International experts conducting a new global review of nutrition research say the way we eat is changing faster than at any other point in modern history. Their findings point to a dramatic shift away from fresh, whole ingredients toward cheap, ultra-processed meals—factory-formulated foods that now dominate diets in dozens of countries. The review, which analyzed studies from North America, Europe, Asia, and Latin America, concludes that this transition is significantly increasing the risk of chronic diseases including obesity, Type 2 diabetes, bowl cancer, cardiovascular disease, and even depression.

Ultra-processed foods—often referred to as UPFs—are industrial creations made from ingredients rarely found in a household kitchen. In the reviewed studies, researchers noted that UPFs typically contain additives such as emulsifiers, stabilizers, gums, artificial flavors, colorants, and highly refined sugars or oils. These ingredients can dramatically alter the way the brain experiences hunger and satiety. One of the consistent findings across the research was that people eating high-UPF diets tend to consume hundreds of additional calories per day, often without realizing it, leading to gradual but steady weight gain.

The review also highlighted a growing body of evidence linking UPFs to mental health issues. Several large-scale studies from the U.S. and Europe found that individuals with the highest consumption of ultra-processed foods faced a significantly elevated risk of developing symptoms of depression. Researchers suspect that chronic inflammation, blood-sugar spikes, and disruptions in gut microbiome balance—common effects of heavily processed diets—may play a role. While the science is still evolving, the patterns are strong enough that experts say food quality should now be considered a major public-health priority.

So what exactly qualifies as an “ultra-processed” food? Experts use a simple rule of thumb: If you can’t replicate the ingredients in a home kitchen, it’s probably ultra-processed. This includes products made with protein isolates, artificial sweeteners, hydrogenated oils, maltodextrin, high-fructose corn syrup, anti-caking agents, artificial colors, or preservatives designed to extend shelf life for months. UPFs are engineered for taste, convenience, and low cost—but those same qualities are what drive overconsumption.

The review points out that many everyday staples fall squarely into the ultra-processed category. Examples include packaged breakfast cereals, instant noodles, frozen pizzas, flavored yogurts, energy drinks, store-bought cookies and crackers, fast-food burgers, chicken nuggets, hot dogs, packaged sliced bread, and most supermarket snacks. Even items marketed as “healthy,” such as plant-based meat substitutes, granola bars, and pre-made smoothies, often contain highly refined ingredients that classify them as UPFs rather than whole foods.

Researchers emphasize that avoiding ultra-processed foods doesn’t require a perfect diet—just a shift toward simplicity. Choosing ingredients that are close to their natural form—fruits, vegetables, legumes, plain dairy, whole grains, fresh meats, eggs, and nuts—can significantly reduce disease risk. As the authors of the review wrote, the global rise of UPFs is not just a lifestyle change but a major health challenge. Their conclusion is direct: nations must take this trend seriously, or rising rates of chronic illness will become an unavoidable part of the world’s nutritional future.

When the ATLAS survey flagged a fast-moving object in July 2025, astronomers realized almost instantly that it wasn’t local. Its sharply hyperbolic orbit revealed it had come from another star system — making 3I/ATLAS only the third confirmed interstellar visitor ever observed. Official tracking by NASA and ESA confirms it will swing past the Sun and slingshot back into deep space, far from Earth. But since its discovery, its behavior has only become stranger.

Observers monitoring the object across space-based solar imagers and the largest ground telescopes reported measurable deviations from a purely gravitational trajectory near perihelion—so-called non-gravitational acceleration. Several groups fitting astrometric positions found residuals that exceed ordinary measurement scatter and that are consistent with an extra force acting on the body; those deviations are what dynamical modelers try to explain with mass loss, radiation pressure or other processes. Based on current orbital solutions, the acceleration corresponds to an extremely small but measurable change in speed—roughly two-thousandths of a mile per hour per day—tiny in absolute terms, but enormous in orbital mechanics because it represents thrust from an unknown source. The detection of a statistically significant non-gravitational term is the primary driver of the present debate over whether conventional cometary physics suffices.

At the same time, the object’s color has shifted multiple times in the months of close observation. Prior to perihelion many instruments saw a redder, dust-dominated appearance; around perihelion, SOHO/STEREO and several teams reported a striking blue/green hue that later re-emerged as it moved away. Observers attribute much of the blue-green light to gas emission (notably diatomic carbon and certain ionized species) in the coma, but the rapidity and scale of the chromatic transitions are unusual enough to attract intense scrutiny. High-quality images from large telescopes confirm the blue-green photometry that triggered the broader coverage. 

Those two anomalies—unexpected acceleration and abrupt color shifts—are not independent in comet physics. A natural, conservative hypothesis favored by many cometary specialists is that 3I/ATLAS carries a radiation-hardened crust that can trap volatiles until a heating event breaches it; the sudden exposure of different ices can produce both a surge of gas that changes spectral color and asymmetric jets that impart momentum. Laboratory and modeling work on comet-like bodies supports this pathway: complex surface processing, variable dust-to-gas ratios, and changing grain sizes all affect broadband color and measured dynamical terms. These physical explanations are the working hypotheses most teams will test with the upcoming observing window. 

Not everyone in the public or scientific conversation remains strictly conservative. Harvard astrophysicist Avi Loeb—already well known for urging rigorous consideration of engineered explanations for anomalous interstellar objects—has been explicit that some of 3I/ATLAS’s properties are “surprising” and worth treating as a hypothesis rather than ignored. In his public posts and interviews he writes that the bluer-than-solar color is unexpected for dusty, cold bodies and that the measured non-gravitational acceleration “might be the technological signature of an internal engine.” “The appearance of 3I/ATLAS as bluer than the Sun is very surprising,” he wrote, and elsewhere he argued that “the non-gravitational acceleration might be the technological signature of an internal engine.” Those statements have moved the object from a niche technical discussion into an arena of broader scientific and public curiosity. 

Mainstream instrument teams and agencies have pushed back on drawing premature conclusions about an artificial origin. NASA scientists and many comet specialists stress that the blue color can be produced by strong gas emission lines and that asymmetric, episodic mass loss is a well-understood mechanism that can create measurable accelerations. Institutes such as SETI and multiple observatories have framed Loeb’s hypothesis as a provocative but unproven alternative: the community’s stance is empirical—collect the spectra, the astrometry, and the time-resolved imaging, and let the data rule. That conservatism is not dismissal so much as the standard scientific demand for discriminating evidence (engineered radio emission, persistent controllable thrust without matching outgassing, or manufactured material spectral signatures) before revising the natural-body paradigm. 

Timing matters: when will we see this object with the best possible instruments? Ephemerides and multiple reporting outlets place 3I/ATLAS’s nearest Earth approach on December 19, 2025, at a distance of roughly 1.8 AU (about 267–270 million kilometers). That separation is far beyond anything hazardous but is close enough that Hubble, Webb, and large ground facilities can obtain high signal-to-noise spectra and narrowband imaging to test the outgassing-versus-engine hypotheses. The December window is the community’s best near-term opportunity to capture time-resolved behavior that will either tighten cometary models or force deeper reconsideration. 

So what would settle the argument? The decisive evidence for a natural explanation would be a close correlation between resolved jets and measured acceleration, mass-loss rates consistent with the momentum change, and spectral lines that match expected cometary volatiles (C₂, CN, CO⁺, H₂O proxies). Conversely, persistent acceleration not temporally correlated with outgassing, the detection of engineered radio or narrowband transmissions, or clear spectral lines of manufactured alloys would demand a more radical interpretation. For now the most productive scientific posture is targeted observation: time-series spectroscopy from ultraviolet through near-infrared, precision astrometry reported quickly to the Minor Planet Center and JPL, and deep high-resolution imaging—exactly the datasets that international observatories are planning for December.

Selected Sources:

NASA / ATLAS overview and ephemeris updates. 

ESA — Frequently asked questions on Comet 3I/ATLAS. 

LiveScience — Lowell Discovery Telescope imaging and color analysis. 

ScienceAlert — rapid brightening and blue-color reporting and interpretation. 

Avi Loeb — public posts and technical note arguing non-gravitational acceleration and discussing engineered explanations. 

Legendary actress Diane Keaton has died at the age of 79, her family confirmed.  No cause of death has been publicly disclosed, and her family has asked for privacy during this difficult time. 

From her early days in theatre to becoming one of cinema’s most distinctive voices, Keaton’s journey was defined by her intelligence, emotional depth, and willingness to defy convention. Born Diane Hall on January 5, 1946, in Los Angeles, she adopted the surname of her mother to launch her career.  Her early work on stage led to breakout roles onscreen in the 1970s, especially her collaborations with director Woody Allen.

Her performance in Annie Hall (1977) earned her the Academy Award for Best Actress and cemented her status as an icon of quirky, cerebral romantic comedy.  She also gained acclaim in dramatic and commercial films such as The Godfather trilogy, Reds, Father of the Bride, The First Wives Club, Marvin’s Room, and Something’s Gotta Give.  Across genres, her presence was uniquely her own — blending humor, sincerity, and vulnerability.

Offscreen, Keaton was known for her artistic sensibility, eclectic tastes, and a deep sense of independence. She’s often celebrated not only for her roles, but for how she lived: on her own terms, refusing to be typecast or pigeonholed. In recent years, she also ventured behind the camera, producing, writing, and participating in design and photography projects.  Her 2024 film Summer Camp marks her final appearance on film. 

The loss of Diane Keaton has prompted an outpouring of tributes. Among them, Bette Midler posted on Instagram:

“The brilliant, beautiful, extraordinary Diane Keaton has died. I cannot tell you how unbearably sad this makes me. She was hilarious, a complete original, and completely without guile, or any of the competitiveness one would have expected from such a star. What you saw was who she was… oh, la, lala!”

Her words echo the sentiment of countless fans and colleagues who admired Keaton not just for her talent, but for her authenticity, warmth, and generosity.

Diane Keaton’s legacy is rich and enduring. She broke molds, inhabiting roles that were smart, flawed, and deeply human. She inspired actors, filmmakers, and audiences to embrace complexity, to trust intuition, and to remain true to oneself. In a world that often rewards conformity, she stood out by refusing to follow a formula.

She is survived by those who loved her and by the countless lives she touched through her art — and her example. Though she is gone, Diane Keaton’s work, spirit, and influence will continue to resonate for generations to come.

President Trump is using the government shutdown to punish anyone who didn't vote for him, J.D. Vance loves memes so we made a special one just for him, and Stephen Colbert checks in on some well-known people who are dipping their toes in the artificial intelligence pool.

Renowned primatologist and conservationist Dame Jane Goodall has died at the age of 91, while on a speaking tour in California, her foundation confirmed.  Goodall’s death marks the end of a life that redefined how humanity understands its relationship with nature and other species. For decades, she stood at the intersection of science, activism, and public inspiration—her legacy continuing through the institutions she built and the generations she touched.

Goodall’s scientific breakthrough began in 1960, when she traveled to Gombe Stream National Park in Tanzania under the mentorship of anthropologist Louis Leakey to observe wild chimpanzees.  Over time, Goodall made the revolutionary discovery that chimpanzees use tools—once thought to be an exclusively human trait—and documented their rich social lives, emotional complexity, and individual personalities.  These findings challenged the prevailing scientific assumptions of her era, leading to new debates about what it means to be human.

As her research matured, Goodall shifted her focus from pure observation to global advocacy. In 1977 she founded the Jane Goodall Institute to protect chimpanzees, safeguard their habitat, and promote community-based conservation.  She also launched Roots & Shoots, a youth program that mobilized young people in over 100 countries toward environmental action, education, and social change.  Over time, she became an outspoken voice on climate change, deforestation, and the ethical treatment of animals, using her fame to draw attention to ecological crises. 

Throughout her life, Goodall received numerous honors acknowledging both her scientific and humanitarian contributions. She was appointed a Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire, named a United Nations Messenger of Peace, and late in life awarded the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom.  Her written works—ranging from detailed primate observations to reflections on hope and activism—reached global audiences and inspired countless readers to care more deeply about nature. 

Despite her advanced age, Goodall remained remarkably active in her later years. She continued touring, speaking, writing, and advocating until the very end.  Her passing has prompted an outpouring of tributes from scientists, environmentalists, and public leaders worldwide, each emphasizing how she bridged the divide between rigorous science and heartfelt stewardship.  For many, her death is not just the loss of a pioneer but a moment to renew commitment to the fragile planet she spent her life protecting.

Jane Goodall’s life remains a testament to the power of curiosity, compassion, and persistence. She showed that a single person—driven by empathy and wonder—can dismantle long-held certainties, reframe the human relationship with nature, and inspire global change. Her legacy lives on through the institutions she built, the youth she empowered, and the forests, animals, and ecosystems she helped protect.

Sinclair Broadcast Group announced on Friday that it will resume airing Jimmy Kimmel Live! on its ABC-affiliated stations, ending a multi-day blackout that had drawn sharp criticism from viewers, critics, and lawmakers.  The decision comes after ABC (under Disney’s oversight) reinstated the show nationally earlier in the week, though Sinclair—along with Nexstar—had continued to withhold the broadcast in their markets. 

The blackout began after controversial monologue remarks by Kimmel concerning the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, prompting ABC to suspend the show on September 17.  Even after ABC reinstated the show, Sinclair and Nexstar remained among the few holdouts, demanding that Kimmel issue an apology and donate to Kirk’s family or organization before restoring airtime. 

Sinclair’s reversal followed mounting pressure, including public backlash over perceived censorship and threats of regulatory pushback.  In its statement, Sinclair said the move was intended to “balance community interests” while fulfilling its obligation to air national programming, a nod to the tension between local editorial control and network affiliation. 

Media observers see this as a concession to public and industry pressure, rather than a principled reversal. The episode has reignited debate about the power of broadcast affiliates, political influence over media, and the fragility of editorial independence.  Sinclair’s U-turn may dampen immediate controversy, but it leaves unresolved questions about future affiliate autonomy and how much speech dissent local owners will tolerate under political pressure.

With Kimmel now back on air in Sinclair markets, attention will turn to Nexstar—still holding out—as well as how affiliates, regulators, and networks manage the balance between ratings, ideology, and free speech going forward.

Jimmy Kimmel’s return to late night after his summer hiatus delivered a major ratings boost, pulling in 6.26 million viewers — the biggest audience for Jimmy Kimmel Live! in more than ten years. The surge in viewership highlights both the anticipation surrounding his comeback and the continued relevance of traditional late-night television in a streaming era. Kimmel’s reappearance not only energized his loyal fan base but also drew in a wider audience curious about his take on recent political and cultural events, reaffirming his place as one of the most influential voices in late-night comedy.

Jimmy heard from Donald Trump who posted on Truth Social with threats moments after we taped our show last night, he claimed it was the ratings that got Jimmy “fired,” Donald Trump is an old-fashioned 80s movie-style bully, many of our staffers got crazy texts from their loved ones over the last week, there was a fun little conspiracy theory we heard on Newsmax today, according to MSNBC the FBI has a recording of Trump’s border czar Tom Homan taking a bag from undercover agents with $50,000 cash in it, Team Trump is worked up about the escalator stopping while Donald was at the UN yesterday, and Ethan Hawke interrupts the monologue when Jimmy thanks the more than 400 entertainers, actors, writers, directors, and producers who signed the ACLU letter supporting our show.

🚢 What the Flotilla Is & Who’s Involved

The flotilla is known as the Global Sumud Flotilla, a civilian humanitarian mission aiming to challenge Israel’s blockade of Gaza by delivering aid via sea.  It includes around 50 vessels from some 44 countries, carrying activists, legal observers, aid workers, medical supplies, and symbolic humanitarian cargo.  Notable participants include environmental activist Greta Thunberg and others who departed from ports such as Barcelona, with convergence points planned through Greece, Italy, and Tunisia. 

⚠️ Drone Attacks & Assaults

Overnight, the flotilla reported being attacked by drones in international waters near Greece, allegedly targeting 11 boats in the convoy, causing damage but no reported casualties.  Explosions, communications jamming, and malfunctioning equipment were also reported.  The organizers claim these actions were carried out by Israel or its allies; Israel has not definitively confirmed responsibility but denies allowing the flotilla to reach Gaza.  Previous flotillas earlier in 2025 were also targeted: for example, in May, the vessel Conscience was struck by drones off Malta in international waters. 

🇮🇹 Italy Has Responded with Naval Support

Following the drone attacks, Italy has redirected a naval frigate (the Fasan) toward the area to provide potential rescue or protective support for its nationals and others in the flotilla.  Italian officials condemned the attacks and emphasized that the use of force against a humanitarian convoy in international waters was unacceptable. 

🇪🇸 Spain’s Naval Move

In a striking development, Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez announced that Spain will send a military warshipto protect the flotilla.  The vessel is intended to help ensure the safety of Spanish citizens aboard and offer a naval escort or deterrent against further attacks.  This follows diplomatic warnings from Spain that any unlawful actions against the flotilla in international waters will provoke a response. 

🔍 Why It Matters / What Comes Next

This incident places naval power and humanitarian law squarely in tension. The flotilla’s attempt to deliver aid challenges Israel’s maritime enforcement of the Gaza blockade. The drone strikes and reported sabotage test international law in seas beyond national jurisdictions. With Italy and Spain stepping in militarily, there’s a real risk of escalation. Observers will likely watch whether the flotilla reaches Gaza, how Israel or other states respond, and whether international bodies (UN, maritime courts) intervene or condemn the violence.

A humble, obedient Jon Stewart heaps praise upon America's Glorious Leader, Donald J. Trump, and provides an FCC-approved refresher on the rules of free speech in the wake of Jimmy Kimmel's suspension. Plus, the TDS News Team serenades the world's greatest, large-penised leader.

In a Friday afternoon press conference, former President Donald Trump doubled down on his administration’s combative stance toward the press, telling reporters that publishing negative stories about him is “really illegal.” The remark, delivered in his trademark defiant tone, drew swift condemnation from legal scholars and press freedom advocates, who stressed that such claims have no basis in American law. The statement marks yet another escalation in Trump’s long-running war of words with the media.

The U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment explicitly protects freedom of the press, ensuring that journalists can publish critical reporting about public officials without fear of prosecution. “There is no law that makes negative reporting illegal,” said one constitutional law professor, emphasizing that Trump’s comments reflect political frustration rather than legal reality. Courts have consistently ruled in favor of robust press protections, most famously in the Pentagon Papers case of 1971, which reaffirmed the right to publish even classified material in the public interest.

Trump’s adversarial relationship with the media has been a defining feature of his political career, dating back to his 2016 campaign. He frequently brands mainstream outlets as “fake news” and has repeatedly threatened to “open up libel laws” to make it easier to sue journalists—an idea that legal experts consistently note is incompatible with existing constitutional protections. Friday’s remarks fit into a broader pattern of portraying criticism as an attack on the country itself, a rhetorical strategy that rallies his base while raising alarm about democratic norms.

Press advocacy organizations were quick to respond. The Committee to Protect Journalists called Trump’s statement “dangerous and reckless,” warning that suggesting journalism is illegal undermines public trust in democratic institutions. The American Civil Liberties Union likewise stressed that criticism of elected officials is at the heart of a functioning democracy. These groups have argued that language delegitimizing the press can have chilling effects not only in the U.S. but also abroad, where authoritarian leaders often cite American rhetoric to justify their own crackdowns.

Ultimately, Trump’s claim that negative coverage is “really illegal” underscores the tension between his political style and constitutional reality. While the remark carries no legal force, its repetition risks normalizing the idea that journalism is suspect or criminal. For now, the protections of the First Amendment remain firmly intact—but advocates caution that preserving them requires constant vigilance, particularly when leaders attempt to blur the line between criticism and illegality.