetown Universityand the director of the World Health Organization Collaborating Center on Public Health Law & Human Rights.
“The only power a declared emergency provides is to make ‘recommendations’ to governments. But most governments, especially in the US and Europe, almost universally failed to adhere to (WHO) recommendations,” Gostin said.
The WHO has been evaluating how it can improve the system, and changes could happen during the World Health Assembly in May.
In this second year of the declaration, Gostin and other legal scholars argue that there needs to be urgent reform to give the WHO much stronger authority and more ample funding, if such a declaration is ever to work more effectively in a global health crisis.
How a public health situation becomes an emergency declaration
Countries are supposed to notify the WHO within a short time frame if they have an event in their country that could trigger an emergency declaration. As spelled out in the International Health Regulations, certain diseases or public health events must pose enough of a significant risk that it requires a coordinated international response.
Once a country notifies the WHO about its health threat, the WHO will then call an expert committee together that meets behind closed doors to review the data and listen to testimony from the country that has reported the threat. The committee then makes a recommendation to the WHO director-general who makes the ultimate decision.
If an emergency is declared, then the WHO creates a list of recommendations for governments to undertake to stop the spread of the disease. The WHO also makes recommendations about how to share information.
If it’s in their own backyard, governments don’t like the declaration
As the policy is written now, there are many downsides and disincentives for governments to provide public health information to the WHO and no real guaranteed upside, according to global health law expert Mara Pillinger.
“Governments tend to prefer that the WHO not call them out and issue this highest alarm, because it may not help them manage the outbreak, but could in fact make it harder for humanitarian supplies and assistance to get into the country,” said Pillinger, an associate in the Global Health Policy & Politics Initiative at the O’Neill Institute of National and Global Health Law at Georgetown. “And it can impose an economic cost.”
In theory, the emergency declaration should raise the alarm and motivate other countries to act, not just to protect themselves, but also to help the country with the outbreak get that problem under control so it doesn’t spread further.
Instead, an emergency declaration often triggers other countries to issue travel and trade restrictions against the country with the outbreak. That country suffers financially, and the travel restrictions are often ineffective since they are applied too late or in a piecemeal fashion, Pillinger said.
The declaration needs more authority
With an emergency declaration nothing mandates other countries to send technical or financial assistance to help that country fight or control the disease. Assistance is instead a “question of political will and political coordination.” China didn’t need the money with the Covid-19 outbreak, but Congo did when an emergency declaration was declared with an outbreak of Ebola in 2018.
While the WHO can make recommendations about how countries should respond to a public health threat, it’s incumbent upon each individual country to decided how to respond; how to work with the WHO; how it will aid the country at the heart of the outbreak; and whether it will even take the WHO’s warning seriously.
“It’s a little bit like declaring a five alarm fire, but imagine that you had a center that is responsible for ringing the alarm bell and then it were up to individual fire houses to decide whether or not they send trucks to the fire,” Pillinger said.
The declaration also gives the WHO no real authority to investigate the outbreak if the country does not want the WHO there.
“Even now, WHO has just sent a team to China, a year late,” Gostin said. “WHO has no authority to independently verify country reports, which is why China was allowed to mislead the world concerning the community spread of (the novel coronavirus). The WHO team also has no legal authority to demand access to full information from the Chinese government and scientists.”
The future of the emergency declaration
One step may be the help the US has promised to give the WHO. The Biden administration reversed the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from the organization. On January 21, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Dr. Anthony Fauci told the WHO that the US would “work constructively” to strengthen and importantly reform the WHO.
Gostin believes as the world heads into the second year of the emergency declaration the International Health Regulations need to be improved now to better manage the current Covid-19 crisis and to help manage future pandemics.
“WHO should be able to rally the world in response to a pandemic,” Gostin said, noting it hasn’t really even been able to do that. “We have seen little global solidarity and in fact ‘go-it-alone’ nationalism, especially ‘American first and only.’
“The mission of WHO is to lead a globally coordinated response to a pandemic,” Gostin said. “That never happened with Covid-19. And that is why it is urgent to reform the International Health Regulations and to give WHO strong powers and ample funding.”
Wendy Williams named her former husband Kevin Hunter’s baby mama for the first time on her popular daytime show.
On Tuesday the host wore a bright yellow dress as she sipped her coffee and made the shocking comments on the program.
‘Welcome to Hot Topics, Sharina Hudson!’ said Williams. ‘Getting out of my car … with my money.’
YES she did: Wendy Williams named her former husband Kevin Hunter’s baby mama for the first time on her popular daytime show
Then she mentioned the baby Kevin had with massage therapist Sharnia: ‘She’ll be almost three – I think she’ll be three next month, don’t you know.’
Next she said hello to her ex. ‘Good morning, Kelvin,’ she said. Kelvin is Kevin’s legal name. ‘It’s my truth.’
Also this week she called Hunter a ‘serial cheat.’
The 56-year-old talk show host filed for divorce from Kevin Hunter in April 2019 after he fathered a child with another woman but she admitted his infidelity didn’t come as a shock because he had slept with other people throughout their 21-year marriage.
Chic while dishing: On Tuesday the host wore a bright yellow dress as she sipped her coffee and made her shocking comments
‘We were married for almost 22 years. We were together for 25 years,’ she told SiriusXM’s The Jess Cagle Show. ‘I don’t regret the day of meeting him. I don’t regret putting up with him for all 25 years — and that has nothing to do with him having this baby or him having this side girl for almost 15 years of our marriage.’
She added, ‘I’ve known about her almost since the beginning. I’ve known that Kevin is a serial cheat.’
Wendy first found out the 48-year-old producer had been unfaithful while she was pregnant with their son Kevin Jr., now 20.
Directed at her: ‘Welcome to Hot Topics, Sharina Hudson!’ said Williams. ‘Getting out of my car … with my money’
The Chanel life: Hudson leaving her New Jersey home in tight workout clothes
She continued: ‘The first time I found out was while I was pregnant with our son [Kevin Hunter Jr.] on bedrest. During that time I gave birth to him, he was in the delivery room. … He’s passing out cigars and [saying], you know, “My wife and I and little Kev.”‘
Wendy ‘plotted to divorce’ Kevin and is happy with how things have worked out for her.
She said: ‘I sacrificed a lot of myself to come out successful on the other side, and it all worked.’
The Ask Wendy writer previously admitted Kevin’s ‘major indiscretion’ in fathering another child was the final straw for her.
A good mom: Wendy and son Kevin Hunter Jr. attend the ceremony honoring Williams with Star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in 2019
She said: ‘Kevin had a major indiscretion that he will have to deal with for the rest of his life. An indiscretion that I will not deal with.
‘I never thought that I would be in this position. I’m a very forgiving person, but there’s one thing that I could never be a part of, and that one thing happened.’
This comes after Williams said she wants her next boyfriend to be out of the spotlight.
The host is keen that her future partner isn’t famous like herself or even in the showbiz industry but insists he must have ‘a sense of humour for the business’.
She used to hang with him: A shot of Eric Sermon, an old pal of Wendy’s
She shared: ‘I’m 56 now. I’m a mom, I’m not a single woman running around town with [rappers and DJs] like Eric B anymore. Those days are over.
‘My next boyfriend, hopefully husband he’ll turn into, I don’t want him to be in this business. He’s got to appreciate my humour and have a sense of humour for the business that I’m in, and not try to stop me. But he’s also got to be very, very comfortable in the man that he is. And he’s got to be 45 years or older.’
And Wendy – who finalized her divorce from Kevin last year after 22 years of marriage – is excited to have more say on her career and her future goals.
And discussing her future career moves, she added to Entertainment Tonight: ‘Now that I am my own boss, as opposed to having Kevin bossing me around and telling me what to do and me playing the role, I am in on everything. Now I would like to produce more stuff. And that stuff would be for other people to star in, not me – I’m not an actress.
‘I liked being part of the process of writing, and also I would like to sit in that director’s chair one day. Just to be an associate director or something.’
I know what Steelers fans will think as they read this post.
“Tim, this is nothing but one giant ‘I TOLD YOU SO!’”
Let me tell you in advance, yes. Yes, it’s exactly that.
No more. No less. It is one giant “I told you so.”
Because I did. Now I’m asking you to reassess.
I’ve written a lot of columns that have made a lot of people really mad. Ripping the Pirates, Penguins and Steelers. Or any time I even mention Pitt.
Advancing an unpopular opinion about a trade or a draft pick. Some dicey commentary about how our local politicians were handling the coronavirus situation. Dancing into some touchy social or political opinions.
But in those circumstances, for every one or two negative responses, I’d usually get one or two positive ones.
Not for today’s example, though. I’m referring to a piece I wrote about quarterback Tom Brady on Jan. 7, 2020. It was three days after his New England Patriots lost to the Tennessee Titans in the AFC playoffs, and Brady looked bad in the process.
It was clear at the time that the long marriage between the franchise and its six-time Super Bowl champion QB was rocky, and he may hit free agency. Meanwhile, Pittsburgh was wading through the offseason to see if Ben Roethlisberger’s surgically repaired elbow was going to heal enough to allow him back in a Steelers uniform in 2020. If ever again.
So I advanced the idea that — despite nearly 20 years of animus built up toward Brady in our fair city — Steelers fans would (and should) welcome him to town if Ben Roethlisberger’s arm forced him into retirement.
.@TimBenzPgh: Every #NFL fan base would embrace Tom Brady, even #Steelers fans https://t.co/i1c8e97TvV
— Tribune-ReviewSports (@TribSports) January 7, 2020
Between negative tweets, Facebook responses and emails, I’m pretty sure I never got more universal rejection of a story idea from our readership. I expected blowback for provincial, emotional reasons. Not tactical football ones. But I got both.
Readers expressed hatred of Brady for his repeated beat downs of the Steelers, the Patriots’ reign of terror over the AFC and the allegations surrounding Spygate and Deflategate. But, also, many didn’t think he could hack it anymore, and he wouldn’t help the Steelers if he came to Heinz Field.
Mason Rudolph would be better. A draft pick would be better. I’m pretty sure, if I looked hard enough, I could find a “they’d be better off sticking with ‘Duck’ next year” response.
I was accused of everything from Pittsburgh-treason to propagating “clickbait.”
Yeah. How’d all that turn out?
Roethlisberger did come back. He piloted the Steelers to an 11-0 start. And Brady still wound up having a better year. Now, he’s in the Super Bowl with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
Do you think the folks in Tampa would be happier with Rudolph or Duck? Or even Big Ben?
Nah, me either.
The parochial “we hate Brady cuz he was a cheatin’ Patriot n’at,” I expected. Had my hypothetical come to pass and Roethlisberger had retired during the offseason, I think most Pittsburghers would’ve forgotten about all that and salivated at the prospect of Brady being a bridge for a few years, keeping the offense competitive while that stout defense continued to thrive.
But the dismissiveness of Brady’s abilities was just stupid. Especially compared to whatever quarterback the Steelers would’ve ended up trotting out on opening day if Brady didn’t come to Pittsburgh.
Consider these numbers posted by Brady in 2020-21. At age 43, in his 21st season.
• Brady’s 4,633 passing yards are the fourth-highest total of his career.
• Brady’s 40 touchdowns were only eclipsed by the 50 he threw with the 18-1 Pats of 2007.
• His 401 completions were exceeded only once (402 in 2015).
• Brady has already won three playoff games this year. The Steelers have three over the past decade.
• And for all the “Yeah, what about Spygate and Deflategate?” theorists, this will be Brady’s sixth Super Bowl since Spygate. His fourth since Deflategate. His fifth if you count the win over the Seattle Seahawks the game after the scandal broke.
In the meantime, the Patriots went 7-9 and missed the Super Bowl.
So, yeah, clearly signing Brady to replace Roethlisberger would’ve been a tragic mistake for the Steelers franchise. Good call to everyone who emailed, tweeted and posted on Facebook.
Now that we look at it, the Steelers should’ve signed Brady to replace Roethlisberger even if he remained healthy.
Yes, my email inbox is open if you want to reply to that comment, too.
Or if you want to tell me how I’m still a moron because the Steelers are going to acquire (insert name of Aaron Rodgers, Deshaun Watson, Sam Darnold, Carson Wentz or Matt Stafford here) anyway this offseason. So I’m still wrong.
Funny how things change. “We’d never want Tom Brady to replace Big Ben. But give us Sam Darnold!”
I’m just kidding, Steelers fans. Enjoy the Super Bowl. I’m sure Dwayne Haskins will get them there soon enough.
By the way, my email inbox accepts apologies, as well.
Tim Benz is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Tim at tbenz@triblive.com or via Twitter. All tweets could be reposted. All emails are subject to publication unless specified otherwise.
Categories:
Sports | Steelers/NFL | Breakfast With Benz
TribLIVE’s Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.
A more contagious strain of coronavirus was detected for the first time in Alaska, health officials announced Tuesday.
In December, an Anchorage resident became infected with a strain of virus that was originally detected in the United Kingdom and can spread more easily between people, the state’s health department said in a statement Tuesday afternoon.
The Anchorage resident was recently in a state where the virus variant had previously been detected, according to the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services. The individual began showing symptoms of the virus on Dec. 17, got tested on Dec. 20 and received positive results on Dec. 22.
After learning of the positive result, the person isolated, though a person they lived with also became sick. The two have both recovered and did not have contact with other people, health officials said in the statement.
Public health officials said it wasn’t unexpected to find the virus in Alaska. The new strain spreads faster and more easily between people, state epidemiologist Dr. Joe McLaughlin said in the department’s announcement.
“We are hopeful that transmission of this particular variant stopped with these two individuals, but we will very likely detect the variant strain again soon,” the state’s chief medical officer Dr. Anne Zink said in a prepared statement.
So far, 293 cases of the virus variant have been detected nationwide in 24 different states including Washington state, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, only a small fraction of the cases across the country are sequenced in order to find the strain.
Earlier this month, federal officials from the CDC said the virus variant could become the dominant strain of coronavirus circulating in the United States by March.
The strain is not thought to make people any sicker, but an uptick in transmission of the virus could mean more people infected at once. That can strain health care systems and lead to more deaths, according to the CDC.
The state of Alaska has been sequencing COVID-19 cases since March, which is a way to look for the new variants. The state’s virology lab in Fairbanks found the UK variant strain, which was then confirmed by the University of Alaska Fairbanks lab, before the state’s health department ultimately notified the CDC of its finding on Monday.
Health officials have continued to stress that in order to prevent further spread of COVID-19, including the new strains, practices like staying 6 feet or more from others, wearing a face covering, washing hands, avoiding gatherings, keeping social bubbles small and isolating upon experiencing symptoms are critical.
The Baseball Hall of Fame will announce its 2021 class Tuesday night. Notable names like Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Curt Schilling and Scott Rolen are among the players on this year’s ballot, but it’s possible no players will be voted in this year. The full 2021 ballot can be viewed here.
The rules: A player is eligible to be placed on the ballot after five years of retirement. Players getting at least 75 percent of the returned ballots from qualified BBWAA voters gain entry to the Hall of Fame. Those who get below five percent fall off the ballot. Those between five and 75 percent can remain on the ballot for up to 10 years. BBWAA members who are active and in good standing and have been so for at least 10 years can vote for anywhere from zero to 10 players each year.
And here are the details for the selection show:
2021 Baseball Hall of Fame class announcement
Time: 6 p.m. ET
Date: Tuesday, Jan. 26
TV channel: MLB Network (coverage starts at 3 p.m. ET)
Live stream: fuboTV (try for free)
Below are six storylines to watch for as the vote totals get unveiled Tuesday night.
(NOTE: When talking about “early returns,” I’m generally referencing the indispensable Vote Tracker from Ryan Thibodaux and his team.)
1. Penultimate chance for big-name trio
The top three candidates on the ballot this year among holdovers are Curt Schilling, Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds. The on-field resumes, in terms of the stats, say Clemens and Bonds are among the very best players to ever play while Schilling is a legitimate Hall of Famer.
And yet, here we are.
Bonds and Clemens are both tied to the use of performance-enhancing drugs in addition to being accused of serious off-field indiscretions. Schilling got less support in his early years on the ballot and as things have lingered he’s made his road incredibly difficult with inflammatory rhetoric.
Last year, Schilling got 70 percent of the vote while Clemens was at 61 and Bonds checked in at 60.7.
The modest gains of Clemens and Bonds in recent years suggest they’ll fall short again. Schilling has already shown losses this time around from people who used to vote for him.
The best bet is none of the three make it, judging from early returns.
This is the ninth time on the ballot for all three, setting them up for one last go-round on the 2021 ballot.
If they do miss, it’s likely that no one makes it …
2. It could be empty class
It is rare to have a ballot where the BBWAA doesn’t elect anyone, but it’s not without precedent. The last time there were no players voted in via this method was 2013. It also happened, in reverse chronology, in 1996, 1971, 1965, 1960, 1958, 1950 and 1945.
This election has a very good chance of joining that group with no players getting 75 percent of the vote.
Take note that this would not mean a totally empty ceremony in Cooperstown this summer, assuming the COVID-19 situation gets under enough control to have one. That’s because the 2020 ceremony was canceled last July and that class has Derek Jeter, Larry Walker, Ted Simmons and the late Marvin Miller still getting enshrined this year.
Still, if there’s no BBWAA class for 2021, it would be the first totally empty class since 1960. I’ve already expanded on the history behind this here.
3. Will any first-timers survive?
Let’s keep in mind that it’s incredibly tough just to make it onto the Hall of Fame ballot before we soak in the sentence I’m about to write. A player has to be in the majors for 10 years and even then he is not guaranteed to make it on. Dan Uggla, C.J. Wilson and Adam LaRoche were among the players eligible for this ballot who were excluded. Again, please keep that in mind when I say the following:
This first-year class was one of the weaker ones we’ve seen in recent memory. It’s possible every newcomer becomes a one-and-done.
Early returns suggest there’s a chance that Mark Buehrle gets above five percent, though he has little hope of getting all the way to 75 percent, even if he gets 10 years. He’s likely the only one with a chance to remain for a second year and even he could miss the cut.
Torii Hunter and Tim Hudson also have seen enough early support that there’s a shot they hit the five-percent mark, though the smart money is on them falling well short.
Aramis Ramirez, Shane Victorino, A.J. Burnett, Barry Zito, Nick Swisher, Dan Haren, Michael Cuddyer and LaTroy Hawkins will definitely fall short in their one chance. To reiterate, that’s far from an insult. It’s a great compliment to their admirable careers to get on the ballot.
4. Who has momentum?
We’re now past the part of the falling short and falling off guys and moving into what the returns mean for future years. For Hall of Fame junkies like myself, this is the fun part.
It’s possible the following players have enough momentum to believe Cooperstown is within reach.
Scott Rolen is in his fourth year on the ballot and it looks like he’ll break 50 percent after debuting with just 10.2 percent. He got a touch over 35 percent last year and a move to over 50 with six years left means he’s a good bet to make it eventually.
Todd Helton went 16.5 percent and then 29.2 percent in his first two years. Especially with Walker now in and hopefully the Coors Field stigma starting to wear down a bit, look for another big jump. If he moves to over 50 or even just 40-plus percent, the odds of making it soon would be great. I doubt he’ll need all 10 years, but still keep an eye on his percentage.
In his first three chances, Billy Wagner was between 10.2 and 11.1 percent. Then he went to 16.7 and 31.7. This is his sixth try, so it’ll still be a tall order, but another big gain on the percentage front would give Wagner a real shot here with four years left. Again, keep an eye on this one. I’d say he needs to see at least 40 and probably even closer to 45 percent to feel optimism of eventually enshrinement.
Gary Sheffield went through five voting cycles not even getting 14 percent of the vote, but jumped to 30.5 percent last year. He only has three chances left, so it’s still an uphill battle, but getting up into the mid-40s would be reason for hope — and we all know “hope is a good thing,” as Red once learned.
Andruw Jones‘ first two years showed 7.3 and then 7.5 percent, but he went up to 19.4 percent last year and it looks like he’s primed to make another significant jump. With six years left and a possibly surging vote percentage, seeing something 30-35 percent here would lead me to believe he’s on track.
Andy Pettitte went from 9.9 percent to 11.3 percent and needs a much bigger boost than that moving forward for a shot. He’s more of an “old-school” candidate than many on here and that means he could end up showing much higher than we’ve seen on the publicly made ballots so far. If he cracks 20 percent here, he’s a legitimate candidate moving forward.
Bobby Abreu got just 5.5 percent of the vote in his first try last year, but there seems to be a bit more movement toward him. Keep an eye out here. Might he jump to close to 15 percent? If so, chances move into realistic long-shot territory.
5. Who’s losing steam?
On the flip side, Omar Vizquel seems to be losing what looked like a Hall of Fame trajectory in voting. In just three years, Vizquel went from 37 to 42.8 to 52.6 percent, but he’s showing a decent number of lost votes so far. Vizquel is currently under investigation by Major League Baseball over domestic violence allegations.
6. And who is stagnating?
The following players seem to be just treading water until their 10 years on the ballot are up.
Manny Ramirez has two PED-related suspensions from his playing days and in four chances on the ballot has only increased his percentage from 23.8 to 28.2. There seems to be a plateau in there for players connected to PEDs and given that he’s the only one on this ballot with a PED suspension, it’s likely this thing is just playing out as a formality. If he somehow moves up over 35 percent I’ll pay more attention.
Jeff Kent through six cycles never cracked 18.1 percent, but did rise to 27.5 percent last year. Early returns suggest he’s not going to make another big dent, though, and there are only two years left after this one.
Sammy Sosa is on his ninth ballot and last year topped out at just 13.9 percent. He might go up, but he’s not getting close to the needed 75 percent.
There you have it. You are now ready to see the full voting results on Tuesday evening with a good idea on what it all means past the rudimentary “who is in and who is out?” We’ll have full coverage on the fallout after the vote is unveiled.
Travis Barker was seen with his 17-year-old son Landon in Malibu on Monday. This is the first time the 45-year-old rocker has been spotted out in public since it was claimed he has been dating longtime friend Kourtney Kardashian for the past few months.
Meanwhile, that same day the 41-year-old Kourtney shared several flashback images with her kids from the five star Amangiri resort in Canyon Point, Utah where sisters Kim and Kylie have vacationed before.
Also on Monday it was claimed Kourtney’s ex Scott Disick is ‘happy’ for his former partner with whom he has three young children – Mason, Penelope and Reign.
On the town: Travis Barker was seen with his 17-year-old son Landon in Malibu on Monday
Barker was seen in a black T-shirt that read Local Authority with his tattoos showing as he walked around Malibu.
Landon had on a hoodie that said Beverly Hills Gun Range as he was one step behind his dad.
The musician shares stepdaughter Atiana, 21, daughter Alabama, 15, and son Landon with his ex-wife, Playboy model Shanna Moakler, whom he was married to from 2004 to 2008.
Rock on: This is the first time the 45-year-old rocker has been spotted out in public since it was claimed he has been dating longtime friend Kourtney Kardashian for the past few months
In Kourtney’s photos, which are likely flashback images, she has on a black tank top and bicycle shorts as well as a blue hat and a purse on her shoulder as she walks through the desert landscape.
Her black hair is pulled back into a ponytail to get sun on her bare shoulders.
The cover girl was joined by son Reign who is photographed by the Coyote trail, and her daughter Penelope.
Trippin’! Kourtney posted images to her Instagram account on Monday with her kids that were likely taken in early 2020
She loves the heat: The 41-year-old Keeping Up With The Kardashians standout was at the five star Amangiri resort in Canyon Point, Utah where sisters Kim and Kylie have vacationed before; seen with daughter Penelope and son Reign
New or old? In Kourtney’s photos, which could be flashback images, she has on a black tank top and bicycle shorts as well as a blue hat and a purse as she walks through the desert landscape
A walk on the wild side: Her black hair is pulled back as she is joined by son Reign who is photographed by the Coyote trail
There he is by the sign: Reign seemed to be enjoying his hiking experience in Utah; in these snaps Reign has long hair which dates the photos back to early 2020 as in August 2020 he cut his hair off
Last week it was claimed Kardashian is romancing Barker.
The POOSH star has sparked romance rumours with the Blink-182 drummer after they were spotted hanging out together at Kris Jenner’s Palm Springs home over the weekend.
Both Kourtney and Travis posted pictures to their respective Instagram Stories which feature the same pool, suggesting they were together even though neither of them posted photos together.
According to E! News, Travis has also been spotted checking out Kourtney’s recent social media posts, including leaving a comment with a single rose emoji on the reality TV star’s recent flirty mirror selfie.
Earlier in January, he also added a tulip emoji to a photo of Kourtney walking into the ocean, and wrote ‘you’re so cool’ in response to some still she’d shared from the movie True Romance.
Rocking out: The two were also photographed on this massive rock
It will set you back: The Amangiri resort in Canyon Point, Utah costs at least $2K a night
She loves to travel: The star is known for showing bikini flashback images from Utah
This isn’t the first time that Travis and Kourtney – who are neighbors in Calabasas, California – have sparked speculation together, as in 2018, fans suspected the two were an item when they were seen grabbing dinner together in Los Angeles.
They were then spotted together again in early 2019, but sources at the time insisted it was totally platonic.
An insider said: ‘They’ve been friends for years. They’ve lived in the same neighborhood for a long time and they see each other at church and with their kids. They’ve hung out together many times and often get together with the kids to see movies or to get ice cream.’
If the pair are romancing now, it will be the first major relationship for Kourtney since she split from Younes Bendjima in 2018.
Love in Palm Springs? Both Kourtney and Travis posted pictures to their respective Instagram Stories which feature the same pool, suggesting they were together even though neither of them posted photos together
Her pool moment: Here the diva is seen in the exact same pool in Palm Springs
Prior to that, the Poosh founder dated Disick on and off between 2006 and 2015, with whom she has Mason, 11, Penelope, eight, and Reign, six.
Travis, 45, is father to Landon, 17, and Alabama, 15, whom he has with his ex-wife Shanna Moakler.
Later a source told Us Weekly: ‘Kourtney and Travis are officially a couple.
‘They have been close friends for years and have been dating for a couple of months. Travis is very smitten with Kourtney and has been for a while.’
On Monday it was claimed Disick is ‘really happy’ for Kourtney amid her new romance. Seen in 2019
On Monday it was claimed Disick is ‘really happy’ for Kourtney amid her new romance.
A source said: ‘Scott has been around Travis on several occasions and thinks he’s a great guy. He’s really happy for Kourtney and is not surprised they are dating. Kourtney has spent a lot of time with Travis and it’s not shocking to him that they developed a romantic relationship.
‘She hasn’t dated someone in a while and Scott wants her to be happy. Kourtney and Scott are in a great place and they have come to terms that they are strictly friends and co-parents.
‘There’s no romance there and he couldn’t be happier that she’s moved on. As long as the kids are in a healthy situation and Kourtney’s in a good place, then Scott is happy for them.’
As well as Scott, Kourtney’s family – her siblings, Kim Kardashian West, Khloe Kardashian, Kendall Jenner, Kylie Jenner and Rob Kardashian, and her mother Kris Jenner – all approve.
The insider added to E! News: ‘The family likes Travis. They are comfortable with him and trust him. They have all spent a lot of time together over the years. They think he is a good guy …
‘They’ve known each other forever and always hung out. It recently turned into more. Kourtney is very laid back about it and just having fun. They are neighbors and know a lot of the same people. It’s easy and she’s just going with it. It’s not serious, it’s just what naturally happened in front of her. Travis pursued her and seems excited about Kourtney giving this a chance.’
He has a new lady in his life: The Lord Disick TV star has been romancing model Amelia Hamlin
No one has yet managed to travel through time – at least to our knowledge – but the question of whether or not such a feat would be theoretically possible continues to fascinate scientists.
As movies such as The Terminator, Donnie Darko, Back to the Future and many others show, moving around in time creates a lot of problems for the fundamental rules of the Universe: if you go back in time and stop your parents from meeting, for instance, how can you possibly exist in order to go back in time in the first place?
It’s a monumental head-scratcher known as the ‘grandfather paradox’, but in September last year a physics student Germain Tobar, from the University of Queensland in Australia, said he has worked out how to “square the numbers” to make time travel viable without the paradoxes.
“Classical dynamics says if you know the state of a system at a particular time, this can tell us the entire history of the system,” said Tobar back in September 2020.
“However, Einstein’s theory of general relativity predicts the existence of time loops or time travel – where an event can be both in the past and future of itself – theoretically turning the study of dynamics on its head.”
What the calculations show is that space-time can potentially adapt itself to avoid paradoxes.
To use a topical example, imagine a time traveller journeying into the past to stop a disease from spreading – if the mission was successful, the time traveller would have no disease to go back in time to defeat.
Tobar’s work suggests that the disease would still escape some other way, through a different route or by a different method, removing the paradox. Whatever the time traveller did, the disease wouldn’t be stopped.
Tobar’s work isn’t easy for non-mathematicians to dig into, but it looks at the influence of deterministic processes (without any randomness) on an arbitrary number of regions in the space-time continuum, and demonstrates how both closed timelike curves (as predicted by Einstein) can fit in with the rules of free will and classical physics.
“The maths checks out – and the results are the stuff of science fiction,” said physicist Fabio Costa from the University of Queensland, who supervised the research.
Fabio Costa (left) and Germain Tobar (right). (Ho Vu)
The new research smooths out the problem with another hypothesis, that time travel is possible but that time travellers would be restricted in what they did, to stop them creating a paradox. In this model, time travellers have the freedom to do whatever they want, but paradoxes are not possible.
While the numbers might work out, actually bending space and time to get into the past remains elusive – the time machines that scientists have devised so far are so high-concept that for they currently only exist as calculations on a page.
We might get there one day – Stephen Hawking certainly thought it was possible – and if we do then this new research suggests we would be free to do whatever we wanted to the world in the past: it would readjust itself accordingly.
“Try as you might to create a paradox, the events will always adjust themselves, to avoid any inconsistency,” says Costa. “The range of mathematical processes we discovered show that time travel with free will is logically possible in our universe without any paradox.”
The research has been published in Classical and Quantum Gravity.
A version of this article was first published in September 2020.
