It's well-established that, on the whole, Americans die younger than people in most other high-income countries. For instance, an analysis from 2022 found that the average life expectancy of someone born in Switzerland or Spain in 2019 was 84 years. Meanwhile, the average US life expectancy was 78.8, lower than nearly all other high-income countries, including Canada's, which was 82.3 years. And this was before the pandemic, which only made things worse for the US.

Perhaps some Americans may think that this lower overall life-expectancy doesn't really apply to them if they're middle- or upper-class. After all, wealth inequality and health disparities are huge problems in the US. Those with more money simply have better access to health care and better health outcomes. Well-off Americans live longer, with lifespans on par with their peers in high-income countries, some may think.

It is true that money buys you a longer life in the US. In fact, the link between wealth and mortality may be stronger in the US than in any other high-income country. But, if you think American wealth will put life expectancy in league with Switzerland, you're dead wrong, according to a study in the latest issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

A stark finding

The study, led by researchers at Brown University, found that the wealthiest Americans lived shorter lives than the wealthiest Europeans. In fact, wealthy Northern and Western Europeans had death rates 35 percent lower than the wealthiest Americans, whose lifespans were more like the poorest in Northern and Western Europe—which includes countries such as France, the Netherlands, and Switzerland.

"The findings are a stark reminder that even the wealthiest Americans are not shielded from the systemic issues in the US contributing to lower life expectancy, such as economic inequality or risk factors like stress, diet or environmental hazards," lead study author Irene Papanicolas, a professor of health services, policy and practice at Brown, said in a news release.

The study looked at health and wealth data of more than 73,000 adults across the US and Europe who were 50 to 85 years old in 2010. There were more than 19,000 from the US, nearly 27,000 from Northern and Western Europe, nearly 19,000 from Eastern Europe, and nearly 9,000 from Southern Europe. For each region, participants were divided into wealth quartiles, with the first being the poorest and the fourth being the richest. The researchers then followed participants until 2022, tracking deaths.

The US had the largest gap in survival between the poorest and wealthiest quartiles compared to European countries. America's poorest quartile also had the lowest survival rate of all groups, including the poorest quartiles in all three European regions.

While less access to health care and weaker social structures can explain the gap between the wealthy and poor in the US, it doesn't explain the differences between the wealthy in the US and the wealthy in Europe, the researchers note. There may be other systemic factors at play that make Americans uniquely short-lived, such as diet, environment, behaviors, and cultural and social differences.

"If we want to improve health in the US, we need to better understand the underlying factors that contribute to these differences—particularly amongst similar socioeconomic groups—and why they translate to different health outcomes across nations," Papanicolas said.

Read full article

Comments

I remember precisely one thing about the 1981 Disney movie Condorman, which I think I must have seen in the theater as a kid. I must have seen it in the theater because I don’t think it ever made it to television, and I’m pretty sure my family was the last American family to come to possess a VCR. So it had to be in the theater. I would have been about 10, and all I remember of the movie is one scene where an old ramshackle truck had an impossibly low and sleek car burst out of the front of it.

That’s all I ever remembered about that movie, just that one very specific image of a yellow car bursting out of some archaic-looking truck. When I wanted to figure out what the hell that scene was from and if I just imagined it or not in some childhood automotive fever-dream it wasn’t easy to Google, because I really couldn’t remember what the hell the rest of the movie was about.

Were there feathers on the car? I think so! It was sort of a superhero movie? An avian-themed superhero? Birdman? No. Hawkman? No. Something like that. Egretman? Emuman? The Human Pelican? Condor! It was Condorman!

The movie was a strange Disney sorta-superhero, sorta-spy movie. It wasn’t great. Here’s the trailer:

It was about a comic book artist who sort of inadvertently “became” his superhero creation, and somehow managed to build all of the fancy equipment and cars and flying suits and whatever, getting involved with a KGB defector and all manner of other hijinx. The lead guy was kind of charmless, and the movie wasn’t really that great.

Well, I should say the movie itself wasn’t great, but there were some fantastic car chases in it. The chases were choreographed by Rémy Julienne, the man behind the car chases in a number of James Bond movies and, most significantly, The Italian Job. So, the car chase sequences definitely punched well above their weight, especially the one I remembered from my childhood, which, happily, I can show you, right now:

Oh man, there is so much going on there. It starts with a big, lumbering truck – it looks a bit like a Bedford, but it was built specifically for the movie, being chased by four black Porsche 911s, led by what looks like a Porsche 930 slantnose:

(Screenshot: Disney via YouTube)

I kind of suspect that slantnose was a studio-modified normal 911, but still, it’s fun to see. They make quite an imposing and menacing pack of cars, especially when their prey is something as lumbering and helpless as this truck:

(Screenshot: Disney via YouTube)

There’s a lot going on with that sorta-Bedford truck: it has that charming home-built camper back that looks like some sort of Romanian dacha, along with all of those bundled quilts or bags of whatever lashed to the bumper there. It’s a bit of a confusing mess, but it all makes sense when that truck’s party trick is revealed:

(Screenshot: Disney via YouTube)

It births a sportscar! A low, sleek, condor-livery’d sportscar! The sportscar emerges, and just casts its former shell aside, like some sort of automotive hermit crab.

(Screenshot: Disney via YouTube)

I do love the control panel shown for the inside of the Condormobile; the green-phosphor video displays were very much products of their era, and I like how the button typography is the legendary and improbably-named Westminster typeface, a staple of sci-fi proto-cyber stuff since the late ’60s.

(Screenshot: Disney via YouTube)

The physics of how this all could have worked are probably best left unexamined. Condorman and the lovely KGB defector somehow drop down into the Condormobile, even though the car does not seem to have any sort of opening roof? And the Condormobile was the basis of the truck all along, somehow, just driven from a secondary cab above? Sure, why not?

And, most importantly, just what the hell is the Condormobile? Perhaps not too shockingly for anyone who has dug into movie cars, it’s based on a Volkswagen Beetle. It’s a Sterling Nova kit car, or perhaps a Cimbria, as an earlier version was known, and it later was known as an Eagle in the UK, then a Viper 2000, then a Nereia – this basic fiberglass bodyshell has had a ton of names and lives. The first version, the Nova, was designed by a man named Richard Oakes, in the UK.

I thought this particular version is one of the Cimbria ones, which was an unsanctioned variation on the Sterling kit, made by Joe Palumbo.

(images: Amore Cars)

But I was wrong; it seems the Condorman cars were actual modified Sterling Novas, which featured, among other things, a canopy-style door setup, which you can see in action in this video:

Air-cooled VW fanatics may recognize that parking brake boot, too. The engine I think is still an air-cooled VW flat-four, but it has some big headers that make it sound a lot more ravenous.

What’s especially interesting about the Sterling kit is how relatively easy it seems to have been to assemble. This old 1974 Hot Rod article suggests you can do it all in about 40 hours, because so much of the kit is done for you – glass is installed, the canopy is installed, and it’s just 28 bolts onto a stock – as in no need to shorten – VW chassis and you’re pretty much good to go. That’s impressive.

Of course at $2195 (about $14,000 today) the kit cost almost as much as a 1974 Beetle would have back then, $2,625 ($16,914), but, damn, look what you end up with! Though, to be fair, the designer, Richard Oakes, did once say that the car was “designed for the enjoyment of the person looking at the car and not for the driver” but that’s also what made it perfect for its role in movies, like Condorman.

It’s also worth noting that the most recent official appearance of the Condormobile and Condorman was in a Pixar short called Small Fry, taking place in the Toy Story universe and featuring fast-food kids’ meal toys. It’s pretty funny:

…and here’s Condorman’s cameo:

(Screenshot:Pixar via YouTube)

That’s a pretty good likeness of the Sterling Nova/Condormobile.

Really, that car is very likely the best part of that whole movie. It’s certainly all I remembered about the film over 40 years later, so that has to mean something, right?

Kill Some Time By Watching This Old Beetle Documentary With Me And Obi-Wan Kenobi: Cold Start

This Car Week Parking Lot Had An Amazing Car From An Iconic Movie: Cold Start

You’ve Got The Tools, Time, Cash, Space, And Skill To Build Your Own Car – What’ll It Be?

The post The Car Chase From This Crap ’80s Movie Is Amazing And Has 5 Black 911s Chasing A VW Kit Car appeared first on The Autopian.

Critics are questioning if Donald Trump's administration possibly used chatbots to calculate reciprocal tariffs announced yesterday that Trump claimed were "individualized" tariffs placed on countries that have " the largest trade deficits" with the US.

Those tariffs are due to take effect on April 9 for 60 countries, with peak rates around 50 percent. That's in addition to a baseline 10 percent tariff that all countries will be subject to starting on April 5. But while Trump expressed intent to push back on anyone supposedly taking advantage of the US, some of the countries on the reciprocal tariffs list puzzled experts and officials, who pointed out to The Guardian that Trump was, for some reason, targeting uninhabited islands, some of them exporting nothing and populated with penguins.

Some overseas officials challenged Trump's math, such as George Plant, the administrator of Norfolk Island, who told the Guardian that "there are no known exports from Norfolk Island to the United States and no tariffs or known non-tariff trade barriers on goods coming to Norfolk Island."

Economists fear these tariffs could suddenly hit American businesses with enormous costs that could rapidly cause price hikes for consumers. Among those sounding alarms was economist James Surowiecki, who took to X (formerly Twitter) to allege where the supposedly "fake tariff rates come from."

The US Trade Representative published a breakdown of how the Trump administration arrived at its calculations, which Politico said "describes the same calculation detailed by Surowiecki." But according to Surowiecki, the president's team allegedly used "made-up numbers" that "only used the trade deficit in goods," not services, "so even though we run a trade surplus in services with the world, those exports don't count as far as Trump is concerned."

"They didn't actually calculate tariff rates + non-tariff barriers, as they say they did," Surowiecki wrote. "Instead, for every country, they just took our trade deficit with that country and divided it by the country's exports to us." Further down in the thread, he alleged that Trump's math was "dumb and deceptive."

Rumors claim Trump consulted chatbots

On social media, rumors swirled that the Trump administration got these supposedly fake numbers from chatbots. On Bluesky, tech entrepreneur Amy Hoy joined others posting screenshots from ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and Grok, each showing that the chatbots arrived at similar calculations as the Trump administration.

Some of the chatbots also warned against the oversimplified math in outputs. ChatGPT acknowledged that the easy method "ignores the intricate dynamics of international trade." Gemini cautioned that it could only offer a "highly simplified conceptual approach" that ignored the "vast real-world complexities and consequences" of implementing such a trade strategy. And Claude specifically warned that "trade deficits alone don’t necessarily indicate unfair trade practices, and tariffs can have complex economic consequences, including increased prices and potential retaliation." And even Grok warns that "imposing tariffs isn't exactly 'easy'" when prompted, calling it "a blunt tool: quick to swing, but the ripple effects (higher prices, pissed-off allies) can complicate things fast," an Ars test showed, using a similar prompt as social media users generally asking, "how do you impose tariffs easily?"

The Verge plugged in phrasing explicitly used by the Trump administration—prompting chatbots to provide "an easy way for the US to calculate tariffs that should be imposed on other countries to balance bilateral trade deficits between the US and each of its trading partners, with the goal of driving bilateral trade deficits to zero"—and got the "same fundamental suggestion" as social media users reported.

Whether the Trump administration actually consulted chatbots while devising its global trade policy will likely remain a rumor. It's possible that the chatbots' training data simply aligned with the administration's approach.

But with even chatbots warning that the strategy may not benefit the US, the pressure appears to be on Trump to prove that the reciprocal tariffs will lead to "better-paying American jobs making beautiful American-made cars, appliances, and other goods" and "address the injustices of global trade, re-shore manufacturing, and drive economic growth for the American people." As his approval rating hits new lows, Trump continues to insist that "reciprocal tariffs are a big part of why Americans voted for President Trump."

"Everyone knew he’d push for them once he got back in office; it’s exactly what he promised, and it’s a key reason he won the election," the White House fact sheet said.

Read full article

Comments

Perhaps one of the more unexpected announcements to arrive out of the Nintendo Switch Direct is that the Nintendo Switch 2 will have a camera peripheral to supplement the console’s new group chat feature. While the Switch 2 will be compatible with third-party USB-C webcams, the peripheral manufacturers at Hori are already producing their own adorable version of a camera for the Switch 2 modeled after the Piranha Plant.

Specifics surrounding the carnivorous camera are a bit slim. It isn’t currently advertised on the manufacturer’s website, and it has only been spotted in the wild at European retailer Mediamarkt, which has the product listed for around $44, about $6 cheaper than the first-party model advertised by Nintendo. It appears that the stem will be detachable from the base and is flexible, to ensure you have the best possible angle. However, the coolest feature is that its mouth can be closed as a privacy shutter for the camera when not in use. Nintendo’s official camera for the Switch 2 has a similar feature, but I’m glad we’re already starting to see weird peripherals for the new console taking root.

At least 10 international students studying at universities in Colorado have had their visas revoked by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, school officials said.

Six international students at Colorado State University had their visas revoked and their Student and Exchange Visitor Information System paperwork terminated, Tiana Kennedy, a spokesperson for the university said Wednesday. Four students at the University of Colorado, at the Boulder and Colorado Springs campuses, also had their F-1 student visas revoked, the university said in a statement. 

In a March 29 letter addressed to the school’s international students, CSU urged affected students to immediately contact the embassy of their home country and the CSU Office of International Programs. 

“We are working with our state and federal elected officials to ensure that our students are informed on their options,” the letter said. “Our international community is an integral part of Colorado State University, enriching our campus in countless ways. Please know that CSU deeply values our international student population and is committed to supporting you to the best of our abilities.”

The university originally said five students had their visas revoked and updated that number to six Wednesday afternoon.

An F-1 visa allows international students to enter the U.S. to study at an accredited university or college. 

It’s not clear why the students’ visas were revoked. Both schools declined to release more information, citing privacy reasons.

NAFSA, the Association of International Educators said the federal government’s visa revocations have created an atmosphere of fear and confusion for students and undermine academic freedom, free speech and research opportunities in the U.S.

“These actions by the government will likely result in prospective students choosing to study elsewhere and current students accelerating the completion of their degrees so they can return home sooner,” Fanta Aw, executive director and CEO of NAFSA, said Monday in a statement. 

“Students have many options when it comes to study destinations. Losing international students’ contributions will negatively impact U.S. engagement with the world, as well as the country’s economic strength, security, and global competitiveness. These outcomes run counter to the administration’s stated goal of making America safer, stronger, and more prosperous,” Aw said. 

The Trump administration has tried to remove noncitizen students from the country for participating in campus protests against Israel and the war in Gaza.

“We know there are more students at Columbia and other universities across the country who have engaged in pro-terrorist, anti-semitic, anti-American activity,” President Donald Trump said in a social media post. “We will find, apprehend, and deport these terrorist sympathizers from our country — never to return again.” 

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said 300 student visas had been revoked as of March 27. He said the U.S. has the right to take away the visas of students who participate in campus protests.

“We do it every day. Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visa,” Rubio said. 

It’s not clear if the CSU students that had their visas revoked had participated in protests. 

Metropolitan State University of Denver and Colorado College said none of their students have been impacted.

UPDATE: This story was updated at 4:01 p.m. on Wednesday, April 2, 2025, with new information from a university spokesperson to reflect that six international students at CSU have had their visas revoked.

A federal judge tossed out a lawsuit filed by the pharmaceutical company Amgen challenging the authority of a Colorado board that seeks to rein in high-priced prescription drugs.

U.S. District Court Judge Nina Y. Wang ruled Friday that Amgen had not shown it has or likely will suffer harm from the board’s actions. As a result, she granted the state’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, but she did so “without prejudice” — meaning Amgen could sue again if it can later show harm.

“The economic injuries alleged by Amgen are too speculative and too attenuated to support standing in this case,” Wang wrote in her order.

The case involved a relatively obscure body known as the Colorado Prescription Drug Affordability Board, or PDAB, which has the authority to set price caps on drugs it deems unaffordable. Since its creation in 2021, the board has been working methodically toward studying, selecting and reviewing which drugs it should target for price caps — focusing especially on those with eye-popping price tags.

That is how the drug Enbrel, which treats rheumatoid arthritis and other conditions, came into the board’s sights. Enbrel has a current list price of more than $2,000 for a standard 50 mg dose, meaning that a year’s worth of treatment could cost more than $100,000. Many patients and insurers pay far less than that, however, because of patient-assistance programs and rebates, respectively.

Amgen reported earning $3.3 billion last year on sales of Enbrel, making it the company’s No. 1 seller and responsible for about 10% of its total product sales.

The PDAB voted last February to declare Enbrel unaffordable. Next week, it is scheduled to begin rulemaking hearings on a price cap for Enbrel.

Amgen sued the PDAB last March, alleging that the board’s decision on Enbrel conflicted with federal laws and violated the company’s rights to due process. Wang’s decision Friday to dismiss the lawsuit turned on a question of harm — whether Amgen has suffered any now or likely will in the future.

Because the PDAB has not actually set a price cap on Enbrel — and it still could choose not to — Wang zeroed in on the likelihood for future harm. But here she confronted the intricacies and absurdities of the pharmaceutical supply chain. 

Under Colorado law, the PDAB’s price caps are technically what are known as “upper payment limits.” In other words, they are ceilings for what payors — either patients or insurance companies — will have to pay to buy a drug.

But patients and insurers don’t buy medicines directly from pharmaceutical manufacturers like Amgen; they buy them from pharmacies or, perhaps, wholesalers. So the PDAB’s limits don’t directly affect the price Amgen charges for Enbrel.

To counter this, Amgen argued that “common sense and basic economics” dictate that the pricing impacts will ripple upward, meaning they will have to sell the drug to middlemen for less.

But Wang — noting that pharmaceutical economics can be so screwy that patients sometimes pay more for their drugs than their insurer did and that Amgen’s own CEO, in congressional testimony cited in case filings, described the industry as filled with “counterintuitive pricing behavior” — shot back.

“Nothing in the record defines what the amorphous concepts of ‘basic economics and common sense’ entail, or if such ‘basic economics and common sense’ even apply to the pharmaceutical industry,” she wrote.

In a statement following Wang’s decision, Amgen said it remains concerned about the PDAB’s policies and procedures, which Wang’s ruling did not address. Amgen also said it is considering its next steps in the case.

“Not only is the law unconstitutional, but price controls will not meaningfully address affordability at the pharmacy counter and will instead create new access barriers for many patients,” the company’s statement reads.

The Colorado Consumer Health Initiative, which supported the PDAB law and the board’s work, praised the ruling.

“Pharmaceutical companies like Amgen have placed profits over patients for far too long,” Isabel Cruz, the initiative’s policy director, said in a statement. “Drugs don’t work if people can’t afford them.”

A spokesperson for the Colorado Division of Insurance did not respond to a request for comment.