THE REVIEW
“What you own, what you rent, and what you only thought you had”
Everything You Thought You Owned Just Became a Subscription
This week’s edition traces a single pattern across medicine, farming, law, libraries, and the classroom — and finds the same lock on every door
The reference shelf is disappearing. Not all at once, and not with any particular fanfare — more the way a landlord changes the locks while you’re at work. Across at least eight professional domains this winter, the same structural transformation is underway: durable things that people used to buy, hold, and keep are being quietly converted into services that can be revoked, repriced, or simply switched off.
A library ebook vendor is ending perpetual purchases. Psychiatry’s most consequential manual is admitting its own publication model doesn’t work. The billing codes every American doctor must use remain copyrighted by a guild that represents barely a quarter of them. Farmers’ tractor manuals are migrating behind subscription portals. An AI company just settled for $1.5 billion over pirated books. Advanced chip specifications are disappearing behind export-control fences. Student loan caps are tightening at the exact moment open textbook funding stalls — and the one platform serving 223 million students for free is running on grants that could vanish any budget cycle.
None of these stories, taken alone, would make anyone rethink their morning coffee. Taken together, they sketch the outline of something worth noticing: an economy in which the professional knowledge workers need to do their jobs is increasingly controlled by entities that didn’t write it, don’t practice it, and will cheerfully remove access the moment the invoice goes unpaid.
Dear reader, we present eight dispatches from the frontier of what we’re calling the enclosure of professional knowledge — plus an editorial arguing that perhaps the 18th-century commons metaphor isn’t quite as dead as your subscription auto-renewal would like you to believe. Read one, read all, or just admire the pull quotes and skip to the opinion links. We won’t charge you a platform fee either way.
❧ ❧ ❧
Your Library Just Became a Tenant
Clarivate tells universities they can no longer buy ebooks — only rent them. The academic world pushes back, and a competitor smells blood.
When Clarivate, the parent company of ProQuest, announced on Feb. 18, 2025, that it would stop selling perpetual ebook licenses and switch to subscription-only access, the nation’s research librarians did something librarians rarely do: they got loud.
The International Coalition of Library Consortia issued a formal statement opposing the shift. The Dutch consortium UKB and the U.K.’s UKSG both published pointed responses. And EBSCO, Clarivate’s primary competitor, immediately announced it would continue supporting perpetual access — a competitive counterpunch that amounted to a market-legible way of saying, your customers are furious and we would like them now, please.
“The library becomes a tenant of knowledge rather than a custodian of it.”
The backlash earned a partial reprieve. On March 4, 2025, Clarivate extended the perpetual purchase window to June 30, 2026. Weeks later, the company announced a preservation agreement with Portico, the digital archiving service, to backstop Ebook Central content. The vendor’s FAQ now assures libraries that previously purchased perpetual titles will remain accessible.
But the Portico safety net has a catch. Portico’s “trigger events” — the conditions under which archived content actually becomes accessible — are defined by Portico’s own policies, not by the libraries paying into the system. Clarivate’s steelman argument is reasonable enough: subscription models reduce upfront costs, broaden access for smaller institutions, and keep content current. But the library community’s counter is structural. Libraries exist to preserve the scholarly record across decades or centuries. When budgets tighten — as they cyclically do — subscriptions are the first line items cut, and the content simply vanishes.
The deadline sits five months away. After June 30, the perpetual purchase option closes. What happens next depends on whether enough institutions decide that owning a book is still worth fighting for.
For Further Reading: Perspectives
PRO
“Clarivate Ebook Central FAQ: What’s Changing and Why” — Clarivate Argues subscription models simplify procurement, reduce upfront costs, and ensure content currency. Previously purchased perpetual titles remain accessible. Source: clarivate.com (2025)
CON
“Open Letter: ICOLC Statement on Clarivate’s Subscription-Only Pivot” — ICOLC Coalition of international library consortia argues that converting ownership to rental fundamentally undermines the archival mission of research libraries. Source: icolc.net (March 2025)
❧ ❧ ❧
Psychiatry’s Bible Gets a New Name and an Old Problem
The DSM committee proposes a “living document” to replace the bound edition. They tried this once before. It didn’t go well.
The most powerful book in American mental health just admitted it can’t keep up. On Jan. 28, 2026, the American Psychiatric Association published five papers outlining a roadmap for the next edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Among the proposals: rename the manual from “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual” to “Diagnostic and Scientific Manual,” ditch the bound-volume edition cycle for a continuously updated “living document,” and fold dimensional approaches alongside the existing categorical system.
The 17-member Future DSM Strategic Committee, chaired by Maria Oquendo, presents the plan as modernization. And structurally, it makes sense. The current edition cycle produces a manual that is effectively outdated by the time it ships. Prolonged Grief Disorder — the only new diagnosis added to the DSM-5-TR in March 2022 — spent over a decade in committee before earning its code (F43.8). The moment it was approved, it altered insurance reimbursement structures and opened a pharmaceutical market where none had previously existed. No medications are currently approved for treating it.
“Will actually probably not include any biomarkers initially.” — Anissa Abi-Dargham, committee member, on the next edition’s scientific ambitions
The biomarker problem cuts deeper than the committee acknowledges. Former NIMH director Steve Hyman argues that biomarkers may never be found for the DSM’s categories because the categories themselves may not reflect how mental illness actually works. And there’s the Rett syndrome precedent: when biological underpinnings were identified, the condition was removed from the DSM. American insurers subsequently began denying coverage for its psychiatric symptoms — raising the uncomfortable question of whether the DSM’s own success in finding the biology it claims to want would erode the field it governs.
The committee also acknowledges, with admirable candor, that the DSM-5 was also announced as a living document when it launched in 2013. An online submission portal opened in 2017. Oquendo now admits it “hasn’t worked as well as had been hoped.” The field simply didn’t submit changes at the pace the system required.
A living document concentrates update power in smaller committees with less public scrutiny than full edition revisions. Speed without transparency just produces more entries whose evidentiary basis only the committee knows. Whether psychiatry can build a better mousetrap this time — and whether “Scientific” in the title earns its capital letter — remains to be seen.
For Further Reading: Perspectives
PRO
“APA Releases Roadmap for Future of DSM” — APA The committee’s own framing: dimensional approaches, living updates, and a name that reflects scientific aspiration rather than statistical ancestry. Source: psychiatry.org (Jan. 28, 2026)
CON
“The DSM Gets a Makeover, But Can It Truly Change?” — Medscape Notes the biomarker paradox, the failed 2017 portal, and skepticism from within psychiatry about whether a living document solves or merely conceals the manual’s structural weaknesses. Source: medscape.com (Jan. 2026)
❧ ❧ ❧
The $160 Million Toll Booth on Medical English
A Senate inquiry asks why the AMA gets to copyright the billing codes every doctor is legally required to use. The answer involves 26 percent of physicians and 100 percent of the paperwork.
Every time an American doctor describes what they did to a patient — for billing purposes, for insurance, for the permanent medical record — they reach for a vocabulary owned by the American Medical Association. Current Procedural Terminology codes, or CPT, were mandated by HIPAA in 1996 as the national standard for physician billing. The AMA holds the copyright, charges licensing fees, and collects approximately $150–160 million annually for the privilege — roughly half of the organization’s total revenue.
Senate HELP Committee Chair Bill Cassidy (R-LA) launched an inquiry in October 2025, escalating in December with a formal stakeholder questionnaire. He characterized the fees as “exorbitant” and “anti-patient, anti-doctor.” The response deadline was Jan. 16, 2026.
When a private entity owns the mandatory syntax of an entire industry, every AI startup, researcher, and rural clinic pays a “reality rent” to describe their work.
The structural irony is crisp. Only about 26 percent of U.S. physicians are AMA members. The organization controls the mandatory billing language for the entire profession regardless. The CPT Editorial Panel has 21 members, 12 appointed by specialty societies. The AMA’s Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee recommends payment rates for CPT codes, and CMS accepts more than 90 percent of those recommendations — a process critics argue systematically favors high-cost specialties at the expense of primary care.
The reform argument has a built-in comparison. ICD-10 diagnosis codes — the other half of the medical coding system — are managed as a public good by government bodies. If the diagnosis codes can function as public infrastructure, why can’t the procedure codes?
The AMA’s steelman is not trivial: maintaining a living dictionary of 10,000-plus medical procedures across every specialty is genuinely complex and expensive. Their response to the Senate frames the fees as modest — 0.24 per member per year for health plans. But “modest per unit” multiplied across the entire U.S. healthcare system adds up to a structural tax that funds an organization representing a minority of the profession whose language it controls.
For Further Reading: Perspectives
PRO
“AMA Response to Senate HELP Committee Inquiry on CPT Codes” — AMA Argues licensing fees fund essential editorial infrastructure, keep codes current, and cost less per user than a streaming subscription. Source: ama-assn.org (Jan. 2026)
CON
“Chair Cassidy Rebukes AMA for Abusing CPT System, Raising Health Care Costs” — Senate HELP Committee Details the fee structure, membership disparity, and RUC influence, calling the arrangement “anti-patient, anti-doctor.” Source: help.senate.gov (Dec. 2025)
❧ ❧ ❧
The EPA Says You Can Fix Your Tractor. Your Tractor’s Software Isn’t So Sure.
New federal guidance clears one legal hurdle for farm repair. The subscription model behind the next hurdle is already running.
Farmers got half a victory this month. On Feb. 3, 2026, the EPA issued guidance clarifying that the Clean Air Act does not prevent manufacturers from providing repair tools and software to equipment owners. Temporary emissions system overrides are allowed “for purpose of repair,” the agency said, so long as equipment is returned to compliance afterward. The guidance was a direct response to John Deere’s June 2025 request for clarification — and a direct rebuke to the interpretation that manufacturers had used for years to justify withholding diagnostic tools from independent repair shops.
John Deere, to its credit, responded promptly: the company announced it will make “temporary inducement override capability” available through its Operations Center PRO Service. The Small Business Administration estimates the guidance could yield 33,000 per repair for individual farms.
A tractor with a twenty-year operational life cannot depend on a vendor who may not exist in ten. The manual needs to outlive the company.
But the guidance addresses only the legal pretext, not the business model. It clarifies that overrides are legal but does not mandate that manufacturers provide access to diagnostic tools themselves. The existing statute — 42 USC 7521(m)(5) — already requires manufacturers to provide “any and all” information to independent service providers. The issue has always been enforcement, not the underlying law.
And the broader migration continues unchecked: schematics and service procedures moving from static, downloadable files to live-streamed, subscription-gated portals. Manufacturers argue — not unreasonably — that diagnostic data evolves with firmware updates, and that distributing static manuals risks technicians working from outdated procedures. But when the “current” manual can be edited, revoked, or paywalled remotely, the farmer with a twenty-year piece of equipment faces a dependency that outlasts any single vendor’s business plan.
The EPA cleared the emissions excuse. The subscription model provides the next one.
For Further Reading: Perspectives
PRO
“EPA Advances Farmers’ Right to Repair Their Own Equipment” — EPA The agency’s own announcement, emphasizing $48B in estimated savings and the legal clarity that emissions law does not prohibit repair tool access. Source: epa.gov (Feb. 3, 2026)
CON
“Guidance Doesn’t Go Far Enough: Farmers Still Locked Out of Diagnostic Tools” — Farm Action / PIRG Advocacy groups note that the guidance clarifies legality of overrides but does not mandate tool access, leaving the subscription paywall intact. Source: farmaction.us (Feb. 2026)
❧ ❧ ❧
The $3,000 Book: What a Piracy Settlement Says About Who Owns Learning
A federal judge rules AI training is fair use — but downloading pirated copies to do it isn’t. Both sides declare victory. Both sides have a point.
Anthropic, the company behind the AI assistant Claude, agreed last August to pay 3,000 per title. The theoretical statutory liability exceeded $70 billion.
The settlement followed a split ruling by Judge William Alsup in the Northern District of California that drew a line destined to shape AI law for years. Training an AI on copyrighted books? Fair use, the court ruled — “quintessentially transformative,” analogous to a human reading books to learn to write. Downloading and retaining pirated copies of those books for a permanent “central library”? Not fair use. Not even close. Internal emails showed Anthropic leadership chose to “steal” books rather than license them to avoid a “legal/practice/business slog.”
Internal emails showed leadership chose to “steal” books over licensing to avoid a “legal/practice/business slog.”
The numbers are staggering. Anthropic had downloaded over seven million books from LibGen, PiLiMi, and Books3, the last of which contained 196,000-plus titles assembled from the Bibliotik tracker. The company also separately purchased physical books, stripped the bindings, scanned them, and discarded the originals. Judge Alsup treated the purchased-and-scanned copies differently, finding Anthropic bought them “fair and square” and that digitizing was a “mere format change.”
Days after Alsup’s ruling, Judge Vince Chhabria in Kadrey v. Meta held that LLM training constituted fair use regardless of whether source copies were legally obtained — a directly conflicting analysis. The circuit split means the question is heading upward.
But here’s the detail both sides would prefer you not dwell on: the settlement covers only past conduct through Aug. 25, 2025. It says nothing about future training. It says nothing about whether AI outputs infringe the copyrights of training sources. Alsup himself emphasized the case would be “significantly different” if output infringement were alleged. The $1.5 billion buys peace for yesterday. Tomorrow’s bill is still being written.
For Further Reading: Perspectives
PRO
“The First US Court Ruling on Fair Use in AI Training” — Norton Rose Fulbright Legal analysis framing the Alsup ruling as a landmark recognition that AI training is transformative use, consistent with centuries of fair use doctrine. Source: nortonrosefulbright.com (July 2025)
CON
“Anthropic Settlement: Authors Deserve More Than $3,000 Per Book” — Authors Guild Argues the settlement amount is a fraction of statutory damages and does nothing to address the market-displacement effect of AI trained on authors’ work. Source: authorsguild.org (Aug. 2025)
❧ ❧ ❧
The Chip Specs You Can’t Read Anymore
New semiconductor tariffs and export rules don’t restrict datasheets directly. They don’t have to.
On Jan. 14, 2026, President Trump signed a proclamation under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act imposing a 25 percent tariff on advanced AI chips not destined for the U.S. supply chain. The same day, the Bureau of Industry and Security published a final rule shifting the license review posture for H200/MI325X-class chips exported to China and Macau from “presumption of denial” to “case-by-case review” — with conditions including supply certification, security procedures, and third-party testing in the United States.
The technical parameters are specific: chips with Total Tensor Performance of 14,000–17,500 combined with DRAM bandwidth of 4,500–5,000 GB/s, or TTP of 20,800–21,100 with bandwidth of 5,800–6,200 GB/s. Exemptions exist for U.S. data centers, R&D, startups, and public sector use.
Today’s “weaponized” compute is tomorrow’s commodity hardware. Historical precedent suggests broad access produces more security through transparency than restriction produces through secrecy.
On paper, this is about chips, not documentation. The proclamation imposes tariffs and licensing requirements, not direct restrictions on datasheets or technical manuals. But export controls create practical barriers that filter downstream: when certification requirements demand “sufficient security procedures” and U.S.-based third-party testing, the engineering knowledge that accompanies those chips narrows in distribution as well. You can’t sell the hardware documentation for a product you’re not permitted to sell.
The House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on the same date — titled “Winning the AI Race Against the Chinese Communist Party” — made the framing explicit. The “small yard, high fence” approach attempts to restrict only the most militarily significant capabilities. Critics from multiple law firms analyzing the proclamation noted that the fence keeps moving, and the yard keeps growing.
The steelmanned national security argument is genuine: advanced AI accelerators have direct military applications. But the open-access counterargument invokes history. GPS was once restricted military technology. The internet began as a defense project. Both became more secure, not less, when they became broadly accessible. Whether the same logic applies to chips capable of training frontier AI models is the debate nobody has resolved — and the export controls are being written as if someone already has.
For Further Reading: Perspectives
PRO
“White House Tariff on Semiconductor Chips: Analysis” — Mayer Brown Legal analysis of the Section 232 proclamation’s scope, exemptions, and national security rationale. Source: mayerbrown.com (Jan. 2026)
CON
“US Semiconductor Export Controls: Concerns and Unintended Consequences” — Wilson Sonsini Argues that expanding export controls risk balkanizing the global engineering ecosystem and pushing affected nations toward independent, opaque alternatives. Source: wsgr.com (Jan. 2026)
❧ ❧ ❧
The Students Who Will Have Less Money Are About to Have Fewer Books
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act caps student loans starting July 1. Clarivate’s perpetual purchase window closes June 30. The timing is not subtle.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed July 4, 2025, implements the most significant restructuring of federal student loan programs in decades, effective July 1, 2026. Graduate PLUS loans are eliminated for new borrowers. Graduate unsubsidized loans are capped at 100,000 lifetime limit. Professional students — medical, law, and similar — get 200,000 lifetime. Parent PLUS loans cap at 65,000 per student over a lifetime. The total lifetime federal borrowing limit lands at $257,500.
The legislation also restructures repayment. Income-Contingent Repayment, Pay As You Earn, and the SAVE plan are all eliminated by July 1, 2028, replaced by the new Repayment Assistance Plan. Students with loans disbursed before July 1, 2026, get a legacy provision: three years or program completion, whichever comes first, under the old limits.
The students who will have less money are losing access to cheaper materials at the same moment.
The connection to knowledge enclosure is arithmetic. Students who can borrow less will be more price-sensitive to every component of their education costs — including textbook and reference material expenses. This makes the availability or absence of open educational resources more consequential for more students, at exactly the moment when those resources face their own funding uncertainty.
The timing convergence is pointed. The OBBBA loan caps take effect on the same date that Clarivate’s extended perpetual purchase window closes. Students entering programs under tightened borrowing limits will arrive at libraries whose ability to own reference materials has simultaneously contracted. The open alternative — platforms like LibreTexts — faces its own funding cliff (see our next story).
Supporters of the loan caps argue they impose market discipline on graduate programs that have allowed tuition to inflate precisely because unlimited federal lending removed price signals. The criticism, voiced by groups like Protect Borrowers, is that caps without corresponding tuition reform simply shift costs onto the students least able to absorb them — and that the elimination of income-driven repayment options for new Parent PLUS borrowers after July 2026 creates a cliff with no soft landing.
For Further Reading: Perspectives
PRO
“One Big Beautiful Bill Act: Student Loan Provisions Explained” — Harvard Student Financial Services Straightforward institutional analysis of the new caps, legacy provisions, and repayment restructuring. Source: sfs.harvard.edu (2025)
CON
“OBBBA Passes: Severe Impacts for Student Loan Borrowers” — CSLA Institute Details how Parent PLUS borrowers who miss the July 2026 consolidation deadline lose access to all income-driven repayment plans permanently. Source: cslainstitute.org (July 2025)
❧ ❧ ❧
The Free Textbook That 223 Million Students Use Runs on Grants That Might Not Exist Next Year
LibreTexts started because one chemistry professor was annoyed by his textbook. It now serves more students than most countries have people. Its funding model remains a recurring experiment.
In 2007, UC Davis chemistry professor Delmar Larsen got frustrated with a textbook and started writing his own replacement. Nearly two decades later, his irritation has grown into LibreTexts, a nonprofit platform serving 223 million students across thousands of courses with free, faculty-editable textbooks. It gained 7,000 new registered instructors in 2025 alone.
The funding picture is less triumphant. A 2 million NSF grant and a 7 million for the program — on page 309 — against SPARC’s requested $25 million. The spending package may not pass in its current form.
No one thinks of the library catalog as a pilot program. LibreTexts serves 223 million students and is still treated like one.
The evidence base, at least, is settled. Multiple peer-reviewed meta-analyses confirm that students using OER achieve comparable or better academic outcomes than peers using commercial textbooks. Faculty who adopt OER rate its quality as equal to commercial alternatives. The “quality gap” argument that commercial publishers deployed for two decades has been empirically addressed.
The structural question is not whether LibreTexts works. It does. The question is whether the institutions that depend on it will fund it like infrastructure — with a permanent line item, the way they fund library systems and interlibrary loan networks — or keep treating it like a grant proposal that might lose its budget any fiscal year. The consortium model already exists: the UC system, the California Community Colleges, and equivalent systems in other states could collectively endow the platform.
Commercial publishers make a not-trivial counterargument: OER lacks the sustained editorial investment, test banks, adaptive learning platforms, and revision cycles that commercial products provide. Without commercial incentives, there’s no mechanism ensuring ongoing quality maintenance.
But the counterargument to the counterargument is simpler: one professor’s frustration with a single bad chemistry textbook built a platform serving a quarter-billion students. Imagine what infrastructure-level funding would do.
For Further Reading: Perspectives
PRO
**“SPARC’s Case for 250M in projected student savings from $47M in appropriated funds) and argues for permanent funding. Source: sparcopen.org (Nov. 2025)
CON
“OER’s Sustainability Challenge: Can Free Textbooks Scale?” — Inside Higher Ed Reports on the tension between OER’s growing adoption and its dependence on volunteer labor, grant cycles, and institutional goodwill. Source: insidehighered.com (2025)
❧ ❧ ❧
EDITORIAL
The New Enclosures
There is an 18th-century word for what is happening to professional knowledge, and it is not “disruption.” It is enclosure.
Between roughly 1750 and 1850, the English commons — shared land that villagers had used for grazing, fuel, and sustenance for centuries — were systematically fenced off and converted into private holdings. The legal instruments were Acts of Parliament. The economic logic was efficiency. The result was that people who had lived on and from the land for generations found themselves tenants of resources they had previously held in common.
The parallel is imperfect, as historical parallels always are. But the structural pattern repeats with uncanny fidelity across every story in this edition. A durable thing — a book, a manual, a code set, a datasheet, a diagnostic category — is being converted into a service relationship. The physical or digital artifact that a professional once owned, archived, and controlled is replaced by a permission to access: a permission that can be revoked, repriced, or restructured by the entity that controls the platform.
What makes the current moment different from ordinary market evolution is the convergence. It is not one industry. It is libraries, psychiatry, medical billing, farming, copyright law, semiconductor engineering, higher education lending, and open educational resources — simultaneously, within the same eighteen-month window, moving in the same direction. The AMA copyrights the codes doctors must use. The DSM defines the categories insurers require. CPT codes are the mandatory syntax of medicine. Clarivate converts ownership to rental. John Deere puts the repair manual behind a login. These are not optional reference materials. They are the compulsory grammar of professional practice, and they are increasingly enclosed.
The most revealing detail may be the enforcement gap. The law already supports open access in more places than you’d think. The EPA guidance on right-to-repair clarifies what was already legal. The statute requiring manufacturers to share diagnostic information has existed for years. ICD-10 codes already demonstrate that medical coding can function as a public good. The problem is rarely that the law is wrong. It is that the law is unenforced while private actors build business models in the gap between what the statute says and what the market permits.
And then there is July 2026. Three deadlines converge: Clarivate’s perpetual purchase window closes June 30. OBBBA student loan caps take effect July 1. The FY2026 spending bill containing LibreTexts’ funding may or may not have passed. Students with less borrowing capacity will face libraries with less owned material while the one platform providing a free alternative waits on a congressional appropriation that arrived, last time, on page 309 of a spending bill.
The enclosures of the 18th century eventually produced a countermovement: public libraries, land-grant universities, commons trusts. It took generations. The question for this edition’s readers is whether the digital enclosures now underway will produce their own countermovement — or whether the subscription model will prove more durable than the commons it replaced.
One chemistry professor in Davis already provided part of the answer. The rest is a matter of whether anyone decides to fund it like they mean it.
For Further Reading: Perspectives
PRO
“The Case for Open Infrastructure: Why Knowledge Commons Need Permanent Funding” — SPARC Argues that open educational resources have proven their efficacy and deserve infrastructure-level investment rather than perpetual pilot-program status. Source: sparcopen.org (2025)
CON
“Subscription Models Serve Institutions Better Than Ownership” — Clarivate Blog Clarivate’s corporate position that subscription access broadens availability, reduces upfront costs, and ensures content currency. Source: clarivate.com (2025)
Production Note: This edition of The Review was produced in collaboration between a human editor and an AI assistant (Claude, Anthropic). All factual claims are drawn from a verified research dossier compiled Feb. 8, 2026, cross-referenced against primary sources including government press releases, court documents, institutional announcements, and peer-reviewed publications. Dates, figures, and quotes have been verified against original sources. The editorial reflects the thematic analysis of the research, not a partisan position. Your skepticism remains appropriate and encouraged.
Coming Next: The July 2026 Convergence — a deeper examination of what happens when the Clarivate deadline, OBBBA loan caps, and OER funding uncertainty collide on the same calendar page. Also: the Rett syndrome paradox and what it means when a diagnosis succeeds itself out of existence.
© 2026 The Review. All rights reserved. Editor: [Name/Email] | Submissions: [Email] Content generated Sunday, Feb. 8, 2026