Prosthetic limbs can be expensive, costing thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars. So the industry seemed ripe for disruption when 3D printing came along. The technology requires little labor and uses economical materials. But the reality of 3D printing prosthetic limbs isn’t that straightforward, according to writer and University of California, Berkeley, lecturer Britt Young, who uses a prosthetic arm.
Marketplace’s Meghan McCarty Carino spoke with Young about why 3D printing has yet to bring down prosthesis costs.
Paramount is staging a hostile bid for Warner Bros. Discovery. Meanwhile, the Trump administration halted immigration applications for people from over 30 countries last week, following the shooting of two National Guard soldiers in Washington, D.C. Also, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that could expand President Trump's control over independent federal agencies. Across the pond, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met in London with European allies. And the investigation into Kerri Ann Abatti's death continues. She was part of one of the most influential farming families in Southern California's Imperial Valley. In business, a Google-backed film by Michael Keaton is aiming to change the narrative on AI, and the California State Transportation Agency rejected plans to raise the height of the Port of Los Angeles Vincent Thomas Bridge as re-decking on the overpass begins.
Plus: Ford engages France’s Renault to bolster its European lineup and combat Chinese competition. And Jamie Dimon is launching a $1.5 trillion initiative aimed at bolstering American self-sufficiency in critical industries - including rare earths and AI. Luke Vargas hosts.
President Trump heads to Pennsylvania to defend his record on affordability as polls show voters increasingly blame his policies for high prices. The Supreme Court appears poised to grant presidents far greater power over independent agencies, signaling a major shift in how the federal government operates. And Indiana lawmakers move toward a congressional map that could eliminate the state’s last two Democratic seats, intensifying a nationwide battle over mid-cycle redistricting.
Want more comprehensive analysis of the most important news of the day, plus a little fun? Subscribe to the Up First newsletter.
Today’s episode of Up First was edited by Rebekah Metzler, Krishnadev Calamur, Kelsey Snell, Mohamad ElBardicy and Alice Woelfle.
It was produced by Kaity Kline, Nia Dumas and Christopher Thomas.
We get engineering support from Stacey Abbott. And our technical director is Carleigh Strange.
And our Senior Supervising Producer is Vince Pearson.
A.M. Edition for Dec. 9. Nvidia shares jumped off-hours after President Trump approved the sale of its high-performance H200 chips to China. WSJ Asia business editor Peter Landers, says it's a boon for the AI-trade, following the recent selloff. Plus, WSJ’s Jonathan Cheng and Tom Fairless explain how China’s booming manufacturing sector is crushing Europe’s core businesses and driving Germany and France to consider tariffs of their own. And we look at the bellwether stakes of Miami’s mayoral race. Luke Vargas hosts.
Netflix announced plans on Friday to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery’s studio and streaming business, in a deal that would send shock waves through Hollywood.
On Monday, Paramount made a hostile bid for the studio, arguing that the Netflix deal would be “anti-competitive.”
The Times journalists Nicole Sperling, Kyle Buchanan and Lauren Hirsch discuss what it all means for the future of TV and film.
Guest:
Nicole Sperling, a New York Times reporter in Los Angeles who covers Hollywood and the streaming revolution.
Kyle Buchanan, a pop culture reporter and the awards-season columnist for The New York Times.
Lauren Hirsch, a New York Times reporter who covers the biggest stories on Wall Street, including mergers and acquisitions.
The Supreme Court signals it’s open to overturning a century-old precedent on presidential powers. Paramount attempts a hostile takeover of Warner Brothers Discovery, interrupting a potential merger with Netflix. And prosecutors reveal handwritten notes outlining what they claim were Luigi Mangione’s escape plans after allegedly murdering a CEO.
One of the most complex medical, ethical, moral, and religious questions of our era is that of physician-assisted suicide—also known as Medical Aid in Dying, or MAID.
Eleven U.S. states and Washington, D.C. have legalized some form of MAID for terminally ill patients. And New York might join them.
Over the summer, a Medical Aid in Dying Act passed New York’s state legislature. It is now sitting on Governor Kathy Hochul’s desk as she decides whether to sign it into law.
Under the proposed New York bill, terminally ill adults with a prognosis of six months or less to live would be able to access a prescribed, self-administered life-ending medication.
Supporters argue that this is a compassionate option—one that can relieve people of immense pain and suffering, allowing patients to choose when and where they die, and to do so surrounded by loved ones.
Opponents see this as a violation of physicians’ fundamental oath to do no harm. They also worry that while access may begin narrowly, it could expand over time to include people seeking death for reasons other than terminal illness—such as mental suffering or simply a desire to stop living. Cases like this have already occurred in Belgium, the Netherlands, Canada, and Switzerland.
Rafaela Siewert sat down with two experts who see this topic very differently for a heated debate.
David Hoffman is a healthcare attorney, clinical ethicist, and professor of bioethics at Columbia University. He argues that hypothetical future abuses of MAID shouldn’t outweigh the needs of terminal patients who need this option now.
Dr. Lydia Dugdale is a physician, medical ethicist, and professor of medicine at Columbia University. In her view, legalizing this practice of physician-assisted suicide risks undermining the responsibilities of governments, medical systems, and families to care for the mentally ill, the poor, and the physically disabled. And she fears that the potential for excessively expanded access over time is too great.
We are among the many Americans who do not know what the right answer is. We see both sides—which is why grappling with the nuances of this subject is so important.
At some point, you might have been called, or might have called someone else a Luddite, due to a refusal to adopt a new technology.
Nowadays, it’s usually done in jest, but the Luddites were real.
While the term is often used to describe any anti-technology attitude, the actual Luddite worldview was more subtle than simply opposing anything new and innovative.
In some respects, the Luddite worldview has never gone away.
Learn more about the Luddites, what they did, and why on this episode of Everything Everywhere Daily.
Sponsors
Quince
Go to quince.com/daily for 365-day returns, plus free shipping on your order!
Mint Mobile
Get your 3-month Unlimited wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month at mintmobile.com/eed
Chubbies
Get 20% off your purchase at Chubbies with the promo code DAILY at checkout!
