Two hundred years ago, the invention of Braille allowed blind people to read and write. By the 1930s, recorded sound made "talking books" possible. Developments in text-to-speech technology in the 1980s made reading more accessible and widespread. Then came personal computers, screen readers, smartphones, cameras, GPS, voice assistants, and myriad other technological advancements that gave blind people more independence.

Now a pair of sunglasses can read your mail, describe the person in front of you, tell you what is on a restaurant menu, and help you find your way home. Meta, the parent company of Facebook, is using artificial intelligence to turn glasses into a hands-free companion. For any person, this technology is impressive. For the approximately 700,000 Americans who are blind, it is potentially life-changing.

In June, Meta announced that every single blind veteran in the United States could receive its AI glasses free of charge. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs (V.A.), approximately 130,000 American veterans are legally blind, and over 1 million veterans have vision impairment that makes performing daily activities difficult. Don Overton, a blind veteran and former executive director of the Blinded Veterans Association, told Meta that he had "lost [his] independence" after losing his eyesight in a bunker explosion. "The moment I put on my Ray-Ban Meta glasses," he said, "I got my independence back."

The V.A. has a history of failing to fully support blind veterans. In 2022, the V.A.'s Office of Inspector General found that claims processors were instructed to contact visually impaired veterans by telephone, but 87 percent of claims showed no evidence of these calls ever happening. A 2022 investigation by the Senate's Special Committee on Aging found that "roughly 90 percent" of V.A. websites were not compliant with federal accessibility requirements. "We feel we've been abandoned by the agency that is tasked with providing our care and services for us," Overton told The Washington Post in 2022.

Meta's AI glasses have come under fire due to their privacy risks. The company was sued in March after Swedish publications Svenska Dagbladet and Göteborgs-Posten reportedly found that Meta's contractors in Kenya were accessing videos by users of their AI glasses. "We see everything, from living rooms to naked bodies," one worker noted.

Users should be aware of those risks. Still, for blind veterans, companies such as Meta have stepped up to fill a gap that the government has failed to address.

The post Meta Is Gifting AI Glasses to Blind Veterans: 'I Got My Independence Back' appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Dwarkesh Patel on what the public doesn’t know about A.I.

© The New York Times

The federal government just closed fiscal year 2026 with a deficit of nearly $2 trillion, according to figures the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released last Thursday. Only the two pandemic years of 2020 and 2021 were worse. Today, though, there is no recession and no emergency. These enormous budget deficits are the new normal.

The usual response to a deficit warning is that the government just needs more money. It doesn't. Thanks to the remarkable strength of the private sector, federal revenue rose by 3 percent, to more than $5.4 trillion, over the fiscal year. But spending rose by 6 percent, reaching $7.4 trillion.

Some will blame the Supreme Court for striking down most of President Donald Trump's tariffs and forcing the government to issue refunds. But even if Washington had kept the $130 billion in illegal levies, it would cover less than one-tenth of the gap. Tariffs were never a serious revenue source at our insanely high level of spending.

Look at where the money went. Spending on the three main entitlement programs—Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—grew by 7 percent. That's faster than total spending growth. Defense grew by 5 percent. Interest on the debt rose by 11 percent, exceeding $1.1 trillion. That last figure is the bill for every earlier year of borrowing—years when Washington was sending clear signals that it isn't serious about fiscal responsibility.

If you want to see where such irresponsibility can lead, look at France. The country that big spenders from Paul Krugman to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) have cited as proof that big government is viable and full of upsides is now on the brink of a serious crisis. France's debt equals 120 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP), and interest payments are rising quickly. Slow growth and social unrest aren't helping.

The U.S., of course, has some advantages that France doesn't, largely because we're a country of innovators with a private sector unmatched at creating wealth. Nonetheless, debt that is swelling out of control should still worry us. First, the same anti-wealth and anti-growth forces that brought France to where it is now are gaining popularity here. Second, we too will see debt reach 120 percent of GDP in a few years, and our interest payments are already consuming an alarming share of resources.

A wise Congress would put us on safer footing if only because debt raises interest rates for everyone, from homebuyers to small businesses. This operates as a drag on growth, and hence on wages. In other words, controlling debt should be part of an affordability agenda in the same way as streamlining regulation.

When legislators decide to take affordability seriously, I recommend looking at a September Advancing American Freedom (AAF) report on this topic. Its section on fiscal restraint offers a useful menu of reforms, including targeting the programs that most drive the debt.

Start with Social Security. Under current law, benefits will be cut by roughly 20 percent when the program's trust fund runs dry in the early 2030s. Nobody believes Congress will actually let that happen, but we'd better hope its answer isn't to double down by borrowing the difference between payroll taxes and benefits.

Nor are tax increases an option. The payroll tax meant to fund entitlements is now 12.4 percent of wages. It began at 2 percent when Social Security was first rolled out. It is also the most burdensome tax for many Americans. Enough already. The fixes AAF fellow Rachel Greszler proposes are worth considering: Index the retirement age to life expectancy, use an accurate inflation measure for cost-of-living adjustments, and move gradually toward a flat universal benefit that protects lower-income retirees while ending Social Security's de facto welfare for the wealthiest.

Next is Medicare. More than 40 percent of its financing already comes from general revenue rather than from payroll taxes. The report recommends converting the program to premium support, giving beneficiaries a fixed contribution to spend on traditional Medicare or on competing private plans. It would also raise the eligibility age to 67, matching Social Security, and trim subsidies for well-off seniors. That's a start.

As for Medicaid, the problem is one of pricing. And yet competition based on price—the best cost-control tool—has never been seriously tried. Washington covers 90 percent of the cost of states' expanded Medicaid programs for adults. A state can buy a dollar of spending with just a dime of its own money. Changing the states' incentives would be key here. Implementing risk-adjusted per-capita caps, through which the federal government would give states a fixed amount per enrollee, would do just that. States would pay for their own inefficiencies or would be able to use every dollar they save by becoming more efficient.

The same logic supports returning more welfare programs to states, starting with the federal share of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. State governments have to balance their budgets in some form.

None of these reforms are painless. But the alternatives will prove far more painful. The U.S. will either continue paying a slow, unlegislated tax called inflation or face a fast, ugly fiscal crisis when bond buyers stop giving Washington the benefit of the doubt.

COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM

The post The Federal Government Collected $5.4 Trillion. It Still Can't Pay Its Bills. appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Europe has plenty of world-class research, talent and creativity. However, too often ideas originating in Europe are turned into economic success by others, elsewhere. This is because European innovators face barriers here and find it difficult to bring their ideas to life. As a result, the Commission proposed a new European innovation act to help Europe's most innovative ideas be developed, financed and scaled up in Europe.

To strengthen the EU innovation system, the proposal will address two main challenges. Firstly, it will help innovative companies access financing by

• promoting a common EU framework to value intellectual property
• creating a digital marketplace connecting buyers and sellers of intellectual property
• offering expert support to help companies bring their ideas to the market

This can unlock €10.2 billion per year in additional financing and generate around €35 million in administrative cost savings.

Second, it will establish a common approach for research and development procurement that

• will provide greater legal certainty 
• help new technologies reach the market faster
• make it easier for public buyers from different EU countries to jointly carry out Research and Development procurements. 

With this, companies could expect €25.92 billion in additional annual profits, while public buyers could save €1 billion per year.

The European innovation act is an element of the competitiveness compass, to strengthen the EU's long-term competitiveness, prosperity and technological sovereignty. In parallel, the Commission will help innovators accelerate the transformation of innovative ideas into market solutions through a specific proposal on regulatory sandboxes.

For more information

Press release - Commission proposes new European Innovation Act to help innovative European ideas grow and compete globally

Questions and answers on the European Innovation Act

Factsheet on the European Innovation Act

The European Innovation Act

The European Commission wants to cut the EU’s public procurement rulebook from around 900 pages to 200, in a sweeping reform that aims to simplify tendering while giving governments greater scope to favour European economic and security interests, writes Catherine Feore.

Executive Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné held up the existing body of rules alongside its much slimmer replacement, to illustrate his point. 

“These here are the European rules which currently govern public procurement in Europe: 900 pages,” he said. “And this is what we are proposing today… down to 200 pages.”

The proposed Public Procurement Act would replace three EU procurement directives with a single regulation, with a view to simplifying procurement provisions spread across 26 sectoral laws and cutting the number of procedures from five to three.

The Commission estimates the changes could save businesses and public authorities €650 million a year in administrative costs.

The reform matters because of Europe’s massive purchasing power involved. EU public procurement exceeds €2.5 trillion annually, around 15% of EU GDP, covering everything from trains and hospitals to energy infrastructure, schools and IT systems.

From lowest price to strategic purchasing

The proposal is not just about cutting red tape. Brussels wants governments to use their purchasing power more strategically.

The Best Price-Quality Ratio would become the standard method for awarding contracts, with quality normally accounting for at least 30% of the assessment and 50% for labour-intensive contracts. Authorities could consider environmental and social performance, innovation, security and resilience alongside price.

The commitment to a so-called European preference has been tempered by the EU’s international commitments, but access can be restricted when a country doesn’t reciprocate market access. Restrictions could also be imposed where reliance on foreign suppliers creates security-of-supply dependencies or threatens EU economic security.

“European public money should, wherever possible, create jobs, investment and opportunities in Europe rather than filling the order books of our competitors,” Séjourné said.

Five procurement procedures would become three: open, dynamic and innovation procedures. Each would allow negotiation between buyers and bidders.

The Commission also plans an integrated EU digital procurement marketplace connecting national e-procurement platforms. A company registered through one connected system should be able to bid elsewhere in Europe without repeatedly submitting the same documentation. This is intended to reduce bureaucracy and tackle one of the current system's weaknesses: too little competition, particularly from SMEs and companies bidding across borders.

National, regional and local priorities may appreciate this flexibility in theory, but constrained budgets often mean that price will remain the bottom line for many. This legislation offers greater freedom in determining needs, but it remains to be seen what its impact will be.

PHOTO CREDIT: European Commission Executive Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné says the rules reduced from 900 pages to 200 pages © European Union

On June 17, 2026, the European Parliament formally adopted regulations governing “New Genomic Techniques” (NGTs), marking a major turning point for European agriculture.

The decision paves the way for a new generation of genetically modified crops capable of withstanding drought and disease, but it has also raised legitimate concerns about the privatization of living organisms and potential environmental risks. The debate has divided the continent, pitting supporters of technological innovation against advocates of traditional farming.

What are NGTs and how do they differ from traditional GMOs?

NGTs, or New Genomic Techniques, represent a significant advance in plant genome editing. Unlike first-generation genetically modified organisms, which involve introducing foreign DNA from different species, NGTs operate on a fundamentally different principle.
These techniques allow scientists to modify a plant’s genome using only genes originating from the same species. For example, it may now be possible to make a tomato more resistant to aphids by transferring a gene from another naturally resistant tomato variety. Although these plants are technically genetically modified organisms, seeds produced through NGTs are not transgenic—a distinction that plays a key role in European regulations.

Two categories of NGTs and different regulatory standards

The compromise negotiated by the European Commission and member states established a two-tier classification system. Category 1 NGTs, involving a limited number of naturally occurring mutations, will be treated as equivalent to conventional varieties and will benefit from partial deregulation.
By contrast, NGTs engineered for herbicide resistance or designed to produce insecticides will not be authorized for commercial use, in the interest of sustainability and environmental protection.
Another major restriction is that no NGT crops will be allowed in organic farming, creating a clear divide between agricultural production using these technologies and certified organic agriculture.

European agriculture confronts climate challenges

Supporters of NGTs—including major farming organizations such as Copa-Cogeca and leading European seed companies—argue that these technologies are essential for maintaining competitiveness and adapting to climate change. NGTs could significantly accelerate the development of crop varieties capable of tolerating severe drought and extreme heat, both of which are becoming increasingly common across Europe.
For some farmers, particularly in the French Caribbean territories, NGTs offer a practical solution to existing plant diseases. Banana plantations, for example, have been devastated by black Sigatoka, a destructive fungal disease against which NGTs could provide natural resistance. Such practical applications have helped mobilize support within the agricultural sector for the new regulations.
Advocates also emphasize that the European Union is creating a “sovereign European model” distinct from those of the United States and Brazil, with specific safeguards governing approved techniques and strict oversight of the sector.

Environmental concerns and the privatization of life

Critics of NGTs raise fundamental concerns about agricultural sustainability and intellectual property rights. According to opponents, the safety of NGTs for human health and the environment has not been sufficiently established through democratic processes. They are calling for mandatory traceability and a ban on patenting living organisms.
Farmers’ unions such as the Confédération Paysanne view NGTs as a “Trojan horse” for major seed and agrochemical corporations. Their primary concern is the gradual monopolization of seeds by a handful of agribusiness giants, forcing smaller seed companies and farmers to pay licensing fees. Critics argue that such a trend could accelerate crop uniformity and reduce agricultural biodiversity.
They also warn that increasing corporate control over genetic resources could marginalize small farmers and undermine their autonomy. Thomas Gibert, a market gardener in Haute-Vienne and spokesperson for the Confédération Paysanne, has described the issue as a “major risk” involving the “privatization” of life driven by the “ultra-powerful agribusiness lobby.”

The european parliament’s decision-making process

The European Parliament approved the NGT regulation on June 17, 2026, after rejecting all amendments proposed by Green and Socialist lawmakers. These amendments sought to make traceability mandatory and prohibit patent protection for NGTs, two measures strongly supported by left-wing parties and environmental groups.
The legislation ultimately received broad political support, ranging from the centrist Renew group to the far right, with backing from the European People’s Party. This unusual coalition illustrates how NGTs have transcended traditional political divisions, bringing together pro-competitiveness forces around a technological agenda.
Centrist Member of the European Parliament Pascal Canfin defended the measure, saying, “We have created a sovereign European model for new genomic techniques that will serve our farmers,” underscoring Europe’s geopolitical ambitions in the face of global agricultural powers.

Scientific assessments and the timeline for market introduction

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) endorsed the European Commission’s approach to authorizing NGTs. However, other scientific bodies have adopted a more cautious stance. In 2024, France’s National Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health Safety (ANSES) recommended case-by-case evaluations of potential health and environmental risks before any products are marketed.
These differing approaches reflect the lack of a complete scientific consensus regarding the long-term implications of NGTs. Despite the swift adoption of the legislation, several years are expected to pass before foods produced using NGTs actually reach European consumers. The interval between the testing of new varieties and their commercial release will remain substantial.

Balancing innovation and caution

The legalization of NGTs marks a significant shift in Europe’s agricultural strategy in response to climate change and increasing global competition. Yet the move also highlights unresolved tensions between the drive for technological innovation and legitimate concerns regarding the environment, public health, and the concentration of economic power within the food sector.
The challenge now lies in the practical implementation of the NGT regulations. Safeguards such as the prohibition of herbicide-resistant NGTs and their exclusion from organic farming represent important protective measures. Nevertheless, the issue of mandatory traceability remains highly controversial, with major implications for consumer transparency and the protection of small farmers’ interests.
Ultimately, the success or failure of Europe’s NGT experiment will depend largely on the ability of regulators to ensure rigorous oversight, maintain transparent communication with the public, and continuously adapt regulations in light of emerging scientific evidence. Europe has embarked on a narrow path between necessary technological innovation and the precautionary principles that have long defined its approach.

L’article NGTs: Europe legalizes a new generation of GMOs est apparu en premier sur FrenchDailyNews.