A lament for the demise of AM radio has risen within the halls of Congress.

Usually several automobile manufacturers especially Tesla and Fordhave decided to stop installing AM radios of their electric vehicles. They put strain on their electric motors affect the audio quality of the signal and demand that FM and satellite radio are sufficient.

Given the indisputable fact that individuals who take heed to the radio are likely to do that primarily while drivinga trend like this might jeopardize the corporate's economic viability There are currently 4,000 AM stations broadcasting within the USA

The radio industry fought back Lobbying for laws This would force automobile manufacturers to put in AM radios in the general public interest. These efforts led to the AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act is discussed in each chambers of Congress.

U.S. Sen. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who sponsored the bill within the Senate, described free AM radio as “an essential tool in emergencies, a critical part of our diverse media ecosystem and an irreplaceable source of news, weather, sports and entertainment for tens of millions of listeners.”

As a media historianI appreciate AM radio being described as a public utility, especially after a long time Free market orthodoxy dominant discussions about his fate.

The story of a brand new medium

When AM – short for “Amplitude modulation” – arrived on the turn of the twentieth century and was touted as a revolutionary technology that might bring a nation together in time and space. Over the following decade, engineers developed latest technologies similar to Uniwave arc transmitter to send the signal, and vacuum tubes to amplify it upon reception, in order that voices after which music might be heard over AM broadcasts.

While the early radio amateurs exploited the potential for networking and data, the era of unlicensed amateur broadcasting began led to the First World War out of fears that the brand new medium might be misused to spread foreign propaganda or divisive content.

After KDKA went on the air as the primary licensed industrial station in Pittsburgh In November 1920, AM radio stations began popping up across the country, offering quite a lot of formats to local audiences. The houses were now full of the sounds of stories, baseball games, radio plays, or crooners singing popular music. Radios flew off the shelves to satisfy demand.

Because you listen stimulates the imagination in a singular wayBroadcasters—and the advertisers who paid for access to viewers—found latest ways to make use of radio to capture listeners' attention.

By the Thirties, AM radio was a dominant type of mass media in America, served by broadcast networks similar to NBC, CBS, and other networks Each other – with each local and syndicated programming. While industrial interests viewed radio as a method of generating profits, a growing variety of advocates viewed radio as a public utility that ought to serve the general public interest.

This public conversation inspired the Communications Act of 1934 and the creation of the Federal Communications Commission, whose job was to be certain that licensed broadcasters met certain standards.

These standards arose from an ongoing debate on the FCC over radio broadcasters' public interest obligations. In the late Thirties, the agency began requiring licensed broadcasters to stay neutral on news and political matters. The “non-editorial spirit” of the Mayflower decision forced the FCC to form in 1949 Doctrine of justice later this 12 months.

The emerging regulatory oversight helped rein in America's first radio demagogue, Father Coughlin, whose conspiratorial tirades were heard by some 30 million listeners. Coughlin's refusal to comply with regulatory guidelines – coupled with fear of backlash from sponsors – has led to this over the course of several years led to him being dropped by radio stations.

The radio comes with it

From the late Nineteen Twenties onwards, the sounds of AM radio accompanied drivers of their cars.

The vehicles of that point featured closed cabins which protected the driving force and passengers from weather and noise. People who listened to music on their home radio loved the thought of ​​listening to music while driving. Companies just like the Automobile Radio Corporation advertised expensive Transitone radios that ran on a 6-volt battery with the slogan: “With a Transitone you’re never alone.”

In 1930, General Motors began installing radios in its latest Cadillacs. Chrysler advertised luxury cars that were factory wired so their owners could install Transitones. Now riders travel on America's vast and growing national highway systems could do that while listening to the radio.

Over the last decade, factory-installed radios—floor-mounted, with dashboard controls and speakers above the windshield—were touted as a approach to improve the driving experience. As a 1934 Philco radio industrial said“You wouldn’t be at home without a radio – why would you be in the car without one?”

In 1940, at a time when 61% of Americans were listening frequently to news on the radio, 20% of cars within the US had built-in radios.

Companies are taking up the airwaves

In the Fifties Transistor technology allowed smaller radios to be installed within the dashboard from over half of the cars available on the market.

But now drivers had a unique technology to adapt to: FM radio.

This spectrum, short for “frequency modulation,” — even though it required more power — was less vulnerable to static and offered higher sound quality. FM's early days were characterised by innovation and vibrant local programming. But as major media firms consolidated their power, this regularly gave approach to industrial pressure. Slowly but surely music programming switched from AM to FM.

By the mid-Nineteen Eighties, the once-vibrant discussion that radio served the general public interest was silenced by lobbyists and politicians pushing for deregulation that will increase profits. Little by little there are rules that broadcasters need to devote a certain quantity of time to Public Affairs ProgrammingRules that limited the variety of channels in an organization's media market could come clean with sevenin addition to news and public affairs programming guidelines similar to the The fairness doctrine has all fallen like chess pieces in an industry focused on profit.

The FCC and Federal Trade Commission shrugged their shoulders as big firms bought up and consolidated radio stations, reducing local programming and replacing it with syndicated Content broadcast via satellite.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 gave all the pieces away, effectively leaving decisions concerning the way forward for AM and FM radio to corporate interests and demanding almost nothing in return.

Over the following 20 years, America's radio stations could be bought up by a handful of conglomerates like Clear Channel, now often known as iHeartMedia. The majority of AM stations, especially those in rural areas where people spend a number of time listening of their cars, take priority right-wing talk shows.

And although radio demagogues like Rush Limbaugh and his many imitators saved the viability of AM radio, there are large swathes of rural America where the captured spectrum serves as a delivery system for monotonous, partisan programs that sound good very just like Father Coughlin within the Thirties. Instead of providing agricultural reports, emergency information and native news to advertise an informed citizenry, most AM stations today are corporate-owned stations air-splitting, complaint-filled infotainment that serves the needs of the owner.

On the road again

It doesn't need to be that way.

The FCC once required broadcasters to serve the general public interest in exchange for his or her licenses, a regulatory quid pro quo that led to a broader range of programming that higher served communities.

It is feasible to take this path again. Just have a look Low power FM community radiowhich turned out to be a charitable response to the homogenization of the industry and was intended to serve the general public interest.

Freed from corporate control, homegrown Low Power FM community radio strengthens local democracy by providing local musicians with a microphone and a various collection of commentators and voices They are sometimes denied access to industrial radio. Stations can apply for Low Power FM community radio licenses; Although the reception range may be very limited, the Number of stations serving communities The number ranges from Iuka, Mississippi to the Umatilla Indian Reservation in Oregon and has doubled to greater than 1,500 within the last decade.

AM radio might be used similarly.

When Congress and the FCC designate AM radio as such an important public serviceI consider it should push again for public interest standards in return for a license. Only then will AM radio live as much as the spirit that underlies AM radio for each vehicle law.

In other words, if the U.S. government requires automobile manufacturers to put in AM radios in the general public interest, shouldn't it also require broadcasters to prove that they’re worthy of the general public's trust?

You probably know in regards to the rise in peanut allergies in children. Peanut allergies in American children greater than tripled between 1997 and 2008 after doctors advised pregnant and breastfeeding women to avoid eating peanuts and fogeys not to provide them to their children under 3 years old. This advice was based on a 2000 suggestion from the American Academy of Pediatrics.

You may bear in mind that this suggestion, which followed similar recommendations within the UK, turned out to be completely unsuitable and that lots of these allergies actually arose from avoiding peanuts.

This shouldn’t have been surprising, because the suggestion violated a basic principle of immunology: early exposure to foreign molecules results in the event of resistance. In Israel, where babies are commonly fed peanuts, peanut allergies are rare. Moreover, not less than considered one of the studies on which the British suggestion was based showed the alternative of what the suggestion claimed.

As early as 1998, British pediatric allergist and immunologist Dr. Gideon Lack questioned the rules, saying they were “not evidence-based.” But for years, many doctors rejected Lack's findings and even called his studies, wherein he gave babies peanut butter at an early age, unethical.

When I first reported on peanut allergies in 2006, doctors were expressing a wide selection of theories, while the “hygiene hypothesis,” which states that overly sterile environments can trigger allergic reactions, was gaining traction. Yet when my second child was born that very same 12 months, my pediatrician's suggestion was very clear: “No peanuts.”

It wasn't until 2008, when Lack and his colleagues published a study showing that babies who ate peanuts were less prone to develop allergies, that the AAP released a report acknowledging that there was a “lack of evidence” to support its advice regarding pregnant women. However, it stopped wanting advising parents to provide babies peanuts as a preventative measure. In 2017, after one other compelling study by Lack, the AAP finally reversed its original position entirely and now advises parents to provide their children peanuts early on.

But by that point, 1000’s of fogeys who had diligently followed the instructions of medical authorities had actually caused their children to grow to be allergic to peanuts.

The cost of consistency

This preventable tragedy is considered one of several cases wherein medical authorities have endured of their erroneous positions despite evidence on the contrary. Dr. Marty Makary, a surgeon and professor on the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, examines this in his latest book, Blind Spots: When Medicine Gets It Wrong, and What It Means for our Health.

Rather than remaining open to dissent, Makary says, the medical career often bands together and leans toward established practice, consensus, and groupthink. (Makary admits to having done this himself.)

In such an environment, an initial opinion can quickly grow to be dogma, especially if the skilled group is committed to an idea.

“There was an internal policy that all AAP recommendations had to be uniform,” a member of the committee that issued the unique peanut guidelines told Makary. “This was an old dogma that was perpetuated.” In other words, Makary writes, “protecting the institution was more important than showing the public alternative viewpoints.”

The causes of this repeated error are just like those of other medical errors described in Makary's book.

In 1983, just before the AIDS crisis began, the American Red Cross, the American Association of Blood Banks, and the Council of Community Blood Centers rejected a suggestion from a senior expert on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to limit blood donations from people at high risk for AIDS. Instead, they issued a joint statement insisting that “there is no clear evidence that AIDS is transmitted by blood or blood products.” The fundamental concern was that Americans would not trust the blood supply or donate blood if the security of the provision was questioned.

As with the peanut advice, the reversal got here much later. It took years for blood banks to start screening donors, and it was not until 1988 that the FDA required all blood banks to check for HIV antibodies. In the meantime, half of all American hemophiliacs and lots of others became infected with HIV through blood transfusions, leading to over 4,000 deaths.

In the case of hormone alternative therapy, thousands and thousands of girls have used hormone alternative therapy to ease the symptoms of menopause and reduce the danger of bone fractures, heart attacks, and even Alzheimer's disease in later years. Yet in 2002, women were told in no uncertain terms that taking estrogen and progesterone to treat menopausal symptoms increased their risk of breast cancer. The underlying suggestion was based on a single study, although years later the lead creator of that study admitted to Makary that it showed no statistically significant difference in cancer rates between women who took hormone alternative therapy and people who took a placebo.

Like peanuts, early dissenters were ignored, ridiculed, and faced skilled consequences. It can be years before the rules were corrected. In the meantime, thousands and thousands of girls suffered hormone therapy withdrawal symptoms and were unable to reap the health advantages of hormone alternative therapy.

Unscientific method

While these errors are appalling, what’s much more disturbing is the continued causes of those errors. Medical journals and conferences routinely reject presentations and articles that challenge the traditional wisdom, even when that wisdom is predicated on poor data. For political or practical reasons, consensus is usually favored over dissenting opinions.

With trust in science dwindling, conspiracy theories and misinformation growing, and anti-vaccine figures like Robert Kennedy Jr. setting an illusory example, this will likely not look like the perfect time to criticize the medical career. But a dose of healthy skepticism will be the healthiest attitude when information seems contradictory, whether it's a few decades-old practice or newer, fashionable procedures like tongue-tie surgery.

When it involves medical certainty within the face of dissenting opinions, it is helpful to recall the case of Ignaz Semmelweis. Semmelweis was the Hungarian physician who, in 1847, proposed that doctors should wash their hands before delivering babies to cut back the danger of “childbed fever,” now often called postnatal infection. For making the offensive claim that doctors' hands might one way or the other be unclean, Semmelweis was denounced by the medical community and later lost his job. His life led to an asylum on the age of 47, and in a very gruesome way. He died there of sepsis, the very disease he had fought so hard against as a physician.

Pamela Paul is a columnist for the New York Times.

With all of the arrogance of a startup founder, Alberto Carvalho, superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District, took the stage in March to Ed, the chatbotHe told parents and students that it has “the potential to personalize the educational journey at a level never seen before in this district, across the country and across the world.”

“No other technology can deliver on this promise in real time,” he said. “We know it will happen.”

In June, after just three months and nearly $3 million, placed on ice Ed after shedding greater than half the staff at AllHere, the startup that developed the conversational AI assistant. District spokeswoman Britt Vaughan declined to reply questions on the bot's performance or say what number of students and oldsters were using it before the closure.

Also in June, an AI controversy erupted in San Diego, where school board members were reportedly unaware that the district had purchased a tool last summer that routinely suggests grades for written assignments. The dispute began after Point Loma High School teacher Jen Roberts to CalMatters that using the tool saved her time and prevented burnout, but sometimes also gave students incorrect grades. One week later Voice of San Diego quoted Two school board members said they were unaware the district had signed a contract for AI. In fact, nobody on the council appeared to know concerning the tool, the news outlet said, because it was a part of a broader contract with Houghton Mifflin that was approved unanimously and without discussion together with greater than 70 other items. (None of the council members responded to CalMatters' request for comment. Michael Murad, spokesman for the San Diego Unified School District, said that because AI is a rapidly evolving technology, “we will increase our efforts to inform council members of additional relevant details about the contracts presented to them in the future.”)

Failures in Los Angeles and San Diego could also be on account of growing pressure on educators to adopt AI. They underscore the necessity for decision makers to ask more and harder questions on such products before buying them, say individuals who work on the intersection of education and technology. Outside experts can assist education leaders higher vet AI solutions, these people say, but even asking easy questions and demanding answers in plain English can go a good distance toward avoiding purchase regret.

No one denies that educators are increasingly challenged to search out ways to make use of AI. Following the discharge of OpenAI’s generative AI tool ChatGPT nearly two years ago, the California Department of Education published Orientation aid They point to an “AI revolution” and encourage adoption of the technology. Educators who previously spoke to CalMatters expressed concern that if their students miss the revolution, they may fall behind in learning or job preparation.

Rating AI tools

She believes that recent events in Los Angeles and San Diego show that more education leaders have to conduct critical evaluation before bringing AI tools into classrooms. But whether a selected AI tool deserves closer scrutiny relies on the way it is used and the danger it poses to students. Some types of AI, equivalent to those used for grading and Predicting whether a student will drop out of collegeshe said, need to be classified as “high risk.”

The European Union regulates AI varies depending on risk leveland within the USA the National Institute of Standards and Technology published a Frame to assist developers Government authoritiesand users of AI technology manage risks.

Tony Thurmond, California's Secretary of Education, was unavailable to reply CalMatters' questions on any steps he might take to forestall future AI-related mishaps in schools.

The legislator is considering a The invoice That would require the superintendent to convene a working group to make recommendations for the “safe and effective” use of artificial intelligence in education. The bill was introduced by Josh Becker, a Silicon Valley Democrat, and supports by Thurmond and the California Federation of Teachers.

Quay-de la Vallee suggested that educators work with organizations that test and certify educational technology tools, equivalent to Project Unicorna nonprofit organization that evaluates edtech products.

If education leaders rush to adopt AI from educational technology vendors desperate to sell AI, each could skimp on quality, said Michael Matsuda, superintendent of the Anaheim Union High School District. Hosting an AI summit in March, attended by educators from 30 states and over 100 school districts.

He believes that recent AI problems in San Diego and Los Angeles show that one must not get carried away by hype and thoroughly examine the claims of firms selling AI tools.

School districts can use tech-savvy teachers and internal IT staff to evaluate how well AI tools work within the classroom, Matsuda said. But nonprofits like The AI ​​Education Projectadvises school districts across the country on using technology, or a bunch just like the Association of California School Boardsthat has a AI Task Force The project goals to assist districts and counties “manage the complexity of integrating artificial intelligence.”

“We need to work together, think about what we've learned from mistakes and talk openly about it,” he said. “There are a lot of good products coming to market, but you have to have the infrastructure and the strategic policies and board policies in place to really look at some of these things.”

Education leaders don't all the time have a full understanding of the technologies teachers are using of their district. Matsuda said the Anaheim Union High School District uses AI to personalize student learning and even offers courses for college students desirous about pursuing careers in AI. But he doesn't know if Anaheim educators are using AI for grading today. After the events in San Diego, Matsuda said the district may consider labeling high-risk devices for certain use cases, equivalent to grading.

Common sense

You don't should be an AI expert to be critical of claims about AI's advantages for college students or teachers, says Stephen Aguilar, co-director of the Center for Generative AI and Society on the University of Southern California and a former educational technology developer. District officials signing contracts with AI firms have to know their very own policies, know what the district wants to perform with the contract, and ask questions. If contractors can't answer questions in plain English, it may well be an indication they're exaggerating what's possible or attempting to hide behind technical jargon.

“I think everyone should take the lessons from LA Unified and do a debrief, ask questions that weren't asked, and take things slower,” Aguilar said. “Because there's no rush. AI is going to evolve, and it's really up to the AI ​​edtech companies to prove that what they're selling is worth the investment.”

The challenge is that you simply don't evaluate an AI model only once, he said. Different versions can produce different results, and which means evaluation needs to be a continuous process.

Aguilar said that while the events in Los Angeles and San Diego schools demonstrated the necessity for more scrutiny of AI, school district administrators seemed convinced that they needed to be on the leading edge of technology to do their jobs, which is solely not true.

“I don’t know exactly how we got into this cycle,” he said.

The market is putting pressure on edtech providers to include AI into their services and products, foundations are putting pressure on school administrators to incorporate AI of their curriculum, and teachers are being told that their students could also be left behind in the event that they don't adopt AI tools, says Alix Gallagher, director of strategic partnerships at Stanford University's Policy Analysis for California Education Center.

Because AI is being built into many existing curriculum-related products and contracts, it's very likely that the San Diego school board isn't the just one to unexpectedly discover AI built right into a contract. Gallagher said administrative staff have to ask questions on supplemental curricula or software updates.

“It's almost impossible for districts and schools to keep up,” she said. “I think that's even more true for smaller school districts that don't have the extra staff they can deploy to do this.”

Gallagher said AI can do positive things, like reducing teacher burnout, but individual teachers and small school districts won't have the opportunity to maintain up with the pace of change, so trusted nonprofits or state education agencies should help determine which AI tools are trustworthy. The query in California, she said, is who will take the initiative and lead that effort.

Originally published: August 6, 2024 at 11:32 am

The two leading presidential candidates will debate survive television on June 27, 2024. Neither of them shall be the official candidate of their party, which is anticipated to occur on the party conventions in the approaching weeks.

The timing of the talk – on the Thursday before the week of July 4, much sooner than the same old fall debates – virtually guarantees a much smaller audience as if often watch a presidential debate.

The event itself shall be different from most previous debates between presidential candidates, but as usual it is going to be broadcast survive several television channels and online.

The show is sponsored and moderated by CNN, not by the non-partisan Commission for Presidential Debateswhich has sponsored every presidential debate since 1988. Debate rules say there shall be no audience – the candidates shall be in a television studio with only the anchors and production staff. During the 2 industrial breaks, the candidates is not going to be allowed to interact with their campaign staff. CNN will mute each candidate's microphone when it shouldn’t be their turn to talk.

As a former political communications consultant who now teaches Political Communication at Auburn UniversityI’m convinced that this recent form of debate, going down in a special place and at a special time than usual, could have a decisive influence on the presidential election.

Opportunities for errors

Historically, debates are inclined to have a greater impact on the end result of elections when one among the candidates says or does something silly.

In 1976, then-President and Republican candidate Gerald Ford falsely claimed: Poland was not under communist ruleIn 1988, Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis responded to an issue about his wife’s safety with a factual speech on drug policy. 1992 President George HW Bush repeatedly checked out the clock through the debate with Bill Clinton.

All three men lost their race for the White House.

Both candidates within the June 27 debate have weaknesses that may lead to similar problems – or worse.

If Biden appears lost or confused at any point in the talk, it could Questions about his competence and seriously damage his probabilities of re-election. If Trump in one among his tirades on a variety of topicshe could intimidate moderates into voting for Biden or not voting in any respect.

Since neither party has held its nominating conventions, it shouldn’t be unimaginable that a really poor performance by one among the 2 candidates may lead to serious discussions about Replacement of this candidate by the candidate of the party.

A give attention to words

The rules for the talk create some challenges and opportunities for every candidate.

The undeniable fact that the microphones are muted for the candidate who shouldn’t be currently being asked an issue should make it easier for Biden to remain focused and on task without being continuously interrupted by Trump, as was the case through the 2020 debate. It must also make it easier for Trump to seem more like a statesman and fewer like a bully, for the reason that television audience is less more likely to hear interruptions or outbursts.

CNN's moderators face the challenge of managing speaking times and microphones in a way that doesn’t create the impression that one candidate is being favored over the opposite.

Since there isn’t any live audience to answer the candidates, viewers' attention can ideally focus more easily on the content of the candidates' words.

Whether that happens will depend on the moderators. Jake Tapper and Dana Bash have to be careful not to offer the impression that they’re interrupting or difficult one candidate greater than one other. Many conservatives are already Suspicion that CNN will favor Biden By asking him fewer questions or by checking Trump's answers more intensively and directly for his or her truthfulness.

Partisan spin

With fewer spectators on site, partisans have more opportunities to offer their very own interpretation of the events after the talk, each in traditional media and online.

Spin doctors are nothing recent at presidential debates, but with fewer people having seen all the event in context, there shall be more opportunity for selective editing of clips From the fitting to make Biden appear dazed and confused, or from the left to portray Trump as a fanatic and a tyrant.

Even if the foremost thing that counts in a debate is the words of the candidates, it shouldn’t be the clever political discussion or nuanced diplomacy that ensures the success of a debate in the general public perception: it’s the clear statements that count.

Examples of this are Ronald Reagan’s joking remark that one mustn’t be a problem from Walter Mondale’s youth and inexperience in 1984 and Lloyd Bentsen’s “Senator, you aren’t Jack Kennedy“ was a response to Dan Quayle’s 1988 claim that he had as much experience within the Senate as John F. Kennedy did before his presidency.

The only good thing about the June 27 debate is that it gives each campaigns a likelihood to check their candidates and messages while only a few voters are being attentive. This could allow the campaigns to regulate their messages or – if things go terribly, terribly flawed – even the party select one other candidate.

PHILADELPHIA – The scene might have been a repeat of 48 hours earlier, but this time things went higher for the New York Knicks.

With the Knicks holding a one-point lead and hoping to finish an NBA first-round playoff series for the second time in three days, Donte DiVincenzo stepped to the free throw line. At that moment, they knew that the sport of telephone was much more necessary than a game of basketball.

Two nights earlier, when the Knicks once more fought a troublesome battle with the Philadelphia 76ers, Josh Hart made just one in all two free throws, extending the Knicks' lead to 3 with 15 seconds left. Anyone who cares about drama knows what happened next: The Knicks didn't intentionally foul, regardless that they were speculated to. Tyrese Maxey evened the rating with a 3-pointer from Hoboken. And the 76ers won in additional time, extending the series to game six.

The Knicks said after the ultimate buzzer on Tuesday that they miscommunicated. Head coach Tom Thibodeau wanted them to commit three errors, however the message wasn't conveyed.

This shouldn't occur again.

As DiVincenzo waited for the basketball, able to shoot two free throws that might put the Knicks ahead, the Knicks players ran toward one another, reminding everyone of the situation. Everyone on the court knew the plan: If DiVincenzo sank each freebies, they’d intentionally commit a foul.

This time they did exactly that.

DiVincenzo met them each. Miles “Deuce” McBride, the identical guy who didn’t commit an intentional foul on Tuesday, hit Maxey within the backcourt long before he could take a shot. The Knicks and Sixers exchanged free throws. And it helped New York secure a 118-115 win and, more importantly, close out the series 4-2.

“When something like that happens sometimes, it crystallizes everyone’s mindset,” Knicks head coach Tom Thibodeau said. “And we won’t be perfect. We will make mistakes along the way. And I think that’s what you see here.”

The Knicks will face the Indiana Pacers, who’re fresh off a six-game win over the Milwaukee Bucks, within the second round of the playoffs. Game 1 is scheduled for Monday at 7:30 p.m. ET.

New York will make mistakes on this series too. Just like against Philly, it can need to learn from them.

One reason the Knicks have made it this far — winning a playoff series two seasons in a row, the primary time this franchise has achieved that feat in 24 years — is that their mistakes make them higher.

They tousled the top of Game 5, in order that they made sure they didn't do the identical thing in Game 6.

On Thursday they achieved great success. They fouled after they were speculated to. On one other possession, with the Sixers making a play in the ultimate minute and the Knicks leading by three, Thibodeau knew Philadelphia needed to go for a three-pointer.

Instead of leaving a standard center on the ground, as he had done in Game 5 when Mitchell Robinson fouled Maxey on a four-point play, he replaced McBride for a small, do-it-all lineup with OG Anunoby at center was standing. There has been a stop.

The Knicks noticed what wasn't working and adjusted.

They put different defenders on Maxey after he scored 46 points in Game 5. In Game 6, he scored just 17 points on 18 shots. In Game 6, DiVincenzo began with him.

They reworked their double teams from Joel Embiid. In the second half of Game 6, they defended the reigning MVP squarely and didn't double him except in emergencies. Until then, they alternated where the double teams got here from, sometimes from two passes from a distance, sometimes from the baseline.

The Knicks didn't win Game 6 simply because they'd been there before.

Hart hit a three-pointer with 25.6 seconds left and finished with 16 points, 14 rebounds and 7 assists. Anunoby got here off the court within the second half, disrupted passing lanes and destroyed Embiid on a dunk within the fourth quarter. He finished with 19 points and nine boards. DiVincenzo rediscovered his shot and scored 23 points and 7 assists while sinking five 3-pointers.

And then there was Jalen Brunson, who had 41 points and 12 assists. He has now scored greater than 39 points in 4 consecutive playoff games, which was the primary time since Michael Jordan in 1993.

27-year-olds with 35+ PPG within the playoffs:

Michael Jordan
Elgin Baylor

And Jalen Brunson. pic.twitter.com/Wcbc3hSRVh

– StatMuse (@statmuse) May 3, 2024

“It was a really big test for us and we were able to come out victorious,” Brunson said. “In the future… it could be a different test, maybe something completely different. But it definitely helps, and of course you want to learn while you win, so of course we’re still playing and we want to get better.”

Because of this, the Knicks showed no real interest in moving on from the No. 2 seed at the top of the season. Others across the league, just like the Cleveland Cavaliers, feared the 76ers, who moved to seventh place as a result of Embiid's injury, enough to intentionally lose on the ultimate day of the regular season. But New York wanted that position.

With second place, this group is now well positioned.

The Knicks pushed and pushed their well past the Sixers in Round 1. They had home-field advantage in Round 2 – and they might have had it if the Pacers hadn't upset the Bucks. The Knicks – yes, the New York Knicks – will likely be the favorites to advance to the Eastern Conference Finals for the primary time since 2000.

But that doesn't mean Indiana will likely be a walk within the park.

The Pacers are gliding through games. They are speed demons in transition. The pick-and-pop between Tyrese Haliburton and Myles Turner is one of the dangerous moves within the NBA. The Knicks will run into a whole lot of problems in Round 2 that they've never seen before.

A season ago, they faced a lower seeded team within the Eastern Conference semifinals and things didn't go well for them as they lost to the Miami Heat in six games. But the Knicks are likely to learn from their mistakes.

It's a superb trait to boast within the playoffs.

“Crazy things happen in the playoffs,” Thibodeau said. “And then it depends on how you react.”

Unexpected beginnings

I spotted that our family needed some type of adjustment. We needed to exit and see what was occurring.

Margaret Bensfield Sullivan

The planning

The glitches

The mistakes

The wrong assumptions

More good than bad