Tennessee Stellarator Fusion Plant License

 https://sciencenews4you.blogspot.com/2026/09/tennessee-stellarator-fusion-plant.html

'EXISTENTIAL THREAT': Democrats LAUNCH new campaign issue

Members of Russian Intelligence Services Network Charged with Conspiring to Finance Terrorism and Commit Murder

 https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/members-russian-intelligence-services-network-charged-conspiring-finance-terrorism-and

This Woman Cured Her Cancer with an Insane Method

Assassinating a foreign leader is illegal. Will Trump try anyway?

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/5363701-assassinating-a-foreign-leader-is-illegal-will-trump-try-anyway/

I was wondering about political assassination.  The world would be a better place without certain dictators.

However, it is illegal, and it sets a bad precedent.  If we killed Putin, somebody would kill Trump.

If we could prevent the next Hitler, maybe we should have a secret program to get rid of a person like that.

Apparently, Israel doesn't have the same scruples as we do.

The Lindsay Clancy Juror Smear Campaign Just Backfired

@john2001plus

0 seconds ago

3:45 Calling Lindsay Clancy a psychopath is unsupported. There is no diagnosis of psychopathy. Psychopathy and psychosis are entirely different concepts in mental health.

I've watched a few experts on YouTube claim that psychosis is a real thing and that is happens in 2 or 3 out of every 10,000 births. There are roughly 10,000 births in the US every day, so the claim is that psychosis is happening on a regular basis. I've also listened to women who claimed that this happened to them but got the help they needed.

Psychiatrist: “Everyone Is Wrong About The Lindsay Clancy Case”

The correct statistic is that there are roughly 10,000 live births in the United States daily.

We Forgot 9/11. Let Me Remind You

This Is the Most Important Thing We Can All Learn from Charlie Kirk

America's Bismarck: How Lincoln Created Industrial America - The Globalist

https://www.theglobalist.com/americas-bismarck-how-lincoln-created-industrial-america/

This website has a more negative take on Lincoln than I like. However, I didn't know how strongly Lincoln supported industrialization and economic development, and how he pushed policies that encouraged industrialization. This is in stark contrast to Thomas Jefferson, who thought that we should be a nation of farmers. Initially, we were.

I am watching the movie Lincoln for the third time. This film gave me a more favorable impression of Lincoln.

The most common criticism of Lincoln that I tend to agree with is that he was President during one of the bloodiest wars in our history. Although the exact number is not clear, somewhere between 650,000 and 750,000 people died as a result of the war.

Although the South fired the first shot at Fort Sumter, Lincoln's cabinet had discussed evacuating the garrison to avoid war with the South. Instead, Lincoln decided to provision the garrison rather than evacuate it. He sent supplies but initially no additional troops or weapons. The Confederates chose to attack the fort before the supply expedition arrived, beginning the armed conflict.

Many people have argued that Lincoln could have avoided war by accepting Southern secession temporarily and attempting to negotiate reunification later. Although slavery was a just cause, Lincoln said that if he could restore the Union without freeing a single slave, he would do so.

Lincoln made it clear in his inaugural speech that he would not allow the South to peacefully secede from the Union. He compared the Union to a contract that all parties were bound to.

So it is easy to view Lincoln as a man who was prepared to risk a bloody war rather than negotiate.

Lincoln said that people think that he controlled events, but that, in fact, events controlled him.

He also made statements indicating that he believed Blacks and Whites were not equal, and at one point explicitly said that he favored Whites occupying a superior position.

Neil deGrasse Tyson And Jaron Lanier on the AI Illusion

In "One-Half a Manifesto", Lanier criticizes the claims made by writers such as Ray Kurzweil, and opposes the prospect of so-called "cybernetic totalism", which is "a cataclysm brought on when computers become ultra-intelligent masters of matter and life."[22] Lanier's position is that humans may not be considered to be biological computers, i.e., they may not be compared to digital computers in any proper sense, and it is very unlikely that humans could be generally replaced by computers easily in a few decades, even economically. While transistor count increases according to Moore's law, overall performance rises only very slowly. According to Lanier, this is because human productivity in developing software increases only slightly, and software becomes more bloated and remains as error-prone as it ever was. "Simply put, software just won't allow it. Code can't keep up with processing power now, and it never will.


 Lanier criticized the sometimes-claimed omniscience of collective wisdom (including examples such as the Wikipedia article about him, which he said recurrently exaggerates his film-directing work), describing it as "digital Maoism".[25] He writes: "If we start to believe that the Internet itself is an entity that has something to say, we're devaluing those people [creating the content] and making ourselves into idiots."[25]

His criticism aims at several targets that concern him and are at different levels of abstraction:

any attempt to create one final authoritative bottleneck that channels the knowledge onto society is wrong, regardless of whether it is a Wikipedia or any algorithmically created system producing meta information,
it creates a false sense of authority behind the information,
a sterile style of wiki writing is undesirable because:

it removes the touch with the real author of original information, it filters the subtlety of the opinions of the author, essential information (for example, the graphical context of original sources) is lost,

collective authorship tends to produce or align to mainstream or organizational beliefs,
he worries that collectively created works may be manipulated behind the scenes by anonymous groups of editors who bear no visible responsibility,

and that this kind of activity might create future totalitarian systems as these are basically grounded on misbehaved collectives that oppress individuals.

n December 2006, Lanier followed up his critique of the collective wisdom with an article in Edge entitled "Beware the Online Collective".[27] Lanier writes:

I wonder if some aspect of human nature evolved in the context of competing packs. We might be genetically wired to be vulnerable to the lure of the mob... What's to stop an online mass of anonymous but connected people from suddenly turning into a mean mob, just like masses of people have time and time again in the history of every human culture? It's amazing that details in the design of online software can bring out such varied potentials in human behavior. It's time to think about that power on a moral basis.

Lanier argues that the search for deeper information in any area sooner or later requires finding information that has been produced by a single person, or a few devoted individuals: "You have to have a chance to sense personality in order for language to have its full meaning."[27] That is, he sees limitations in the utility of an encyclopedia produced by only partially interested third parties as a form of communication.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaron_Lanier

He Knew...

The Life Expectancy Lies That Won't Die

Allie Stuckey Shows How Left WEAPONIZES "Toxic Empathy"

I think both sides have empathy for what they consider is right.

…but the people are retarded

Lindsay Clancy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_the_Clancy_children

Conservative talk radio thinks that she should be found guilty.

One lady called into the Clay and Buck show and said that they don't understand psychosis. She said that she had wanted to kill her children, but got medical help and now takes antipsychotic medication. The lady said that she is afraid to stop taking her medication.

I find it easy to believe that people can go crazy. I already have that opinion about a few people. It appears that mental illness is fairly common.

I think that for a woman to kill her children is a crazy act by definition. There might be a few rare psychopaths who don't care and think that they can get away with the crime, but I doubt that they would try to kill themselves afterward. However, even psychopathy is a form of mental illness, although it is not the kind of crazy delusion where they don't know what they are doing.

Trying to kill oneself by simply jumping out of a second-story window is illogical, if not crazy, or it could be a carefully planned manipulation.

EVERYTHING You Need to Know About the Lindsay Clancy Case

I expressed my opinion in a previous post. I think that either side could be right and that it might be impossible to know for sure. I only hope that the jury makes a well-informed and wise decision.


I served on a jury once. It was a borderline DUI case in which the woman was barely under the legal alcohol limit, but she failed every part of the Field Sobriety Test, which the state claimed showed that she was impaired. Under Utah law, if she was impaired, she could still be convicted even if she was under the legal limit.

The Field Sobriety Test involves tests that I know I would fail. The testing officer looks for nystagmus in your eyes, which I have naturally, and makes you perform physical tasks that I could not reproduce when I tried them in the jury room. I lost my balance. By the way, you are under no legal obligation to take this test, although, as a result, they may want to draw your blood at the police station.

The arresting officer offered his opinion that the woman was impaired and quoted an unnamed scientific study to support it. They never showed us any studies or called any experts.

As a juror, I didn't think that the state had proven its case—not in any scientific or logically consistent way. Although I was ready to vote not guilty, the other three people on the jury, all women, were vehement that the woman was guilty. After arguing for hours, the other jurors browbeat me into voting guilty. I felt that this was a close enough case that I could vote guilty, but I was never happy with the result.

What Everyone is Missing About The Lindsay Clancy Trial

The Space Movie That Made People Forgive Lindsay Clancy

Turley: This is OUTRAGEOUS