AI Photo Editing and the Blurring of Fact and Fantasy

 From Breakpoint.org (Dec. 5, 2023):

One of the best features of our smartphones is the ability to apply a few tweaks to our photos before sending them to relatives or sharing them on social media. Using a phone’s built-in tools, we can bump up the brightness or fix red eye, with the desired result of a photo that looks more like the real-life moment when we snapped it. Of course, these same tools can now deliver photos even “better” than what we saw in real life. We can even create moments that didn’t happen in real life.

Is it okay to pass those off as real? What is the boundary between fiddling with a photo and faking one? Does it even matter?

Such questions will soon be forced on us through the integration of artificial intelligence with smartphones. Popular figures on Instagram have already demonstrated how easy it is to alter a mood or look, airbrushing a photo of a crying woman, for instance, into a beaming and happy version of herself. Images entirely generated by AI, often incorporating real people’s likenesses, are becoming nearly indistinguishable from photos.

Writing recently at The New York Times, tech editor Brian Chen described how devices like Google’s Pixel 8 come with an AI-powered “Magic Editor,” a tool that can remove and add objects, move subjects around, and even stitch together elements from multiple photos into a new one. The result is imagery that is partially make-believe and, though it comes from the camera app and is stored with other “photos,” can no longer strictly be called photography. These snapshots of alternate realities fudge the truth in front of your lens, which is the point, since they’re closer to “exactly the photo you want.”

According to Ren Ng, a computer science professor at Berkeley, this means that “[a]s we go boldly forth into this future, a photo is no longer a visual fact.” AI-powered photography and editing means that people will “increasingly have to question whether what they see in their images is real—including photos from loved ones.” Of course, this goes further than just personal photos, and will contribute, Ng thinks, “to the spread of fake media online when misinformation is already rampant and it’s hard to know what to trust.”

Last month, in fact, Hamas falsely accused Israel of faking images of atrocities using AI. It doesn’t take much of an imagination to see how future conflicts will be sparked by a convincing image posted online.

Increasingly, the fundamental worldview question of our age is “What is real?” Fake photos, artificial wombs, and AI chatbots posing as friends are just a few examples of technology that is challenging our understanding of reality, including our understanding of who we are and why and even whether we need each other.

Christians should have a clear answer. Nonnegotiable purposes and relationships have been built into creation by God, things humans were designed to pursue and steward in particular ways. This is not an infinitely malleable world. We are not infinitely malleable creatures, able to invent and reinvent ourselves as technology permits. This applies both to big changes like amniotic pods replacing mothers as well as seemingly trivial changes like “photography” tools.

Here are two principles to keep in mind as we “go boldly forth into this future” of AI, smartphones, and photography.

First, we should never lie, not even with AI. That means we need to define the term “photograph.” Is it a shared visual fact, a representation of reality that can establish everything from family memories to journalistic truth, or is it an idealized digital painting? We shouldn’t get in the habit of passing one off as the other.

Second, we shouldn’t look to technology to replace human ability. Somewhere between using AI to edit out a trash can in a family photo and using it to create a fake family member for Instagram, a moral line is crossed. That line is on a slope, and we are about to find out just how slippery it is. Planting your feet firmly and intentionally now is a good idea.

Christians should be pro-technology and pro-human. God gave humans the ingenuity to make such tools, and they can be used to glorify Him and love others. However, tools—like their users—need a purpose grounded in God’s design for reality. The moment our tools begin using us, or severing our relationship with that reality, something has gone wrong.

We need wisdom in the days ahead, not just artificial intelligence. [source]

Good principles to live by. 

When Intelligence Is Stupid

From R. J. Snell on The Public Discourse.com (July 10, 2022):

I’ve long engaged a group of close friends in political and theological discussion. As it happens, two of us agree on most topics and ally against the others. Mostly in banter, although not entirely so, we refer to ourselves as “Team Intelligence.” It’s friendly and jocular, even if somewhat ridiculous.

Who could be against intelligence? Who would wish to be dimwitted or slow; or worse, to be thought dimwitted and slow?

In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle describes intelligence or understanding (nous) as the intellectual virtue by which we apprehend first principles. Such principles are known, but as first, they cannot themselves be demonstrated or based on other more fundamental premises. The intellect grasps them as true by an insight that is neither an intuition nor a conclusion. Thus, all other theoretical reasoning depends on intelligence, which provides fundamental principles.

Nonetheless, it is obvious to any person of experience that intelligence is no guarantee of wisdom, morality, or even basic decency. The intelligent person may turn out worse than the dull precisely because he is clever and scheming. Just as one eventually concludes that interesting people are fine but solid and serious people make better friends, perhaps maturity requires moderating our admiration for the intellectuals, the clerks, and the clever types.

If honorable stupidity is a weakness of understanding, the dishonorable version “is by far the more dangerous.” It is not the absence of intelligence so much as “failure of intelligence.” Intelligence is present but out of balance and “misshapen and erratically active,” diseased in some manner. The “higher stupidity” is a “misculture” causing not dullness of mind but a kind of blindness or refusal to see.

Musil suggests three primary qualities of this kind of intelligent stupidity. First, it claims accomplishment and facility in matters beyond its competence. Second, it gives way to emotions at the expense of reason. Third, it is clever enough to invent rationalizations for its views, no matter how bizarre the view or silly the excuse. As a result, intelligence does not orient toward true knowledge of first principles and reality, as in Aristotle’s vision, but confuses the spirit. It results in a flight from reality, with all the cultural and spiritual pathologies attendant on living in an ersatz reality. Of course, given the unity of the human being, stupidity of this sort affects sensibility, causing taste and emotions to unmoor. Such intelligence becomes a dangerous disease of the mind and “endangers life itself.” [read more]

The difference between intelligence and wisdom. Aristotle was talking about wisdom.

Moderna’s ‘Disinformation Department’ Monitors 150 Million Websites for ‘Anti-Vaccine’ Narratives

From Children’s Health Defense.org (Nov. 21, 2023):

Moderna’s “disinformation department” partnered with an industry-backed nonprofit, the Public Good Projects (PGP), to monitor and suppress dissenting voices on COVID-19 vaccine policy, according to a new report by investigative journalists Lee Fang and Jack Poulson published Monday in UnHerd.

Over the last year, the “Twitter Files,” two lawsuits against the Biden administration and other investigations have exposed instances of collusion among government, social media and universities to suppress dissenting speech about COVID-19 policies, election fraud allegations and other topics.

This new report sheds light on Moderna’s behind-the-scenes strategy within this new media landscape. It exposes key actors and how they worked to monitor 150 million websites for the purpose of censoring speech that undermines the company’s COVID-19 vaccine narrative and actively shaping public discourse to benefit Moderna’s bottom line.

Great Barrington Declaration co-author and Stanford University professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who was blacklisted by Twitter, praised the new report in a tweet:

This report by @lhfang and Jack Poulson in @unherd is absolute fire. Moderna, thru the Public Goods Project pays thousands of health professionals to attack and defame vaccine critics and push social media to censor anyone who says things, true or false, that reduce profits. https://t.co/2zfpx4TBne

— Jay Bhattacharya (@DrJBhattacharya) November 20, 2023

Moderna had never successfully advanced any product to market prior to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine and was teetering on the edge of collapse when the pandemic was announced.

Its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine transformed the drugmaker into a $100 billion company almost overnight and turned its CEO, chairman and co-founders into billionaires.

Today, as public interest in taking yet another booster shot tanks and federal subsidies for the shot are disappearing, so are profits, leading the company to invest in new strategies — like a flashy marketing campaign — to stay afloat, Fang and Poulson reported.

Moderna also is doubling down on work started during the pandemic to attack dissent about vaccines and to direct vaccination policy, they found. [read more]

A 'monster' star 2 million times brighter than the sun disappears without a trace

From Live Science.com (June 30, 2020):

In 2019, scientists witnessed a massive star 2.5 million times brighter than the sun disappear without a trace.

Now, in a new paper published today (June 30) in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, a team of space detectives (see: astrophysicists) attempt to solve the case of the disappearing star by providing several possible explanations. Of these, one twist ending stands out: Perhaps, the researchers wrote, the massive star died and collapsed into a black hole without undergoing a supernova explosion first — a truly "unprecedented" act of stellar suicide.

"We may have detected one of the most massive stars of the local universe going gently into the night," Jose Groh, an astronomer at Trinity College Dublin and a co-author of a new paper on the star, said in a statement.

"If true, this would be the first direct detection of such a monster star ending its life in this manner," study lead-author Andrew Allan, also of Trinity College, said in the statement.

The star in question, located about 75 million light-years away in the constellation Aquarius, was well studied between 2001 and 2011. The bloated orb was a superb example of a luminous blue variable (LBV) — a massive star approaching the end of its life and prone to unpredictable variations in brightness. Stars like this are rare, with only a handful confirmed in the universe so far. In 2019, Allan and colleagues hoped to use the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope to learn more about the distant LBV's mysterious evolution, only to discover that the star had seemingly completely vanished from its host galaxy.

Normally, when a star much larger than our sun reaches the end of its life, it erupts in an enormous supernova explosion. These explosions are easy to spot, as they stain the sky around them with ionized gas and powerful radiation for many light-years in every direction. (Sometimes, this looks downright beautiful.) Following the blast, the dense core of leftover stellar material may collapse into a black hole or a neutron star — two of space's most massive and mysterious objects.

The missing LBV left no such radiation. It simply disappeared.

To investigate this mystery, the researchers looked back at previous observations of the star taken in 2002 and 2009. They discovered that the star had been undergoing a strong outburst period during this time, jettisoning enormous amounts of stellar material at a much faster rate than usual. LBVs can experience multiple outbursts like this in their temperamental old age, the researchers wrote, causing them to glow much more brightly than usual. The outburst likely ended sometime after 2011, the team said.

This could explain why the star appeared so bright during those early observations — still, it does not explain what happened after the outburst that caused the star to vanish. One explanation could be that the star dimmed considerably after its outburst, and was then further obscured by a thick veil of cosmic dust. If this were the case, then the star could reappear in future observations.

The weirder and more exciting explanation is that the star never recovered from its outburst, but instead collapsed into a black hole without going supernova. This would be a rare event, the team conceded. Given the star's estimated mass before its disappearance, it could have created a black hole measuring 85 to 120 times the mass of Earth's sun, though how this could have happened without a visible supernova is still an open question.

Further observations of the distant, star-eating galaxy are required before this case can be officially closed. [source]

Dozens of House Dems Vote Against Measure Condemning Calls to Defund Police

From Free Beacon.com (May 17, 2024):

The House on Friday overcame opposition from dozens of Democrats in passing a Republican-led resolution that condemns calls to defund the police.

The resolution, approved in a 337-61 vote, was part of the House Republicans’ National Police Week push to denounce efforts to defund the police and "[express] condolences and solemn appreciation" to family members of officers who died in the line of duty.

The legislation also highlighted a "lack of accountability for violent criminals with decreased penalties and no-bail policies," which the Republicans said "has opened the door for record criminal activity in cities across the country."

All 61 opposing votes came from Democrats, some of whom have slammed the Police Week initiatives as merely messaging bills, according to The Hill.

"Resolutions that mislead the public about violent crime rates, legislation that increases the availability of deadly weapons in our communities, and bills that fuel xenophobic and anti-immigrant sentiments do not make our communities safer—for our children, for our most vulnerable neighbors, for law enforcement, other first responders, or anyone else," Rep. Cori Bush (D., Mo.) said in a statement earlier this week.

Meanwhile, Rep. Pete Stauber (R., Minn.), who spearheaded the resolution, said police officers have become "punching bags" and are expected to "take the verbal assault and show up with a smile on their face ready to serve."

Rep. Elise Stefanik (N.Y.), chairwoman of the House Republican Conference, on Wednesday accused "Joe Biden and far left failed leadership" of following a "pro-criminal agenda" and compromising the "safety of America’s law enforcement."

"Lawless liberals handicap our police from doing their jobs with failed bail reform like my home state in New York and pro-criminal policies that appease the far left Democrats’ defund the police agenda," Stefanik added.

The House’s approval of the resolution came after the number of assaults on police officers reached a 10-year high last year. Nearly 80,000 attacks on officers were recorded in 2023, according to FBI data released on Tuesday. [source]

I guess BLM's stupid Marxist ideology still resonates with the House Dems.  Shameful.

Report: Soros Pumps $81M to Censor Election Speech Online

From Newsmax.com (May 15, 2024):

A media group funded by billionaire leftist George Soros is seeking to implement a global plan to pressure Big Tech social media platforms to censor more content before November's presidential election.

The group called Free Press is leading the charge to restrict free speech online, the Media Research Center reported Tuesday. MRC described Free Press — not to be confused with The Free Press media outlet helmed by former New York Times editor Bari Weiss — as an activist organization disguised as a journalism operation that uses its sizable resources to push the federal government and Big Tech to silence conservative speech.

Free Press, which MRC said claimed responsibility for helping to get former President Donald Trump banned from Twitter, bragged in a news release about a letter sent by a coalition of more than 200 "civil-society organizations, researchers, and journalists" to the heads of Big Tech companies such as Google, Instagram, Discord, X, and TikTok. In it, the groups called for the companies to reduce "interventions necessary to keep online platforms" allegedly "safe and healthy" and demanded "swift action" to protect "democracy."

MRC said its research unveiled that Soros packed the coffers of at least 45 of the signatories with $80.7 million combined between 2016 and 2022.

The letter attempted to justify that it was written with reducing "real-world harms" and "the rise of extremism and violent attempts to overthrow democratic governments." But it appears its true design was to pressure Big Tech companies to silence speech the left despises as 60 countries across the globe gear up for elections in 2024, the MRC reported.

"Even more disturbing was the letter's implication that its primary target is interfering in the 2024 U.S. election," the MRC reported. "This development is directly in line with Soros' brand, of which he has dedicated millions of his ungodly fortune to groups looking to interfere in elections by stifling online speech."

The letter made six demands of the Big Tech companies, the first of which called for investment "in greater platform integrity by reinstating election-integrity policies, inclusive of moderating content around the Big Lie," defined by co-signatory Brennan Center for Justice, which has received funding from Soros, as the idea the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.

The MRC reported the signatory that received the most Soros funding was Global Witness, which MRC said is on record for pressuring Facebook and TikTok to increase censorship operations before the 2022 midterm elections. Global Witness hauled in $20.3 million from Soros between 2016 and 2022, the MRC said.

Strategic Dialogue, another signatory that received $3.1 million from Soros between 2017 and 2022, was recently exposed by a House Judiciary Committee investigation for co-authoring a "hate groups" blacklist with the Soros-funded Global Disinformation Index targeting "conservative" and faith-based organizations, the MRC said.

"The fact that Free Press is at the tip of this Soros-tied spear should concern every American," the MRC said. "Free Press' obsession with censorship and gaining control of the Internet cannot be overstated.

"This is the same group that boasted how it was 'involved in direct talks that pressured Google and Amazon' to boot the 'dangerous' pro-free speech platform Parler from their platforms because of so-called 'election lies.'"

Newsmax reached out to Free Press for comment. [source]

The Spooky Dude is at it again with his evil ways. The name "Free Press" is a misnomer. Then again, that's the point. Whenever the Left creates an organization, the name of it always confuses and deceives its real purpose.

I’m glad Trump won the election despite Soros's attempt at election interference.

Another Soros article:

Soros' alleged ties to Russiagate exposed in declassified annex of Durham report

Which Theory of Evolution? Toppling the Idol of “Settled Science”

From Breakpoint.org (Aug. 10, 2023):

In 1973, evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote that “nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution.” Almost 50 years later, an increasing number of scientists are asking whether evolution makes any sense in light of what we now know from biology.

A recent long-form essay in The Guardian signals just how urgent the problem has become for the most dominant theory in the history of the sciences. In it, author Stephen Buranyi gives voice to a growing number of scientists who think it’s time for a “new theory of evolution.” 

For a long time, descent with slight modifications and natural selection have been “the basic” (and I’d add, unchallengeable) “story of evolution.” Organisms change, and those that survive pass on traits. Though massaged a bit to incorporate the discovery of DNA, the theory of evolution by natural selection has dominated for 150 years, especially in biology. The “drive to survive” is credited as the creative force behind all the artistry and engineering we see in nature. 

“The problem,” writes Buranyi, is that “according to a growing number of scientists,” this basic story is “absurdly crude and misleading.” For one thing, Darwinian evolution assumes much of what it needs to be explained. For instance, consider the origin of light-sensitive cells that rearranged to become the first eye, or the blood vessels that became the first placenta. How did these things originate? According to one University of Indiana biologist, “we still do not have a good answer. The classic idea of gradual change, one happy accident at a time,” he says, “has so far fallen flat.”

This scientific doubt about Darwin has been simmering for a while. In 2014, an article in the journal Nature, jointly authored by eight scientists from diverse fields, argued that evolutionary theory was in need of a serious rethink. They called their proposed rethink the “Extended Evolutionary Synthesis,” and a year later, the Royal Society in London held a conference to discuss it. 

Along with Darwinian blind spots like the origin of the eye, the Extended Synthesis seeks to deal with the discovery of epigenetics, an emerging field that studies inherited traits not mediated by DNA. Then there are the rapid mutations that evade natural selection, a fossil record that appears to move in “short, concentrated bursts” (or “explosions”), and something called “plasticity,” which is the ability we now know living things have to adapt physically to their environments in a single generation without genetically evolving.

These discoveries—some recent, others long ignored by mainstream biology—challenge natural selection as the “grand theory” of life. All of them hint that living things are greater marvels and mysteries than we ever imagined. And, unsurprisingly, all of these discoveries have been controversial.

The Guardian article describes how Royal Society scientists and Nobel laureates alike boycotted the conference, attacking the extended synthesis as “irritating” and “disgraceful,” and its proponents as “revolutionaries.” As Gerd Müller, head of the department of theoretical biology at the University of Vienna helpfully explained, “Parts of the modern synthesis are deeply ingrained in the whole scientific community, in funding networks, positions, professorships. It’s a whole industry.”

Such resistance isn’t too surprising for anyone who’s been paying attention. Any challenges to the established theory of life’s origins, whether from Bible-believing scientists or intelligent design theorists, have long been dismissed as religion in a lab coat.

The habit of fixing upon a dogma and calling it “settled science” is just bad science that stunts our understanding of the world. It is a kind of idolatry that places “science” in the seat of God, appoints certain scientists as priests capable of giving answers no fallible human can offer, and feigns certainty where real questions remain. The great irony is that this image of scientist-as-infallible-priest makes them seem like the caricature of medieval monks charging their hero Galileo with heresy for his dissent from the consensus.

As challenges to Darwin mount, we should be able to articulate why “settled science” makes such a poor god. And we should encourage the science and the scientists challenging this old theory-turned-dogma and holding it to its own standards. After all, if Darwinian evolution is as unfit as it now seems, it shouldn’t survive. [source]

You can’t call quantum physics settled science. Physicists believe it works but there is no settled theory on how it works.

What Is Fascism?

From Mises.org (Aug. 2, 2022):

Mussolini became premier in October 1922. With the innumerable arguments about the march on Rome or with the story of the violent, lawless, and outrageous tactics he used to come to power we are not concerned here. That history has been told many times. Our business is to see the use he made of his power to fashion a new form of society.

He did not have a majority in parliament. He had to form a coalition cabinet which included a moderate socialist and a member of the Popolari. Some liberal politicians saw the hope of a stable government and the General Confederation of Labor (socialist) agreed to collaborate. Mussolini, of course, began to move toward dictatorship. But the full dictatorship did not come until 1925, after the assassination of Matteoti.

We will now see the elements of the fascist society emerge—point by point. First we must note one important difference between Communism and Fascism which becomes clear here. Socialism has a definite philosophy, based upon clearly enunciated principles which had long been debated and were widely understood. Socialists disagreed among themselves on certain points and upon programs of action. But socialism as a system of social structure with an organized body of doctrine was well understood. This was not true of Fascism. Whether it was capitalist or anticapitalist, labor or antilabor, no one could say until the leaders themselves decided upon a course of action. It was improvised as the movement went along. Therefore we cannot define Fascism as a movement committed to the collection of principles enunciated in its formal proclamation of principles and objectives—the Eleven Points of San Sepolcro. Mussolini, being in pursuit of power, made that objective the mold by which his policies were formed. Behold now the erection of the great Fascist edifice.

1. He had been a syndicalist and hence anticapitalist. The original program included a demand for confiscation of war profits, confiscation of certain church property, heavy inheritance and income taxes, nationalization of arms and munitions plants, and control of factories, railroads, and public services by workers’ councils. These, Mussolini said, “we have put at the head of our program.” But in power he did none of these things. Signora Sarfatti quotes him as saying:

I do not intend to defend capitalism or capitalists. They, like everything human, have their defects. I only say their possibilities of usefulness are not ended. Capitalism has borne the monstrous burden of the war and today still has the strength to shoulder the burdens of peace…. It is not simply and solely an accumulation of wealth, it is an elaboration, a selection, a coordination of values which is the work of centuries…. Many think, and I myself am one of them, that capitalism is scarcely at the beginning of its story.

On another occasion he said: “State ownership! It leads only to absurd and monstrous conclusions; state ownership means state monopoly, concentrated in the hands of one party and its adherents, and that state brings only ruin and bankruptcy to all.” This was indeed more in conformity with his syndicalist faith, but it completely negated the original Fascist platform. The first point we shall have to settle, therefore, is that fascism is a defense of capitalist society, an attempt to make it function. This view, which Mussolini did not entertain when he began, he came around to as he saw that Italy, in spite of all the disorder, had no mind to establish a socialist state. Moreover, he attached to himself the powerful industrialists and financiers of Milan and Rome along with many of the nobles, two of those powerful minorities essential to his general aims. Thus he molded Fascism into a powerful weapon to beat down the Red menace. But it was Italy which molded him to this philosophy, new for him, the man who, when the factories were occupied, had applauded the act of the workers. [read more]

‘Mind-blowing’ IBM Chip Speeds Up AI

From The AI Insider.tech (Oct. 20, 2023):

RESEARCH NEWS —October 19, 2023 — A brain-inspired computer chip that could supercharge artificial intelligence (AI) by working faster with much less power has been developed by researchers at IBM in San Jose, California. Their massive NorthPole processor chip eliminates the need to frequently access external memory, and so performs tasks such as image recognition faster than existing architectures do — while consuming vastly less power.

“Its energy efficiency is just mind-blowing,” says Damien Querlioz, a nanoelectronics researcher at the University of Paris-Saclay in Palaiseau. The work, published in Science1, shows that computing and memory can be integrated on a large scale, he says. “I feel the paper will shake the common thinking in computer architecture.”

NorthPole runs neural networks: multi-layered arrays of simple computational units programmed to recognize patterns in data. A bottom layer takes in data, such as the pixels in an image; each successive layer detects patterns of increasing complexity and passes information on to the next layer. The top layer produces an output that, for example, can express how likely an image is to contain a cat, a car or other objects.

Slowed by a bottleneck

Some computer chips can handle these calculations efficiently, but they still need to use external memory called RAM each time they calculate a layer. Shuttling data between chips in this way slows things down — a phenomenon known as the Von Neumann bottleneck, after mathematician John von Neumann, who first conceived the standard architecture of computers based on a processing unit and a separate memory unit.

The Von Neumann bottleneck is one of the most significant factors that slow computer applications — including AI. It also results in energy inefficiencies. Study co-author Dharmendra Modha, a computer engineer at IBM, says he once estimated that simulating a human brain on this type of architecture might require the equivalent of the output of 12 nuclear reactors.

NorthPole is made of 256 computing units, or cores, each of which contains its own memory. “You’re mitigating the Von Neumann bottleneck within a core,” says Modha, who is IBM’s chief scientist for brain-inspired computing at the company’s Almaden research centre in San Jose.

The cores are wired together in a network inspired by the white-matter connections between parts of the human cerebral cortex, Modha says. This and other design principles — most of which existed before but had never been combined in one chip — enable NorthPole to beat existing AI machines by a substantial margin in standard benchmark tests of image recognition. It also uses one-fifth of the energy of state-of-the-art AI chips, despite not using the most recent and most miniaturized manufacturing processes. If the NorthPole design were implemented with the most up-to-date manufacturing process, its efficiency would be 25 times better than that of current designs, the authors estimate.

On the right road

But even NorthPole’s 224 megabytes of RAM are not enough for large language models, such as those used by the chatbot ChatGPT, which take up several thousand megabytes of data even in their most stripped-down versions. And the chip can run only pre-programmed neural networks that need to be ‘trained’ in advance on a separate machine. But the paper’s authors say that the NorthPole architecture could be useful in speed-critical applications, such as self-driving cars.

NorthPole brings memory units as physically close as possible to the computing elements in the core. Elsewhere, researchers have been developing more-radical innovations using new materials and manufacturing processes. These enable the memory units themselves to perform calculations, which in principle could boost both speed and efficiency even further.

Another chip, described last month2, does in-memory calculations using memristors, circuit elements able to switch between being a resistor and a conductor. “Both approaches, IBM’s and ours, hold promise in mitigating latency and reducing the energy costs associated with data transfers,” says Bin Gao at Tsinghua University, Beijing, who co-authored the memristor study.

Another approach, developed by several teams — including one at a separate IBM lab in Zurich, Switzerland3 — stores information by changing a circuit element’s crystal structure. It remains to be seen whether these newer approaches can be scaled up economically. [source]

One step closer to the AI Overlord...

These are all the wars Trump ended so far

From The Post Millennial.com (Aug. 19):

President Donald Trump emphasized his involvement in multiple international conflicts during meetings with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders at the White House. He criticized media coverage, saying outlets fail to recognize his efforts to broker peace and manage crises abroad.

1. Armenia and Azerbaijan – August 2025
   Leaders from Armenia and Azerbaijan signed a peace agreement at the White House after decades of conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. Trump described the deal as a step toward long-term stability, declaring the countries would now “be friends a long time.” The agreement includes a major transit route between the territories, which Trump named the “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity.” Iran and Russia expressed concerns about potential shifts in the regional balance of power.

2. Cambodia and Thailand – July 2025
   Cambodia and Thailand agreed to an unconditional ceasefire following a five-day border conflict. Trump cited US pressure as a contributing factor, while China urged both countries to maintain peace.

3. Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda – June 2025
   A US-brokered peace agreement was signed to end years of cross-border violence that displaced millions. Trump said, “Today, the violence and destruction comes to an end, and the entire region begins a new chapter of hope and opportunity, harmony, prosperity and peace.” Both sides have reported isolated incidents of violations, demonstrating the ongoing challenge of maintaining peace in the region.

4. Ethiopia and Egypt – June 2025
   Trump said US engagement helped prevent potential conflict over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. While formal agreements remain in progress, he asserted that US involvement ensured tensions did not escalate.

5. India and Pakistan – May 2025
   Trump announced a “full and immediate ceasefire” after military tensions escalated in Kashmir following a terror attack. He cited US trade leverage as a factor in encouraging both sides to pause hostilities.

6. Serbia and Kosovo – 2020 (First Term)
   During his first term, the Trump administration brokered the Washington Agreement, a limited economic normalization deal aimed at reducing tensions over unresolved independence disputes.

Trump has also taken credit for ending the short-lived conflict between Iran and Israel following the US strike on Iranian nuclear targets.

Trump slammed media coverage of his foreign policy, saying outlets fail to acknowledge successes. “I am totally convinced that if Russia raised their hands and said, 'We give up, we concede, we surrender… the Fake News Media and their Democrat Partners would say that this was a bad and humiliating day for Donald J. Trump,’” he said. “But that’s why they are the FAKE NEWS, and the badly failing Radical Left Democrats. Thank you.” [source]

That’s quite a few. Peace is good.

American relatives of Oct 7 hostage, murder victims sue Al Jazeera

From The Post Millennium.com (Mar. 3):

American family members of victims of the October 7 massacre have filed a lawsuit against Al Jazeera Media Network along with its US subsidiary, alleging that the news outlet directly supported Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). According to the lawsuit obtained by The Jerusalem Post, the Qatar-based network knowingly aided the terrorist organizations by providing a global platform for propaganda, recruitment, and incitement to violence.

The complaint, filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia under the US Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), alleges that Al Jazeera employed Hamas and PIJ terrorists as “journalists,” paid terrorist leaders for interviews, and pushed extremist narratives. According to the complaint, some of the Al Jazeera “journalists” were Hamas and PIJ operatives, some directly involved in the October 7 attack. Under the ATA, US victims of terrorism can seek damages from actors that provide support to terrorist organizations.

The network is also accused of glorifying terrorists, inciting further violence, and financially supporting individuals linked to these groups. Exclusive interviews with Hamas leaders—some of whom orchestrated attacks on Israeli and American civilians—are cited as evidence in the case. According to the plaintiffs, these actions contributed to the planning and execution of the October 7 terrorist attacks, which killed over 1,200 people, resulted in the kidnapping of over 250 and injuring of thousands.

Maurice Shnaider, the uncle of murdered victims Shiri, Ariel, and Kfir Bibas, is among the plaintiffs. He stated, “The brutal murder of Shiri, Kfir, and Ariel by Gaza terrorists is an unspeakable atrocity that has shattered our family forever. The kidnapping and killing of toddlers is beyond comprehension. While no lawsuit can erase our pain, we are determined to seek justice and hold those responsible accountable.”

Darshan-Leitner, president of Shurat Hadin, one of the legal groups assisting with the case, said, “Terrorist organizations require financial support, logistical networks, and media outlets to further their agenda. The evidence shows Al Jazeera has acted as an accomplice to Hamas and PIJ, promoting their ideology and enabling their operations.” [source]

Good. The Al Jazeera network isn't journalists. It's an Islamist propagandist and possible terrorist collaborator.

Another Oct. 7 lawsuit: October 7 Survivors Sue UNRWA for Aiding Terrorists

U.S. Takes Out 14 ‘Narco-Terrorists’ In Pacific Drug Boat Strikes

From Daily Wire.com (Oct. 28):

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said Tuesday that the United States military took out four more narco-trafficking boats through kinetic strikes in the Eastern Pacific, leaving 14 suspected drug traffickers dead.

Hegseth said that the strikes took place in international waters on Monday and were authorized by President Donald Trump. The boats were operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations (DTOs), Hegseth said.

“The four vessels were known by our intelligence apparatus, transiting along known narco-trafficking routes, and carrying narcotics,” Hegseth wrote on X. “A total of 14 narco-terrorists were killed during the three strikes, with one survivor. All strikes were in international waters with no U.S. forces harmed.”

There were eight male “narco-terrorists” on board the first boat, four on the second, and three on the third, according to Hegseth. He added that Mexican search-and-rescue authorities had assumed responsibility for coordinating the rescue of the survivor from the third boat. It was not specified which DTOs were targeted.

“The Department has spent over TWO DECADES defending other homelands. Now, we’re defending our own,” Hegseth said. “These narco-terrorists have killed more Americans than Al-Qaeda, and they will be treated the same. We will track them, we will network them, and then, we will hunt and kill them.”

At Trump’s direction, the military has taken out dozens of suspected drug-runners throughout the Caribbean Sea and expanded strikes into the Pacific. Two survivors of previous strikes were repatriated to Colombia and Ecuador, where American authorities recommended they face prosecution for drug trafficking.

On Friday, Hegseth dispatched the Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group toward South America to aid in efforts to fight drug trafficking in the region.

“The enhanced U.S. force presence … will bolster U.S. capacity to detect, monitor, and disrupt illicit actors and activities that compromise the safety and prosperity of the United States homeland and our security in the Western Hemisphere,” Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said. “These forces will enhance and augment existing capabilities to disrupt narcotics trafficking and degrade and dismantle TCOs [Transnational Criminal Organizations].”

Some lawmakers in Washington, D.C., have expressed concern about Trump’s strikes on suspected drug runners, arguing that Congress must grant approval before the administration uses the military to target suspected narco-terrorists in international waters. Trump has said that he doesn’t need a declaration of war to target those he says are bringing drugs into the country. [source]

Some more drug boats bites the dust. Sucks to be the narco-terrorists.

Another article on the drug boats: Get In, Losers. We're About to Blow Up a Lot More Narcos.

What is a miracle? Here are 7 characteristics

From Claudia Kalmikov on Christian Post.com (Aug. 11, 2023):

The greatest miracle that ever occurred happened in the very first verse of the Bible — Genesis one. God created the heavens and the earth. If God could speak the universe into existence, create the universe Ex-Nihilo — out of nothing, could He part the Red Sea? Can He raise a man from the dead? Of course! That’s child’s play for Him! If God exists, and he does, then miracles are possible. There have been countless accounts of them.

What is a miracle?

Richard Purtill, a philosophy professor at Western Washington University, defines a miracle this way:

“A miracle is an event brought about by the power of God that is, a temporary exception to the ordinary course of nature for the purpose of showing that God has acted in history.”

A miracle is:

1. Supernatural

Miracles are supernatural events. Not events brought about by human power. True miracles are brought about by God.

2. Immediate

When Jesus healed people, the results were always immediate. He didn’t say to the paralytic, “You’ll be well in a few days.” No. He said, “Pick up your mat and walk.” He called Lazarus to come out of his grave and he did…immediately. To the woman who touched His robe, He said, “Your faith has healed you,” and she was healed immediately. When Peter cut off the ear of Malchus in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus healed his ear immediately. Each of Jesus’ healings was immediate.

3. Rare and unpredictable

A miracle by definition is an exception. Because of this, we can’t expect, predict, or demand one. We can’t predict the activity of God. Miracles are only due to His will.

4. Can’t be tested by scientific means

Miracles can’t be investigated by the usual scientific methods since we can’t control the variable and perform experiments. Science measures and evaluates the natural world. Not the supernatural world.

5. Promotes good and glorifies God

A miracle will always promote good and never promote evil, because God is good. Miracles are never for show. They have the distinct purpose of glorifying God and pointing man to Him.

6. More than astonishing

A magician can perform an astonishing act that can be reduced to natural means — sleight-of-hand. But a miracle is a rare, supernatural event that demonstrates divine power.

7. Not a contradiction

God cannot do the impossible or illogical. But there are some events that are physically impossible for humans, but not physically or logically contradictory for God. For example, it’s physically impossible for a man to walk on water. But there’s nothing self-refuting about this idea for God, and He can do it.

In light of the above information, it is necessary to re-evaluate events that occur that may be God’s provision, but not a miracle. For example, my husband was diagnosed with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) one year ago. He went through chemotherapy and had many hurdles to cross before he could receive the bone-marrow transplant necessary to save his life. We, and thousands along with us, prayed before each hurdle to be a success for him. Each one turned out to work in his favor. He had his bone-marrow transplant last November and is now cancer free and thriving. Was his healing a miracle? No, because it was not immediate. He was healed over a period of months. However, with all of the hurdles he had to cross, and all the tests, and procedures, that could have gone wrong, but went perfectly, we know without a doubt that his healing was certainly God’s provision.

We give glory and thanks to God every day for healing him. [read more]

Good info to know especially when the Apocalypse comes.

The Seven Truths of Innovation and the LEGO Group’s Decline Part 1

Values Are Priceless. Today, every person who’s hired into the LEGO Group’s Billund operations gets a tour of the small brick building, with lions flanking the front steps, where Ole Kirk and his family once lived. There, they learn of another bedrock value that the company’s founder bequeathed to his company: the bar-raising principle that “only the best is good enough.”

…….

It’s this melding of these two guiding principles—serving the “builders of tomorrow” and creating “only the best”—that separates LEGO from its competitors and helps it stand out in the global marketplace.

Relentless Experimentation Begets Breakthrough Innovation

Not a Product but a System. The LEGO Group’s breakaway success grew out of its ability to see where the toy world was heading and get there first. The company’s first farsighted move came when it bet on plastic toys and the future of the brick. The second came when LEGO had the insight that it must evolve from producing stand-alone toys to creating an entire system of play, with the brick as the unifying element.

Long before the first computer software programs were patented, LEGO made the brick backward compatible, so that a newly manufactured brick could connect with an original 1958 brick. Thanks to backward compatibility, kids could integrate LEGO model buildings from one kit with LEGO model cars, light pylons, traffic signs, train tracks, and more from other kits. No matter what the toy, every brick clicked with every other brick, which meant every LEGO kit was expandable.

………

He [Godtfred Kirk, CEO of LEGO] eventually identified six features, which he called the company’s “Principles of Play” and issued to every LEGO employee:   

1. Limited in size without setting limitations for imagination   
2. Affordable   
3. Simple, durable, and offer rich variations   
4. For girls, for boys, fun for every age   
5. A classic among toys, without the need of renewal   
6. Easy to distribute.

Tighter Focus Leads to More Profitable Innovation. When Godtfred bet on the brick, he opted out of producing wooden toys. Dropping the toys that accounted for 90 percent of the company’s product assortment could not have been an easy decision. But Godtfred believed that too many options could overwhelm a nascent effort to create a new kind of play experience—that, in fact, less can be more. Channeling his company’s limited resources in just one area, the plastic brick, could lead to more and more profitable products getting to market.

…….

To protect the System’s integrity, he [Godtfred] limited the range of different shapes and colors of bricks that LEGO produced.

Source: Brick by Brick. How LEGO Rewrote the Rules of Innovation and Conquered the Global Toy Industry (2013) by David C. Robertson.

The same lab that cloned Dolly the sheep has used gene editing to create chickens resistant to avian flu

From El Pais.com (Oct. 10, 2023):

The University of Edinburgh’s Roslin Institute — the animal research center where Dolly the sheep was created — used gene editing to breed chickens that resist infection by the avian flu. A deadly virus for birds that causes great economic losses around the world and can, in some cases, infect and kill humans, the disease has proved difficult for vaccines because the proteins on its surface that are recognized by the immune system change rapidly. A group of British researchers has tested the potential of modifying small sections of chicken DNA to prevent influenza infection, albeit only partially. They published their results today in the journal Nature Communications.

Influenza A needs a protein in chicken cells, ANP32A, to replicate. The team of scientists, led by Mike McGrew, a University of Edinburgh researcher, used the CRISPR editing technique to modify the gene that produces the protein in the chickens’ germ cells, which would enable the birds to pass down the change to their offspring. In this way, animals were created that hardly became infected with influenza when exposed to other infected birds (“9 out of 10 remained uninfected,” according to the study), and they did not subsequently infect other chickens. In a later test, when inoculated with a dose a thousand times higher, five out of ten became infected.

The authors explain that the virus adapted to the change and switched to using two other proteins from the same family (ANP32B and ANP32E) to continue replicating, albeit less efficiently. This prompted the authors to try editing two more genes, thus stopping the progression of the virus in eggs. The researchers were not able to breed chickens with this triple editing, as the authors believe that it would have harmful side effects on the animals’ fertility and their ability to gain weight and their protection against other diseases, which would make its practical application impossible. Even so, the researchers consider it to be proof of concept that this technique can be used to protect against influenza A infection.

Lluis Montoliu, a geneticist at the Spanish National Research Council’s National Biotechnology Center, who was not involved in the study, believes that the result heralds a future in which “animals resistant to influenza infections can be generated, which will require not one but several genetic modifications. Generating more than one modification in the same animal would have been a challenge a few years ago. Now it is much easier with CRISPR gene-editing tools,” he explains. According to the researcher, these techniques make it possible to transfer “mutations that already exist in nature — there are flu-resistant chickens with two mutations in ANP32A — to the production of edited birds. We [can] take advantage of the existing genetic variability to create resistance.”

In addition to introducing protective mutations without creating less productive animals, the researchers also want to ensure that the changes do not push a virus as versatile as the influenza virus in dangerous directions. When they removed the ANP32A protein, the viruses adapted to use proteins from the same family found in humans. As Wendy Barclay, a researcher at Imperial College London and a co-author of the study, explains, “This doesn’t mean that it could infect humans, but we must be careful not to facilitate adaptations of the virus that make it more dangerous than it [already] is.”

Once the problems and risks of editing have been overcome, the practical application would have to resolve other difficulties, as McGrew acknowledges. “You produce about 70 billion chickens a year. To get to that number, you start with about 100,000 at the top of a reproductive pyramid that you expand over four years. You would start by editing the animals at the top so that they would then reproduce [and] pass down the resistance to their offspring,” he explains. “But chickens are not like other animals, where one male mates with 100 females. It’s more like 100 [males] with 100 [females] and introducing that many edits is going to be hard to do,” he acknowledges.

Víctor Briones, a researcher at the Center for Veterinary Health Surveillance of the Complutense University of Madrid (Spain), considers the research to be “an interesting proof of concept,” but believes that the application would only be possible “in industrial poultry farming.” In addition, he notes that “the major [sources of avian flu] are the anatidae [birds, usually migratory, from the duck family].” Although introducing such genetic changes in wild birds seems difficult to accomplish, McGrew points out that the three modified genes “are conserved in all bird species and such editing should work with any species.” Even among domestic chickens, the sheer number of varieties would require changes to be introduced separately in each. The authors are now working to solve these and other problems to turn interesting scientific research into a practical solution. [source]

BREAKING: Top-secret 2020 House Intel report on Brennan's ICA revealed

From Glenn Beck.com (July 23):

The following oversight report from the House Intelligence Committee examines the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) rushed out by the Obama administration before leaving office in January 2017.

This report has never been released to the public. Until now.

The House Intelligence Committee’s review began in 2017, shortly after the ICA’s release, and continued through 2020, paralleling a Senate Intelligence Committee investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election, which concluded in fall 2020.

Before its declassification by President Trump and public release by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, this report was among the U.S. government’s most highly classified documents. Its sensitive level of compartmentation prohibited storage on top-secret computer networks. Only five physical copies existed, all secured in safes under strict protocols. This extreme classification suggests the Obama administration sought to prevent the public from learning the extent of its alleged deception.

Download the PDF here. [source]

Sounds like election interference to me. Brennan should be indicted too.

More articles on the matter:

• Obama’s Disgraced CIA Director John Brennan Lashes Out — Accuses Tulsi Gabbard of “Intentionally Lying” After She Exposes His Fraudulent Intel Reports
• Obama Intel Chief James Clapper Told NSA Head To Get On Board With ‘Our Story’ On Russiagate Intel
• CIA Deep Staters Reportedly Tried To Stop Tulsi Gabbard From Revealing Truth About Russiagate
• Tulsi Gabbard strips 37 security clearances over Obama-ordered intel report that launched Russiagate

WINNING: Trump Secures Trade Deals In Philippines And Indonesia

From Daily Wire.com (July 22):

President Donald Trump announced two trade deals Tuesday, continuing his streak of securing open markets for exported American goods while imposing strapping tariffs on Philippine and Indonesian goods.

“It was a beautiful visit, and we concluded our Trade Deal, whereby The Philippines is going OPEN MARKET with the United States, and ZERO Tariffs,” Trump said in a TruthSocial post following his meeting with Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

Trump quickly followed up with details about a massive trade deal with the republic of Indonesia made last week.

“It is agreed that Indonesia will be Open Market to American Industrial and Tech Products, and Agricultural goods, by eliminating 99% of their Tariff Barriers,” Trump said

These deals come after Trump threatened several countries to come to the table by August 1st or face increased tariff rates.

American producers will now have access to the Philippine market completely free from tariffs, Trump said. At the same time, all Philippine imports will carry a 19% tariff — a slight reduction from the threatened 20% tariff.

The Philippines — a country with about a third of the population of the United States — ran roughly a $5 billion trade imbalance in 2024, importing $9.3 billion in U.S. goods while exporting $14.2 billion worth of goods to the United States.

The United States imports a vast amount of electronic circuits and office machine parts from the Philippines, while exporting mostly foodstuffs and integrated circuits to the Southeast Asian country, according to a 2023 report by the Observatory of Economic Complexity.

Trump recently secured a similar trade deal with Vietnam, clinching an open market for American goods while all imported Vietnamese goods will carry a 20% tariff.

Trump also floated continued military collaboration with the Philippines. “In addition,” Trump wrote, “we will work together Militarily.”

The Philippines sits in a strategic location near China and has clashed with the Chinese in recent memory.

In a Monday meeting between Marcos and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, the latter said “Our storied alliance has never been stronger or more essential than it is today. … Together, we remain committed to the mutual defense treaty. And this pact extends to armed attacks on our armed forces, aircraft or public vessels, including our Coast Guard, anywhere in the Pacific, including the South China Sea.”

Hegseth added that, “We do not seek confrontation, but we are and will be ready and resolute.”

Trump praised Marcos, saying that “It was a Great Honor to be with the President. He is Highly Respected in his Country, as he should be. He is also a very good, and tough, negotiator. We extend our warmest regards to the wonderful people of The Philippines!” [source]

Nice! More trade wins:

• Trump Announces $550 Billion Trade Deal With Japan
• Trump signs major critical minerals deal so US can break free from China
• Trump: Trade Deal With South Korea Reached
  

Free the Gas Stoves: Trump's Energy Department Axes Dozens of Biden Appliance, Energy Regulations

From Free Beacon.com (May 12):

Gone are rules banning a wide swath of gas stoves. Gone are the strict water standards governing dishwashers and shower heads. And gone is the government-wide effort to force electrification of the economy through appliance regulations. It is all part of a historic action the Trump administration announced Monday, reversing dozens of energy regulations, saving consumers more than $11 billion, and cutting more than 125,000 words from the United States Code of Regulations.

As part of the Department of Energy's sweeping action unveiled Monday, it will rescind dozens of energy efficiency regulations targeting common household appliances that the Biden administration issued as part of its climate agenda. That includes rules restricting sales of certain types of gas-powered stoves and ovens in addition to microwaves, clothes washers, dishwashers, faucets, shower heads, and dehumidifiers.

"It should not be the government's place to decide what kind of appliances you or your restaurants or your businesses can buy," Energy Secretary Chris Wright told the Washington Free Beacon earlier this month. "Everybody wants clean air and wants to lower their energy costs and run their factories good as they can. The big hand of government doesn't actually help that process at all."

"We will look for every way we can to protect freedom of the American worker and pursue President Trump's agenda, get rid of the nonsense, bring back common sense, make life more affordable, and opportunities greater," he added, noting that previous crackdowns on gas-powered appliances were elitist and illogical.

The action is the latest blow the Trump administration has delivered to former president Joe Biden's climate legacy. It is also the latest sign that the current administration will prioritize an approach to energy efficiency, which Congress mandates the Department of Energy to promote through periodic rulemakings, that prioritizes consumer choice and free markets over greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

Led by then-energy secretary Jennifer Granholm, the Biden administration issued dozens of appliance regulations and pushed a broader electrification strategy, pushing consumers to shift away from reliance on natural gas. Granholm remarked during a White House electrification summit in 2022 that the United States must "electrify and create efficiencies both within our homes and across the industrial sector."

When crafting such rules, Granholm regularly consulted environmental activist organizations, which were largely funded by progressive grantmaking nonprofits, such as the Bloomberg Family Foundation, the TomKat Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation, and the Schmidt Family Foundation.

"This is very good news for consumer freedom," Ben Lieberman, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told the Free Beacon. "We learned from the gas stove episode of 2023 that the American people don't want federal regulators dictating their choices, whether that's the kitchen, the laundry room, or whatever room has your water heater or furnace. They want to be able to decide for themselves."

"And this takes some important steps in that regard," Lieberman continued. "I think this also undoes a lot of climate-related appliance regulations that further take the decisions away from consumers and that pursue an environmental agenda."

In one of its most controversial appliance regulations, in February 2023, the Biden Department of Energy unveiled regulations that would have banned a large swath of cheaper, but less-efficient gas stoves currently on the market. The move sparked an immediate uproar and forced Granholm to admit she owned a gas stove. Granholm, however, still finalized the regulations and a slate of others following the episode.

In addition to reversing Biden-era appliance rules, the Department of Energy on Monday will also streamline regulations related to natural gas imports and exports, approvals for electric energy exports, and procedures for purchasing Strategic Petroleum Reserve oil stocks. It will also rescind regulations surrounding minority business loans, end requirements allowing men to play in women's sports, and delay compliance dates for the "clean energy federal building rule."

"While it would normally take years for the Department of Energy to remove just a handful of regulations, the Trump Administration assembled a team working around the clock to reduce costs and deliver results for the American people in just over 110 days," Wright said in a statement.

"Thanks to President Trump’s leadership, we are bringing back common sense—slashing regulations meant to appease Green New Deal fantasies, restrict consumer choice and increase costs for the American people. Promises made, promises kept." [source]

Not tired of the winning! 

More EPA news:

• EPA's Zeldin Ending Cars' Start/Stop Tech: 'Everyone Hates It'
• Energy Dept. Axes 223 Biden-Era 'Green New Scam' Projects, Saves $7.5 Billion
• Serious people don’t sign manifestos with disappearing ink

Atheism’s obsession with God: Is it ‘cultural theism’?

From Marlon De Blasio on Christian Post.com (Aug. 4, 2023):

The amount of time that atheists dedicate to God is a bewildering paradox. They write massive books. They are constantly appearing on podcasts, video blogs, and platforms to discuss God. This obsession seems unjustifiable. How can so much time be spent denying a being that doesn’t exist? Couldn’t that precious time be utilized for solving humanitarian crises?

In 2006, an atheist published a lengthy book claiming that God is a delusion, with an arrogant comment that a religious believer who read it would become an atheist. Then in 2019, he wrote a copious guide on how to outgrow God. If God was already established as a delusion, why waste time instructing on how to outgrow Him? Perhaps G. K. Chesterton was right, “If there were no God, there would be no atheists.”

The atheist preoccupation with God doesn’t seem to be sensible. The term “atheist” should be replaced by a more befitting term. God remains compelling and so atheism prefers to deny Him at every opportunity because it desires a world without Him. It’s not strictly about science, reason, or evidence (I have argued this point elsewhere).

Thomas Nagel, whom I respect, desired a world without God. He expressed his honest sentiments:

“I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I am right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”

This longing might help to explain contemporary atheism’s inordinate fascination with God. In other words, it experiences God as a compulsion that necessitates a reaction. The conflict is more noteworthy than how it’s often caricatured.

Note Michael Shermer who is the editor-in-chief of the magazine, “Skeptic,” and a likeable person. As a teenager in the 70s, he once professed faith in Christ. In 2009, he wrote:

“I have spent my entire adult life thinking about God — 30 plus years cogitating on a being that may or may not even exist. Although I am no longer a believer, I still think about him more than I care to admit. Once I stopped believing in God in the late 1970’s, I thought that the whole issue of God’s existence or non-existence would simply fall by the way side ... And yet for a concatenation of reasons involving both my personal and professional lives, God just won’t go away.”

If a chief skeptic has spent his “entire adult life thinking about God,” I believe it’s likewise for many atheists. “God just won’t go away.” No, God is never going away. So the only way for atheism is to focus on ousting Him. With equal rigor, open-minded skepticism should apply its interrogating skills toward the tenets of atheism, but it prefers not to. God becomes the exclusive object of criticism, and bias restricts a path toward discovering Him.

Another atheist attempted some clever intellectual maneuvering to explain God as a natural phenomenon. In his voluminous book, Daniel Dennett identified “believe in belief in God” among atheists. He wrote:

“People who believe in God are sure that God exists ... because they hold God to be the most wonderful of all things. People who moreover believe in belief in God are sure that belief in God exists (and who could doubt that?) ... It is entirely possible to be an atheist and believe in belief in God. Such a person doesn’t believe in God but nevertheless thinks that believing in God would be a wonderful state of mind to be in, if only that could be arranged.”

For me, these mental gymnastics could even be described as “cultural theism.” That is, God is acknowledged practically by atheism and its pre-determined methodology establishes a culture of denial. Or it’s a “naturalized theism” whereby God must remain within specific atheistic parameters. Regardless, God is inescapably part of atheism’s experience and so the term atheist has evidently become a rigid misnomer.

Nevertheless, atheism often explains the belief in God as nature’s wiring of the mind, with a preposterous anecdote that humanity created Him. If so, how did nature wire some to deny that belief? It’s illogical to equivocate on nature’s wiring and have it both ways. Moreover, how did humankind ever come to a consensus on making up God? The truth is that people concocted these naturalistic ideas of God, and atheism prefers them. It’s convenient, but there remains a pesty existential conflict that seems to haunt atheism. A strictly atheistic worldview is failing in its suppression of God, and that is why “cultural theism” is emerging.

As a Christian, I speak for my faith and its unique Gospel message. Thus I encourage “cultural theism” to open up and consider the real connection to God through Christ, as multitudes have attested throughout the ages. Why not explore inner sentiments about God as emanating from Him? Some atheists reading this are probably thinking, nice try, but what about those who professed Christian faith and turned unbelievers? No person who truly comes to Christ can ever leave Him (John 10:1-18).

By the way, those books I mentioned in the intro were written by Richard Dawkins. He wrote another book in 2009 and dedicated it to Josh Timonen, his former right-hand man. Well, Timonen resigned and has professed faith in Christ. It seems that claiming God as a delusion and teaching how to outgrow Him are personal desires. [source]

It is funny how athesists write about books about not believing in God. Like Dinesh D’Souza wrote once, writing about how God doesn’t exist is like writing about how the Easter bunny doesn’t exist. What’s the point? Are they trying to prove God doesn’t exist more for themselves or for the reader?

Science Has a Major Fraud Problem. Here’s Why Government Funding Is the Likely Culprit

From FEE.org (Jan. 9, 2024):

President Biden’s 2024 budget includes over $210 billion directed toward federal research and development, an approximately $9 billion increase from 2023 funding. That might not sound particularly bad—after all, who doesn’t like science and innovation?

But, although seemingly noble, the billions pumped into the US government’s National Science Foundation don’t always translate into finding cures for debilitating diseases, or developing groundbreaking technologies.

In recent years, although technology and peer-review techniques have become more widespread, fraud has remained a consistent issue. The problem has gotten so out of hand that world-class researchers and medical ethics analysts believe the public should be aware of the widespread inaccuracies plaguing medicine.

Dr. Richard Smith, the former editor-in-chief of the BMJ and cofounder of the Committee on Medical Ethics (COPE), details,

Health professionals and journal editors reading the results of a clinical trial assume that the trial happened and that the results were honestly reported. But about 20% of the time, said Ben Mol, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Monash Health, they would be wrong. As I’ve been concerned about research fraud for 40 years, I wasn’t as surprised as many would be by this figure, but it led me to think that the time may have come to stop assuming that research actually happened and is honestly reported, and assume that the research is fraudulent until there is some evidence to support it having happened and been honestly reported.

Independent analysis done by J. B. Carlisle confirms Dr. Smith’s suspicions. As Carlisle analyzed dozens of government-funded control trials, he found a staggering 44% contained false data. These findings are swept under the rug by most mainstream news outlets, which is a problem in itself. If government-funded research produces such sloppy results, the taxpayers funding it at least deserve to know the outcomes of the experiments they paid for.

Getting to the Root of the Problem

To understand why government-funded research tends to be so inaccurate, it’s crucial to look at history and remember how government involvement in research started.

It all ties back to the National Science Foundation (NSF), one of the first government agencies built for funding science. In the late 1940s, one of the most outspoken supporters of the NSF was Democratic Senator Harley Kilgore. His motivations were clear: the NSF was to provide the government with a pool of educated researchers that could be used for strategic purposes during the Cold War. Scientific inquisition was never the primary purpose of the NSF.

In addition to this, the system of “checks and balances” in scientific research is completely off-kilter. Private journals risk damage to their reputation if it is revealed that they have published fraudulent research. Privately funded journals compete to be the best among pools of hundreds of other publications. To maintain legitimacy in the eyes of future researchers and funders, publishing high quality research is in the private journal’s self-interest.

Academic institutions funded by governments, on the other hand, are motivated to shield their researchers, as researchers play a crucial role in securing substantial grant funding for the institution, often reaching into the millions of dollars. Government exists in a playing field outside the private sector—they aren’t competing against other specialized journals. Because they aren’t specialized and fund a wide array of projects, they can often afford to let “a few bad apples” through (unfortunately, at the expense of taxpayers).

The source of funding also undoubtedly (at the very least subconsciously) sways the research outcomes. There are several ways the government introduces bias into research. For one, the state often ignores certain scientific queries, forcing researchers to adopt different hypotheses or study different questions to gain any funding. Without any market forces guiding research and development, study objectives start aligning more with the interests of bureaucrats and less with the interests of patients.

Government agencies also don’t want to fund proposals that contradict the agency’s political ideas. If the research’s outcome even slightly threatens the government’s power, funding is likely to be cut off, often for extended periods. These outcomes are clearest when it comes to funding regarding the social sciences and economics, but also occur with life science research. 34% percent of scientists receiving federal funding have acknowledged engaging in research misconduct to align research with their funder’s political and economic agenda. Moreover, a mere 24% of these researchers have disclosed these ethically questionable research practices to their supervisors.

This incentive structure also explains why there is a limited amount of research into the accuracy of government-funded research. Many researchers are simply too afraid of the funding and reputational consequences that come with revealing problems with government funding. When there is research into federal funding bias, it is often concentrated on very specific and politically divisive topics (such as the use of stem cells). A team of researchers at the CATO Institute found just 44 Google Scholar articles from 2010-2014 that dealt with this type of government bias influencing research.

The Private-Sector Alternative

The government’s overpowering role in science simultaneously crowds out private sources of funding. Despite this, there is some good news: the private sector is getting more and more involved in scientific funding by the day.

Globally, 70% of science is financed privately. Charities like the American Cancer Foundation and Howard Hughes Medical Institute collectively contribute billions of dollars to spurring innovation in their respective fields.

For example, renowned neurologist Dr. Helen Mayberg’s research into deep brain stimulation as a depression treatment wasn’t supported by government grants. Instead, private sources funded her research. Yet, her discoveries led to additional trials and eventually breakthroughs in the way depression is treated.

Most Americans treat government-funded science as the holy grail of scientific research, but it truly isn’t. Without proper market signals guiding the direction of research, millions of tax dollars are lost, and thousands of hours of scientific research are wasted. As Milton Friedman explained regarding government funding of science, “The scientific ability of really able people is being diverted from the goals they would like to pursue themselves to the goals of government officials.” It’s up to the next generation to decide who they trust more: scientists, or the state? [source]

These gorgeous, intricate sea creatures are actually giant blobs of snot

From Live Science.com (June 5, 2020):

Hundreds of feet below the sea surface, teeny-tiny sea creatures secrete snotty blobs from cells on their heads to build their oversized mucus dwellings. With lasers, researchers are now peering inside these impressive structures to learn the delicate craft of these deep-sea architects.

These tadpole-looking sea animals are called giant larvaceans (Bathochordaeus); but despite their name, the animals are less than 4inches (10 centimeters) long, according to a statement from the Monterey Bay Aquarium Institute (MBARI). But their homes are another story: they each carry around a giant mucus bubble that can reach up to 3.3 feet (1 meter) long. Once the critters secrete these impressive structures — made up of an inner and outer filter — they use them as a feeding apparatus.

While inside its mucus mansion, the giant larvacean flaps its tail to push water through these filters; the outer filter catches the food too big for the animal to eat, while the inner filter pushes appropriately sized food into the animal's mouth. Eventually, their house gets clogged with food and the animal abandons it, to the joy of deeper-dwelling snackers like sea cucumbers, according to a 2017 video from MBARI.

This helps the ocean to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere — the houses usually have a lot of carbon-rich food stuck in them — and the abandoned mucus houses carried microplastics from the water down to the seafloor.

"Among other things, we're hoping to understand how larvaceans build and inflate these structures," lead author Kakani Katija, the principal engineer at MBARI, said in the statement. The knowledge could help engineers design machines ranging from 3D printers to structures to explore underwater or outer space, she said.

But these impressive creatures are difficult to capture and study due to the delicate nature of their mucus house. Katija and her team figured out how to analyze the mucus bubbles of these gelatinous creatures for the first time out in the open ocean.

The researchers developed an instrument called DeepPIV (deep particle imaging velocimetry) that they mounted on a remotely operated vehicle. The instrument sends out a sheet of laser light that illuminates tiny particles floating around the creature's mucus structure and records how they move through the structure's filters. The laser light also recorded cross-sections of the giant larvaceans that the team used to assemble three-dimensional images of the creature's mucus houses.

The 3D reconstructions and observations of water flow through the mucus filters allowed the researchers to figure out details of the inner filters. "Mucus is ubiquitous in the ocean, and complex mucous structures are made by animals for feeding, health and protection," Katija said in the statement. "Now that we have a way to visualize these structures deep below the surface, we can finally understand how they function and what roles they play in the ocean."

The findings were published on June 3 in the journal Nature. [source]

Vermont Utility Plans to End Outages by Giving Customers Batteries

From NY Times.com (Oct. 9, 2023):

Green Mountain Power is asking state regulators to let it buy batteries it will install at customers' homes, saying doing so will be cheaper than putting up more power lines.

Many electric utilities are putting up lots of new power lines as they rely more on renewable energy and try to make grids more resilient in bad weather. But a Vermont utility is proposing a very different approach: It wants to install batteries at most homes to make sure its customers never go without electricity.

The company, Green Mountain Power, proposed buying batteries, burying power lines and strengthening overhead cables in a filing with state regulators on Monday. It said its plan would be cheaper than building a lot of new lines and power plants.

The plan is a big departure from how U.S. utilities normally do business. Most of them make money by building and operating power lines that deliver electricity from natural gas power plants or wind and solar farms to homes and businesses. Green Mountain — a relatively small utility serving 270,000 homes and businesses — would still use that infrastructure but build less of it by investing in television-size batteries that homeowners usually buy on their own.

"Call us the un-utility," Mari McClure, Green Mountain's chief executive, said in an interview before the company's filing. "We're completely flipping the model, decentralizing it."

Like many places, Vermont has been hit hard this year by extreme weather linked to climate change. Half a dozen severe storms, including major floods in July, have caused power outages and damaged homes and other buildings.

Those calamities and concerns about the rising cost of electricity helped shape Green Mountain's proposal, Ms. McClure said. As the company ran the numbers, it realized that paying recovery costs and building more power lines to improve its system would cost a lot more and take a lot longer than equipping homes with batteries. [read more]

This is what happens when a state completely relies on green energy. Although, decentralizing the power grid isn’t too bad an idea especially if someone hacks the grid or natural disaster or even just break downs.