Relatively Speaking

A news headline in early 2026 warned that "the Doomsday Clock" is the closest to midnight that it has ever been. Reading on, you learn momentarily that it is "now 4 seconds closer to midnight than it was in 2025." According to the Doomsday people, "It is now 85 seconds to midnight."

Who are the Doomsday people? Almost 100 years ago, Einstein, Oppenheimer, and others involved with the Manhattan Project created the metaphorical clock, which uses "the imagery of apocalypse (midnight) ... to convey threats to humanity and the planet." The clock illustration is to make a visual for the rest of us, or perhaps to placate us into not demanding to see the math.

In a strange riddle, young people today seemingly struggle with things like thinking and reading, see Screen Time Wins (February 2026); It's Your Kids! (February 2026). According to YouGov.com, "only 43% of adults under 30 ... say they can instantly tell the time from the hour and minute hands." This particular analogy may be wearing thin as we old folks cede the field.

Nonetheless, a Smart People's Club confabulates every year and group-thinks a prognostication of the "world's vulnerability to global catastrophe." One of the persistent challenges with experts is when they deliver an opinion, but do not show their work. That can affect credibility. For instance, in my personal, considered opinion, Schrödinger's cat is, in fact, dead (you disprove it if you wish). 

Nonetheless, they opine "catastrophe!" No, not necessarily from nuclear war. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Security Board and Board of Sponsors is assessing the catastrophe threat more broadly, from "man-made technologies." The latest prognostication is founded on nation-states ignoring the scientist's prior warnings. Despite their suggestions and recommendations,

"Russia, China, the United States, and other major countries have instead become increasingly aggressive, adversarial, and nationalistic."

This is indeed a novelty. Young people today will not have studied it, but the planet has been largely conflict-free and utopian until just recently (see below). Nonetheless, the scientists presently see a "winner-takes-all great power competition," feeding their fears of

"nuclear war, climate change, the misuse of biotechnology, the potential threat of artificial intelligence, and other apocalyptic dangers."

At the outset, this avoids the broader "use of biotechnology," but I digress. To be fair, none of these perceived threats is going to get as much airtime as Hollywood's latest loss or Sydney Sweeney's most recent outfit. Nonetheless, the Smart Club sees threats in "three regional conflicts," nuclear ambitions, the "Golden Dome," and "a new space-based arms race." This was all before the present war on Iran. 

Why is it so hard to get people to focus on this? That is reasonably simple. It makes some sense that most readers would prefer something a little less intense with their morning coffee than "Global Thermonuclear War." (War Games, MGM 1983). Seeing headlines about former royal whatshisname or the latest "inappropriate relationship" is far less likely to cause indigestion or insomnia.

Historically, the Smart Club has been a bit pessimistic. In 1991, the clock was the furthest from midnight (17 minutes). In 1953 (nuclear testing) and 2018 (perceived leadership challenges on nuclear weapons), it was set to "two minutes to midnight," which is 120 seconds. 

Somehow their angst then was similar to the 100 seconds in 2021 when the world was awash in the economic catastrophe that was Wuhan SARS-CoV-2, whoever started it. Think on that. The entire world economy tanked as workforces were idled, and the Smart Club thinks things are worse today. 

For the sake of clarity, it was 89 seconds to midnight in 2025 and is now 85 seconds. And yet, most of America will be too busy with the kids' schedule, work, Faceplace, the Kardashians, the latest sports star arrest, and other distractions to spend much time thinking about the Smart Club Clock. I hear more complaining about traffic and gas prices than I do about the Smart Club. 

Even for those who can tell time on an analog clock, the clock is a bit erudite for the common man, or at least for this one. I harken back to comedian Ron White's plan for a system of only "two states of heightened awareness: (1) go find a helmet and (2) put on the helmet." Simple. Elegant. Self-explanatory. Maybe the Smart Club should adopt something this rudimentary? Or, in our diminishing collective Idiocracy (20th Century, 2006), perhaps too few will soon recognize a helmet?

What is the goal of the Smart Club clock? My thought is that our goal should be that the clock reflects 365 days to midnight. Note that the Smart Club says we've never been there, even back in the peace-loving times of Genghis Khan, Vlad the Impaler, Attila the Hun, Alexander, Philip, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and the list goes on). 

Remember that time that we lost roughly 97% of the world's human population (the "Pleistocene bottleneck")? The volcanic winter of Toba? the "worst year to be alive" (536 CE)? The ice age? The Black Death? Ah, yes, the good old days (sarcasm, see above re utopia and today's present perceptions). 

Yes, today is indeed the worst of times, according to the Smart Club of Clockkeepers. That said, is there a real difference between 120 seconds and 85? What does the lost 25 seconds mean? Einstein would tell you it is all relative. Some claim time is merely an illusion. Time is no answer and a poor reference. Can today's conflicts and threats be rationally compared to the past atrocities and catastrophes? 

For that matter, some might argue there is not a great deal of difference between two minutes and 17 minutes? In the grand scheme of a life, 17 minutes is not even a Big Mac meal on the highway. It is not even the 2112 Overture (Rush); it is barely Voodoo Chile (Hendrix). But it is significantly more than Suffer (1.3 seconds total, Napalm Death, 1985). How long 17 minutes is will be relative to whether you are staring at a beautiful beach or mountain scene or some odious bag of excrement. 

Though you might find fault in the clock, the Club, and the warnings, there is value in analysis and contemplation. Perhaps there is even room for fear. 

We work in an environment (workers' compensation) that is large and intricately intertwined with even larger systems: economics generally, employment, technology, inflation, trade policy, health care, and more. These are each monumentally important and pervasive intellectual pursuits that have real-world impacts on the day-to-day of injury prevention, remediation, recovery, and recompense. Much like the warlords or worse, we are individually at their whim. 

There are a great many minds in the realm of workers' compensation. Notably, many of them are as busy professionally as we all are and have as little time for the big picture as anyone, anywhere, has time for the Smart Club Clock. The day-to-day consumes our intellect, attention, and investment. There is only time for the next patient, calculation, payment, claim, or response. 

Who will step back and ponder the big picture? Who will consider whether workers' compensation in America is vibrant, healthy, and thriving? Who will suggest the map towards a better workers' compensation tomorrow? Will it depend on an illustrative Clock or Calculator to provide some Global Assessment of Functioning? In any such assessment, will there be unanimity or acrimony?

The end of the analysis is that much we encounter in the world is up to each of us to assess subjectively. We can make judgments, form opinions, and make predictions. When we do so collectively, we may fall into the perils of groupthink or worse. This will remain true whether we are in the Smart Club or not.

And, in all, we will be subject to a vast array of personal predispositions clouding our way. See Unseen Influence: Unconscious Predisposition in Dispute Resolution (2025), available on my website www.dwlangham.com.

Privity of Contract or Buyer's Remorse

A pronouncement from the American Bar Association (ABA) is in the news. With the advent of AI, there are many seeking solace regarding the potential impacts on the practice of law. 

There is a persistent myth in the American legal world. A great many people assume that the ABA is some manner of regulatory agency with jurisdiction over lawyers. It is not. I am a lawyer, and the ABA does not speak for me any more than any other organization to which I do not belong or contribute. It is fair to say it speaks for many members, but it neither regulates nor represents all lawyers.

The ABA is a voluntary trade association that elects to study issues and make pronouncements and recommendations. Granted, there are a great many intelligent people who are members. They are human, each with flaws, predispositions, and perhaps agendas. That said, some of their pronouncements and recommendations have received warm receptions, but they are not in any manner binding unless adopted by some regulatory authority.

A Recent Thompson Reuters article questioned the impact of an ABA pronouncement: Is ABA Formal Opinion 512 off the Mark? And if so, what can law firms and GCs do about it? This focuses on the "thorny ethical issues" AI presents for "competence, confidentiality, communications, candor toward the tribunal, and supervisory responsibility." I would suggest that it is perhaps not so thorny nor really novel. 

A critical point is hourly attorney fees. There are those who foresee AI large language models (LLM) making lawyers more efficient, thus leading to similar or even enhanced output in exchange for far less input (more lawyering for less invested time).

As I wrote that, I was drawn inexorably back to Sammy Hagar and his hit I can't drive 55, a rebellious reaction to the 1970s absurd political solution to increased gasoline costs and fuel shortages. President Carter pushed for 55-mile-per-hour speed limits, and they were as frustrating as they were absurd. Sammy intoned:

"What used to take two hours now takes all day."

I hear your confusion. How could AI have that impact? No, reverse it. With AI, it may soon be that

"What used to take all day now takes two hours."

So far, we have not seen this impact among the professionals. I have read many who say that the LLM is fast, but fact-checking the output is as time-consuming as doing the work in the old manner. Granted, not all those who practice law are professionals, but that is a different concern altogether ("but that is a different concern"). 

So, if Lawyer ONE can do a task in an hour, but it takes Lawyer TWO two hours, what should Lawyer ONE bill for the task? That may seem like a trick question, but it's not. Lawyer ONE can bill one hour. See, the simplicity is in the honesty of charging the time it required. Perhaps Lawyer ONE is therefore worth more per hour, but that is a matter of negotiation and contract.

Back in the dark ages (1993), the ABA addressed that essential question and concluded:

"‘the lawyer who has agreed to bill on the basis of hours expended does not fulfill her ethical duty if she bills the client for more time than she has actually expended on the client’s behalf.’”

In the agreement with the client, there is reliance and constraint. The lawyer has made a contract. They have consented to a set of terms in which value will be exchanged, services for money. It is a concept as old as time itself (Og and Grok likely entered the first such value exchange in which some fresh meat was exchanged for a warm pelt in about -20,000 BCE). Commerce is older even than taxes. 

This ABA opinion may seem to end the discussion. But what if the money is sought from someone with whom there is no such contract, no such agreement? Ah, the apparently fatal rub in the prevailing party fee. Perhaps less fatal, but as intriguing in the contingency fee that contains no such "basis of hours?"

The article on ABA Formal Opinion 512 describes building on the 1993 conclusions and formalizes that if 

"a lawyer using GenAI only spends 15 minutes to draft a pleading, that lawyer may only charge for that 15-minute period, plus whatever time the lawyer spends reviewing the draft."

That is back to the current state of AI and the incredible time required to verify output before the trust of filing. Formal Opinion 512, however, specifically reminds that

"such a billing practice must be followed, 'if a lawyer has agreed to charge the client on [an hourly] basis[.]'"

Horace Middlemier* always notes that in all the law there is persistently an "if" or "but" and he can usually use both to drive a Mack truck-sized hole through any statute or regulation. 

The "if" caveat in Formal Opinion 512 is critical. Certainly, the thoughts on contingency fees and prevailing party fees remain (anyone who does work on a contingency basis, who might nonetheless charge an opposing party if they prevail, may seem free to leverage the 15 minutes into the 15 hours it would have taken without AI?). There are some who believe that some contingency billing is padded already and that paralegals, law clerks, and others are leveraged similarly to how AI will be. 

However, the broader point is that the day of the billable hour may be over. The limitation imposed by the necessity of good faith and fair dealing, so fundamental to contract law writ large, may deter reliance on technology. As the legal profession is sucked into the vortex of AI, LLMs, chatbots, and more, the "billable hour" contract may have to yield the field. 

To what paradigm? The proposal most often voiced is legal services delivered on the foundation of success. The number of inputs is irrelevant, and the outcome is the deciding factor. If the dispute is resolved by a deadline, submitted to a mediation process, effectively presented to an adjudicator, or otherwise concluded within the contract terms, then a sum certain is due. Delay means less remuneration. The engagement of anything that drives speed or performance is the lawyer's burden, but it drives the remuneration described.

The Thompson Reuters story suggests that the escape from hourly paradigms is a "potentially massive loophole." There is a prediction that alternative fee paradigms will come, and some will be potentially regrettable. All experimentation results in some untoward or unsuccessful outcomes. That is why it is called "experimentation" instead of merely "change." 

And, as is often the case with regret, the value exchange may be viewed in retrospect with remorse ("buyer's remorse," but either party might experience the emotion). That it is different should not be the test for success. Instead, the question will be whether it is better, ethical, and professional. Each lawyer will have to make such determinations, though some may rely on the groupthink that is the ABA. 

*Horace Middlemier is not a real person. He is a figment of the author's imagination, a foil, an "everyman," used purely as an illustration and to protect the identity of many who provide fodder for these pages. Any similarity to any real person, living or dead, is pure coincidence and not intended.

Assumption of the Risk

The conversation rages on regarding whether college athletes are or are not employees, and whether they should be eligible for workers' compensation in either event. There are multiple perspectives, and a great deal has been said and written. The recent Olympic Games made me consider some points that may or may not be salient.

Some history may be relevant. One driver of workers' compensation adoption in the U.S. was a perception that the "common law defenses" were defeating tort claims filed by workers. The cacophony of "common law" defenses will usually include references to Contributory Negligence and Assumption of the Risk.

When most think of "common law," they are ascribing some veneration as if we are discussing an ancient construct, a long tradition, or an inherent part of our past. My students are often surprised to learn that Assumption of the Risk was introduced in the U.S. long after our parting of ways with King George and company, in 1859 (see Moore, below). Contributory Negligence is not that much older in the U.S. (1824)(see Moran, below), and not really that much older period; see Butterfield v. Foster,103 E.R. 926 (1809)

When the American workers' compensation movement began in the early 20th century, Contributory Negligence had been the law for about 75 years, and Assumption of the Risk for just over 40 years. These were (1) not venerated ancient historical references and (2) not inherited from England. These were certainly related to English law, copied here, but were adopted here well after independence.

Cornell's Legal Information Institute explains that Assumption of the Risk has largely been subsumed into Comparative or Contributory Negligence schemes. It persists, however, in "the thrilling world of sports," according to the Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal. That notes that participants "acknowledge and accept the inherent risks associated with" competitive sports.

The Olympics have made me think of Assumption of the Risk with headlines like Chinese snowboarder Liu Jiayu stretchered off after fall, and Lindsey Vonn airlifted to hospital after serious crash during Olympic downhill. There are likely many other examples of injury that do not make the news coverage. These are serious athletes and they are banging into things, places, and each other. Thus, in the tort world, an athlete might have challenges.

What of the workers' compensation world?

In Florida, we have a definition of accident:

“Accident” means only an unexpected or unusual event or result that happens suddenly."

When two people run at each other and collide, is the result (pain or breakage) unexpected or unusual? Is the result different if they throw themselves off a mountain and strive to achieve Mach I on a set of boards or blades? The Florida definition might be more amenable to a training event, a fall, or similar ancilary to the actual football game or boxing event, etc.

There are always challenges when an accident occurs out of state, see section 440.09(1)(d). Other potential challenges could include failure to wear a safety device or follow a safety rule, section 440.09(5); use of alcohol or drugs, section 440.09(7); or intent to injure self "or another," section 440.09(3); or if the injury included horseplay or other significant deviation from employment.

The most basic hurdle, however, would be the exclusion from the Florida "employment" definition of "professional athletes. That definition provides examples ("such as"), which is not inclusive of all intercollegiate sports (e.g., golf, field hockey, volleyball). Nonetheless, the language of "such as" might be interpreted to not limit the definition of "professional athlete." Section 440.02(20)(c)(3). If college students are paid to perform in sports, are they not definitionally "professionals?"

What if they are not paid to perform at college, but the great nation of China hires them to perform for them in the Olympics, or if they are paid for winning a medal? Do they remain "amateurs" in the spirit of the games, or is their status professional? What if they are paid athletes as college students, and are injured in a training exercise (like amateur appearance in the Olympics)?

If they are relieved of the "professional" description, there remain reciprocity issues under section 440.094 (2011) that was adopted specifically because of concerns with athletes suffering injuries while out of state. It is likely that Italy counts, but even Los Angeles would be significant for most.

In the end, there would need to be a great deal of thought invested in any expansion of workers' compensation to cover athletes in such settings. Is there precedent? Yes, many professional athletes have specifically opted into workers' compensation and alternative statutory programs. 

There are templates available and precedents to follow. The issue will be whether the need is compelling, and the current atmosphere seems ambivalent at best. 

Moran, Kenneth and Sylvester, Christopher U. (1954) "Negligence - Contributory Negligence - The Doctrine of Comparative Negligence," North Dakota Law Review: Vol. 30: No. 2, Article 3, https://commons.und.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3300&context=ndlr 

Dale L. Moore, Please Watch Your Language!: The Chronic Problem of Assumption of Risk, 61 Cath. U. L. Rev. 175 (2012), https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=lawreview

Reminders or Epiphanies on Aging

There are a few bits of advice that might be returned to persistently. I have recommended The Sunscreen Song in this regard, see Sarcasm - it's Irritation (July 2019); When I was Stronger (October 2019); Shrinkflation and SB 959 (October 2021); Hints and Thoughts (October 2022); Purpose (October 2023); Ever Get Old? (January 2025).

I have gotten good response from these quotations. It has always astounded me how many people have overlooked the advice of Baz Lurman and the Sunscreen Song. But some hear music, and others are inspired. There is no accounting for it.

In a similar vein, I was recently introduced to a video produced by a ninety-something (not sure how dated the video is). The purpose is retrospective, and the point is compelling. It is imperative to live life to the fullest. It is, after all, a one-way trip full of potential and opportunity. But, critically, it is one-way. See What are you waiting for? (November 2025).

The message of this nonagenarian is powerful and compelling. It begins with the simple message that time is precious, dispelling inaccuracies such as "60 is a new 40, or whatever nonsense they are selling now." It encourages us to seize the day, and to recognize there may be no tomorrow. It acknowledges the probability for loss and deterioration.

It will be a hard listen for some. There is opportunity to lament past decisions or imperfections. But there is motivation also. It is for us old folks, but every reader should view the whole 20 minutes. In it, this survivor lays out ten lessons she gained the hard way.

She dispels myths and dashes dreams. The style is conversational and inspirational, but also can be a bit depressing. She has seen much, remembers many, and laments their passing. She implores us to realize that tomorrow is coming at us with speed, indifference, and insatiability.

She suggests that your 60s are imperative as a "last real chance to prepare for everything that comes next." And, her thoughts ring with a power that I wish I had understood long before my 60s. She knows what she would tell a 60-year-old self, and I think of what I would tell me in my 40s. Here are her thoughts:

"Lesson number one. Your body is about to change in ways you cannot reverse, and you need to build strength now while you still can."

She recommends exercise, muscle building, practicing balance, and persistence. Actively fight against decline. or you "are going to spend your 80s and 90s trapped in a body that cannot do what your mind wants it to do."

"Lesson number 2. Your friends are going to start dying, and you need more of them than you think."

She recommends making friends and keeping friends. Some old enough to know your history, and new ones that are likely to be with you in 20 years.

"Lesson number 3. Have the conversations about death and money now, while everyone is still healthy enough to have" those conversations.

She laments not knowing how to care for her parents, because they could not communicate what they wanted. She was too late asking them. She sought clarity, but instead traversed the care path alone, guessing, and confused. She searched for documents, clues, and signs.

"Lesson number 4. Retirement will not save you. It will expose you."

She went from being a leader, a title, to just plain Lorraine. She had no deadlines, no goals. She accidentally discovered things she loved, like painting, the library, and simple connections. She warns, "If you are in your 60s, and your job is your whole identity, you are heading for a cliff."

"Lesson number 5. You have less time with your spouse than you think, and most of it will not be the healthy, active years you are imagining."

She describes the onset of illness, the loss of her spouse, and their collective failure to maximize their time with each other. She celebrates what they did, but laments their shortcomings. When they "slowed down" they did not accomplish as much together, in terms of travel, enjoyment, etc.

"Lesson number 6. Forgive everyone now, because later you will not have the chance."

She laments holding grudges. She missed opportunities to speak with and enjoy the good in people. Some passed without recognition or reconciliation. She sees grudges as a waste of time and opportunity. She wishes she could speak with those who passed before she recognized their worth outweighed their burden.

"Lesson number 7. Your adult children do not need your advice. They need your presence."

She describes letting go of the role of parent or advisor and merely living in the moments. She advocates for maximizing the connections and enjoying the opportunities. She sees that offering her children "unsolicited advice" was "telling them I did not trust them to figure it out themselves."

"Lesson number 8. Write things down, because you are going to forget everything."

She notes memory issues with the day-to-day. She knows that is normal, but laments it. She finds it terrifying. She knows that only she remembers certain events, people, and histories. She says to write it all down now while you do. She laments not beginning her journal ten years earlier.

"Lesson number 9. You are going to be scared, and courage is doing it anyway."

She recounts much loss and the challenge of aging. She describes fear and terror at loss and change. She is compelling and frank. She cautions that ignoring the inevitability of aging and loss is naive and that it will not forestall the change and evolution. This is prophetic.

"Lesson number 10, and this is the one I need you to hear. The last 30 years go faster than the first 60."

She says that decades passed in moments. She cannot remember where it went. She says seasons blur, years collapse into each other, days are wasted. She laments losing her husband, whom she still nonetheless talks to daily. She wishes she could grab her 60-year-old self by the shoulders and shake some sense of urgency into her.

That is scary as can be. Number 10 stopped me in my tracks. I have thought much of my approaching end, and striven to deliver some thoughts before that hits. I will be adjusting that soon, with some writings I have put off too long. 

I long ago recognized my mortality, and frankly, I am a little surprised to have lived this long. I have pushed limits, taken chances, and ignored needs. I have striven, and largely failed. 

I take Lorraine's video for what it is worth. I cannot learn everything from it. I cannot move forward from here any more perfectly than I traveled here. Perfection is a fallacy, misdirection, and distraction. But I can do better. I can focus more. I can be more, see more, and enjoy more. And I can wear sunscreen, thanks, Baz. I can go walk three miles right now. 

I will. Will you?

Emergency, Acute, Urgent, and Routine

The news keeps reminding us of challenges in our healthcare system. People brings a story of a 24-year-old with stage 3 cancer, an outlier.

The story is of persistence, perseverance, and heart.

But her comments on access struck me. She was diagnosed slowly because of her age/outlier. The routine tests did not render an adequate diagnosis (“Blood looks great. You’re not anemic. There’s really no concern.”). But as to access specifically:

“This is all like a six-month process, because referrals take forever, especially when you're 24 and healthy."

"There's not a real rush to get you to the doctor."

I’m not a doctor (nor do I play one on TV or stay at the hotel that supposedly makes you smarter). But this seems to be a recurrent story I hear. Particularly in workers’ compensation, there are delays in seeing doctors.

The scenario I hear most often is the leverage complaint. This is essentially about no access to an MD, with systems insisting that patients acquiesce in care with nurse practitioners, physician’s assistants, and similar providers. They are told that when your symptoms warrant it, the doctor will see you.

The next challenge is when the MD makes the referral to a specialist. Delays of 6 months are commonly described. Those lucky enough to get an appointment are frequently complaining that after their initial visit, it is again all nurse practitioners and physician assistants for their follow-up care.

The final complaint is a lack of urgency. Are there methods to expedite care? One primary told me the only urgency system we have is the emergency room. Unless you are bleeding or have chest pains, that adventure can cost hours of delay, discomfort, and too often, disappointment. 

If it is not a true emergency, the ER will not get you to a neurologist any faster than the “make an appointment” route. If your symptoms warrant hospitalization, then you may get a more rapid specialist evaluation, but it might or might not lead to care or even follow-up.  

I have written about the perceived doctor shortage. Supply and Demand (February 2024); Bid Day 2025 (April 2025). I have written about the investment required to claim “MD.” Opportunity Cost (October 2025). 

I acknowledge the economic challenges, the investment challenges, and the societal challenges. But, there is a need for our medical system to render care for the emergency, the acute, the urgent, and the routine. There is room for this to be organized, incentivized, and utilized. Unfortunately, there is little time left in the physician’s day after the crush of patients, paperwork, and compassion.

Who will solve all this? How many will suffer or die before we do? Who will care until they need the system to work for them?

The Fake Hearing Scam

Various news platforms reported in early 2026 about a scam being perpetrated in the name of workers' compensation in Oregon, Idaho, and Montana. For some reason, the victims are primarily Spanish speakers. 

There has been some alarm about this in various other states, including Virginia and Colorado. No incidents there have been documented in the news coverage, but the Virginia Commission has issued warnings, citing incidents in Kentucky. The Tennessee Department of Workforce Development has also issued an alert. 

KPTV, KOIN, National Today, and others have highlighted the scheme. KPTV reports schemers are notably flexible, using "phone, email, social media, or video calls" to contact injured workers. They inform them that they will receive benefits if they appear at a video hearing. Those involve "a fake judge, attorney or government representative, according to the state."

The outcome of the hearing is in favor of the worker, and some are provided with "an order in their favor that appears to be official." However, to collect the awarded benefits, the worker has to pay the schemers that they think are the state workers' compensation system.

The issue has become prevalent enough in Oregon that the state has begun publicizing the scheme and warning people. They urge workers to believe that there is never a request from the state for "any payment to receive benefits," and that there are avenues to check the validity of any communication that seems to be from the state workers' compensation system.

KOIN expanded on the approach method, noting that the social media of choice seems to be "Facebook Messenger or WhatsApp." Notably, the Oregon Workers' Compensation Board "does not use social media to communicate about hearings or mediations."

National Today noted the approach to "Spanish-speaking" may be based on their being "unfamiliar with the workers' compensation system." The National article concludes that "this scam highlights the importance of educating vulnerable workers."

WFLA Radio recently noted another example that involved similar subterfuge. Four were arrested for impersonating participants in immigration hearings. Allegdly, the defendants 

"brazenly stole their victims' money and deceived them by sending fictitious documents and holding sham court proceedings."

"staged fake immigration court hearings over videoconference, with members playing the roles of judges, lawyers, and law enforcement officers."

In the years I have studied workers' compensation around the country, I have never come across any instance in which an injured worker is required to send money as a condition of receiving either a hearing or payment of their benefits. That element alone should be a red flag to anyone seeking benefits.

The video hearing, however, has become common. Before there were video opportunities, many hearings occurred telephonically. The judges make efforts to verify the identity of hearing participants, and yet there have been instances in which an imposter has successfully borrowed someone's identity and stolen their case.

The potentials abound around us, and we all see the reminders daily. It takes two actions to access email or bank accounts. There are PIN, two-level authentication, persistent password updating, and more. These hurdles are thrown into our path by organizations seeking to stem the tide of ne'er-do-wells and their amazingly imaginative permutations for separating people from their resources.

For the sake of edification, the Florida OJCC does not communicate about hearings or mediations on any social media platform. There is never any reason to make a payment to this Office as a requisite for a hearing, mediation, or order. Anyone who is asked to provide personal information or payment should hesitate and look into the request fully.

The best way to approach such an investigation is never through someone who has contacted you (by email, phone, or mail). If you receive such an inquiry or request, ignore any alleged or stated urgency and contact that company through their published phone, email, or U.S. Mail address. Make sure you are communicating with who you intend to speak with.

The National Today admonition is sound, though likely too limited in scope. There are many, in various populations, who may be trusting or naive as to the potential for harm from scammers. Indeed, "this scam highlights the importance of educating vulnerable workers." Every worker is deserving of this information. 

It's Your Kids!

Doc Brown arrives from the future in search of our intrepid protagonist, Marty. The film is Back to the Future; the year is 1985 (Universal), and the spirit is comedic. The warning remains critical:

"It's your kids, Marty. Something's gotta be done about your kids!"

Not to put too fine a point on it, but our education system has committed a major misstep. Certainly, they were likely enabled and even empowered by well-meaning facilitators, so-called experts, and a raft of helicopter parents. Nonetheless, we are in serious trouble, and the present inflection point will be looked upon as history judges us.

The machines are all around us. There is a growing dependency, and too many are mindlessly walking to their doom and ours. I have striven to warn against the ascent of machines. See Competency for Incompetents (January 2026); More Proof of Idiocracy (September 2025); Indeed Sancho Panza (July 2025); Will the Heimlich be Required (June 2025; We are Regressing (March 2025); Disuse Atrophy (December 2024); Sharing a Drink Called Loneliness (May 2023); Evolution and DNA (November 2022); Are You Innumerate? (July 2018).

There is a great threat to our future. I have seen it, and it is us. We are threatened by our own offspring. No, Doc Brown has not visited me. I have not the power of prescience or prediction. The simple truth is that these screen devices and the pablum of Tick Tock are rotting the brains of our youth.

Fortune reports that the U.S. has invested tens of billions of dollars in the drive to put a screen in the hands of every youth. We have abandoned the tried and true of yesteryear (pronounced "/bʊk/"). We have abandoned the tried and true of "reading, writing, and arithmatic," commonly refered to as the "three Rs," and misspelled "reading, 'riting and 'rithmetic."

Applied Scholastics suggests that we should never have abandoned these three. There is some degree of doubt that any of them are critical in today's digital world. Nonetheless, Applied suggests that in our desertion, we have "students (who) have not been taught the true basics of how to study and learn." There is, arguably, as much value in the learning of "how" as there is in "what."

What has the massive investment in screens since 2002 accomplished? Precisely zero progress. In fact, Fortune reports that for the first time in a century, a generation has "scored lower on standardized tests than the previous one." Yes, Virginia, we have regressions as a replacement for progress.

Let that sink in: "Gen Z is less cognitively capable than previous generations, despite its unprecedented access to technology." To be fair, we have not achieved Idiocracy (2006, 20th Century Fox). To be real, the early symptoms are all around us. Must we end up there to understand?

The Fortune article is quick to assuage feelings. No, the decline of test performance is not necessarily "indicative of intelligence." Nonetheless, test scores "are a reflection of cognitive capability." And capability is on the decline. We have lost the drive for critical thinking. This is described in Screen Time Wins (February 2026), noting "Johnny can't read," and the Sowell conclusion that the real problem is "Johnny can't think."

An inflection point is "a moment when significant change occurs or may occur." In the education of our youth, we have passed several such points and yet face another. Will we put away screens and learn to read, to think, to process, and to express? Or shall we watch another short video of an idiot eating a laundry pod?

Shall we strive to comprehend the subtleties of Hamlet, or watch another short video (or 100) extolling the inherent value of absurdity and stupidity (insert your own definition of each here).

There is correlation demonstrated between time on screens and "dipping test scores." That is not to say time on screens is evil. Spend that screen time effectively. Youth can learn to code, debug, and integrate knowledge. But the short video has to go.

Don't take my word for it. Who knows the "screen-focused world" better than the billionaires who built it? No one. These insiders are acutely tuned to the enticement and even co-dependency of these social media platforms and the screen time they demand. Fortune noted recently that "tech leaders are keeping their own children away."

Why? They don't believe there is strength or value in being an "iPad kid." They are opposed to "short-form content" and believe it is diminishing attention spans and, thereby, intellectual prowess. How much is acceptable? One Tech guru allows his kids "1.5 hours per week of screen time," compared to the national average of "7.5 hours per day."

How do mom and dad get "some peace" without parking the kids in front of an iPad? The same way mom did it in the 70s, when the current harbinger of doom was television pablum delivered in 30-minute doses loaded with ads for sugar bombs and detritus. Drive children to read, to self-engage outdoors with peers, to paint, to build, to create.

No, education is not so complex. The mind likes problems, puzzles, and challenges. They can be found in a multitude of places, degrees, and repetitions. Parents and teachers need only engage them. Communities need only support libraries, egalitarian youth athletics, band, choir, oh, you have heard it all before. This is not an epiphany, merely a return to the tried and true.

Or, we can keep planting the kids in front of digital babysitters that provide incessant, blather, pablum, and mental sedation. AI is so often raised as a bogeyman, but "I have met the enemy, and he is us." The helicopter parents have to calm down. The teachers have to teach. The screens have got to be minimized. The short-form brain acid has to go. 

Retail Biometrics

I have been thinking of surveillance for a long time. See Assume Everyone is Watching (September 2015); Judicial Bullying in the News (April 2018); The Evolving Issue of Body Cameras (July 2018); Who Ya Gonna Believe (November 2018); Artificial Intelligence Surveillance (August 2020); Surveillance, Conflicting Rights, and Balance (May 2021); Pay Attention (July 2023); Optics and Options (September 2025); Triggered (September 2025); and Is Privacy Gone (January 2026). 

Surveillance, facial recognition, and technology are increasingly part of our personal privacy and even perspectives. Everyone is getting in on the movement. In 2023, some claimed that "20% of U.S. internet households have a video doorbell." Two years later, the New York Post reports that "eight in 10 American homes now contain smart tech," and "35 percent have doorbells that inform them of visitors."

Recently, according to Fox4, a grocery chain in the northeast is "collecting biometric data on anyone who enters their stores in" some locations. Pursuant to government regulations there, it "has posted mandated signage to notify customers about the technology." Their system apparently collects facial recognition data "on everyone who enters the store."

This is being portrayed as a safety precaution. The company has noted that the collected data is used only "to identify individuals who have been previously flagged for misconduct." 

Furthermore, they assert that "Images and video are retained only as long as necessary for security purposes and then disposed of." The company also stresses that it does "not share facial recognition scan data with any third party."

Ben Franklin is credited with writing, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." That is more directly focused on government action or threat, and the will of the people to stand for their own rights. And, it is reasonably clear that we already have little to no privacy in public places. See Is Privacy Gone (January 2026).

CNN reports this grocer is not alone. It asserts, "The biggest chains in America are using facial recognition technology to try to stop shoplifting." But, unlike the grocer example cited, CNN claims that "most customers are unaware their faces are being scanned while they shop." 

The authors assure that "New York City is one of the few places in the country that requires" disclosure. Therefore, they claim that there is broad "lack of oversight, transparency, and bias with facial recognition technology." As prevalent as this apparently is in the U.S. there is some suggestion that it is even more so in Europe.

One may wonder what spectrum of uses data is being put to in these other jurisdictions and instances. While the retailer featured in this story has made commitments not to share these images and other data, to even hold it only temporarily, what of the vast spectrum of retailers outside that venue? Are thousands of images of you being stored and shared by other cameras across the continent? World?

CNN warns that biometrics have "been misused," and that there have been allegations of "false identifications and wrongful arrests" associated with the systems. Somewhat less impairing, the systems have resulted in people being denied entrance to "sporting events and concerts in New York City."

The CNN story also stresses that there is minimal federal or state regulation on these programs, and that the use of these tools is allegedly very widespread among retailers.

An AI User Guide

I was recently privileged to receive access to a Student's Handbook for Leveraging Technology. The author is Allison Seitchik, a professor at Merrimack College, and it was interesting to read. A critical strength of the work is an abundance of examples and "how-to" advice. 

I am astounded at the impact that artificial intelligence has had on higher education. As I speak with educators, they consistently express concerns about how AI will impact them and how they will or can adapt. 

Let's pause there for clarity. The impact has been on higher education. That matters. That is not limited or constrained. Too often, that label is broadly applied to academics and academia, but anyone who discounts the importance of students is simply missing the point. You can be a research institution all you want, but higher education is primarily for students and for learning, and they cannot be discounted or forgotten.

Academics are scared of AI and what it may do. They are enticed by it, drawn to it, and yet anxious. Are the instructors, professors, and other academicians really any different from the students in these regards? The students are likewise drawn, curious, intrigued, and frankly terrified. I have seen students informally surveyed, and some still have not experimented with AI due to these fears. I suspect informal instructor queries would yield similar responses. 

Professor Seitchik leads with the commitment that there is "importance and benefits of using Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools." The world of academia is going to have to adapt to this. We can strive to prevent students from using these tools for a time, but the inevitability is that there will be no stuffing this genie back into a lamp.

She then provides clarity on the how. The paper is about 70 pages and provides significant guidance for the student. However, it is likely as useful for the instructor in modeling how to define and enforce guardrails.

She lists activities for which AI is acceptable and for which it is not. This is no different than other guardrails; driving your car on the highway is acceptable. Driving it in my backyard, not so much.

Acceptable use (mostly quoted directly):

1. Use it to help you take a topic and develop a research question.
2. Narrowing topic or subject matter ideas.
3. Find articles for your paper.
4. Summarize those articles even through an annotated bibliography.
5. Grammar check.

Unacceptable use:

1. You can NOT use it to write your final paper.
2. Write papers, assignments, discussion posts, presentations, or any other information that you present as your own for any kind of grade.

It is noted, clearly, that presenting work the student did not create is viewed as plagiarism. I have noted the potential for plagiarism complications here before. Plagiarism Now? (February 2025). While a great many lawyers proudly cut and paste their brethren's or sistren's work, that is simply not acceptable in academia.

There is also ample advice offered for "writing your prompts." These include specificity, ambiguity, examples, feedback, engagement, and trying various approaches (trial and error) in seeking advice, brainstorming, or substantive research. There are examples of actual prompts and AI interaction that are illustrative and helpful.

A final piece of advice Dr. Seitchik offers is "document everything you do with AI." This is an imperative for the student to be able to document sources and the path that led to their structure, arguments, and conclusions. In the event the student must defend their work, such documentation would be handy indeed. In the grand scheme of things, this is great advice for anyone using AI for prose. 

In the end, this article is an excellent foundation for educators who might wish to issue their own guidance. For the student whose instructor has not provided guidelines, this may be a great starting point for understanding boundaries and getting started either with research itself or conversations with an instructor or advisor.

Seitchik, A. E. (2025, August 25). AI research and writing companion: A student’s handbook for leveraging technology. OER Commons. Retrieved from https://oercommons.org/courseware/lesson/115610.

Reality, Perceptions, Problems

Obesity has graced these pages before. The threat of obesity is among the most challenging in modern society.

See Fat Discrimination (June 2023), Obesity Again (January 2023). See also What's in a Name (August 2020); The BMI Conundrum (August 2022), Comorbidity of Obesity (October 2021), Stool Transplant? (October 2019). Obesity Can Kill Me? What Could Be Worse!? (March 2015), How will Risky Behavior and "Choices" Affect Employment Decisions (April 2013).

For years, Americans have spent incredible sums on health and fitness while obesity rates have recalitrantly soared. According to USA Facts, in the 1960s, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) categorized 13% of Americans as obese. Using the same definitions, that was over 40% in 2018. There was similar growth in the "severe obesity" and "child obesity" subsets.

To be fair, obesity is simultaneously deceptively simple and incredibly complex. The simple piece is math: calories consumed versus calories burned; burn fewer than you consume, and the body grows. But various hormonal, endocrine, and other contributors impact individuals differently or even uniquely.

Then came the solutions. There have been a variety of easy solutions. Some will remember the miracle of Fen-Phen, a cocktail of fenfluramine and phentermine prescribed in the 1990s. After approval and widespread use, the lawsuits were enough to drive it from the marketplace. It was not alone; there have been various panacea solutions: fad diets, cleanses, stimulants, and worse have been tried over the years.

The 21st century brought GLP-1 drugs for diabetes. These became newsworthy when users reported associated weight loss. That led people to seek them specifically for weight loss. That drove demand, price, and marketplace acceptance. It also led to evolution, and drug makers began marketing GLP-1 drugs specifically for weight loss.

The results are notable. While the GLP category contains various name brands and compounds, some claim it is reasonable to expect 5-10% decrease in body weight in 3 months. For a 5'4 person weighing 174 pounds, that could be an almost 18-pound loss.

Recently, a 28-year-old "opened up about her addiction" in a "vulnerable moment." The headline stopped me because it included "GLP-1," featured last year in Whoa Nelly! (June 2025); and Connecticut Price Fixing (July 2025). I know people who are taking these drugs, and have read much about them. 

Nonetheless, I had not heard the word "addiction" associated with them. I had presumed those who undertook the therapy would use GLP-1s chronically. There are multiple references to addiction. 

Scientific American noted that an AMA analysis concluded " the vast majority of people quit taking these drugs within two years," about 85% overall, with a larger drop "among those without type 2 diabetes." The study included "more than 120,000 people, with and without type 2 diabetes."

The immediate question is therefore "how sustainable" the drugs are in terms of effect. In other words, will the weight loss persist post-drugs? The Scientific American article notes that

"when a person who had been taking one of these medications stops, the hunger cues it had suppressed often come raging back, which causes the weight to return."

Admittedly, the study did not investigate results of cessation, but, relying on other investigations, the conclusion is that "regaining weight is almost inevitable." There is also a discussion that we are each preset to "a specific weight range their body naturally tries to maintain." Thus, when the drug-induced inhibitions disappear, we are inclined to regain weight, to return to our preset weight or range.

Back to the 28-year-old with the "vulnerable moment." She is a model, and "has been open about her use of GLP-1." She says she is an on-and-off user; she "fluctuates." She uses the word "addiction," but there is little in the article to support that word. An addiction is

"a compulsive, chronic, physiological or psychological need for a habit-forming substance, behavior, or activity having harmful physical, psychological, or social effects,"

According to Merriam-Webster. Nonetheless, the implication is that some people seek these drugs, abandon them after a time, and feel a need or desire to return to GLP-1. This may lead to questions about source and control issues. These are prescription drugs, but the internet abounds with sources and suppliers who offer access without those pesky doctor visits or other hurdles.

Thus, there is some indication that these diabetes drugs are regularly used by non-diabetics. And, it is practical that they are used by those who are not obese. Beyond the health risks of obesity, there is some feeling that weight loss and body image are important on a general level.

There was a time when compulsive weight loss received ample news coverage. The psychiatric diagnoses of anorexia and bulimia were newsworthy. Then came an era of "body positivity," when some believe the "self-love" and excuse led to increased fat-forgiveness and unhealthy lifestyle choices. Whose business is obesity, eating disorders, and drug use?

Earlier this year, as a movie franchise edition loomed, some questioned the appearance of one movie star. They noted that people were "talking about her body," and perceived a marked weight loss in recent years. The celebrity responded, essentially suggesting that people mind their own business, "I think we should be gentler and less comfortable commenting on people’s bodies, no matter what."

She suggested that we should, societally, 

"dismantle fatphobia, and to slowly but surely push us toward a world where the size and shape of our bodies don’t function as indicators of our value." 

That may seem a noble goal, but the American public loves body image. We spend almost $33 billion on diets and weight loss and $72 billion on GLP-1s each year. The whole of "fatphobia" and body image is big business. And there are causative or coincidental effects noted. The "vulnerable moment" model above says her business and income increased notably while on GLP-1.

In fairness, weight loss is tied to caloric consumption in some degree. Thus, if you elect to lick the donuts instead of actually eating them, weight loss may be inevitable. And, perhaps people will believe you are advocating against juvenile obesity. Others may believe you are disingenuous, which is mentioned in some reactions in that CNN article.