This is the best general article that I’ve read on the topic of SpaceX.

My takeaway from the USA-Paraguay #WorldCup match is that @SecRubio is not much of a soccer fan.

In a jaded world, be more like Freddy sharing his World Cup journey.

While I’m no fan of socialism or arbitrary confiscations of wealth, I can see why Bernie Sanders’ proposal (for the government to take a 50% stake in AI companies) resonates, including with many on the right. The CEOs of the leading AI labs have told us repeatedly that they will cause massive job loss. This is not a story that I believe, nor does the data bear it out, but this is what they have told us. Similarly, they have hyped the risks of AI without putting an equal or greater emphasis on the benefits or readily available mitigations. Conservatives have another fear. The employees of the leading labs claim to be philanthropic, but what we’ve seen is massive enrichment of NGOs advancing an agenda at odds with traditional values, fueling a revolution against our cities and communities. Soros-maxxing is not charity in our book. Anthropic and OpenAI have established themselves as Public Benefit Corporations. What could be more in the public benefit than using half the wealth generated by these companies (which trained for free on the collective knowledge of humanity) to pay down the national debt? There is no ideological bias in that philanthropy. Dario and Sam have begun to walk back their claims of massive job loss, but the damage to public trust is done, and now the chickens are coming home to roost. I could almost support the Sanders proposal as a stupidity tax. There’s just one problem. Nationalization of AI will accelerate the corporate-government fusion we’re already sliding toward. Conservatives rightly fear a Central Bank Digital Currency. They ought to be even more concerned about Central Government AI — a system with even more totalistic power over information, decision-making, and human behavior. We saw how social media was weaponized to censor conservatives (including President Trump) in the last Democrat administration. The definition of “trust & safety” expanded to mean protecting the public from supposed psychological harms, micro-aggressions, and disinformation (you know, like hearing conservative ideas or true facts about Covid). That “safety” agenda as applied to AI will be vastly more powerful and Orwellian. AI won’t just moderate posts; it will curate reality — with the ability to rewrite history, enforce ideological conformity, influence policy at scale, mass surveil Americans, and condition the benefits of the many systems it controls on approved behavior. America won’t win the AI race if we beat China but end up with a CCP-style social credit system in the U.S. — and that is the danger as the government becomes more deeply involved in AI development and assumes direct ownership and control. Conservatives are right to fear where this is all headed but ought to think more carefully about how regulations they are flirting with now (that are widely celebrated among those with a long history of lust for Big Government) will be used against them the next time a Democrat administration is in power.

"Scientists": We think it's fine to unleash a bioweapon on the population because of our politics People: ::people respond angrily and with venom:: "Scientists": Oh noes, teh backlash Me: A real backlash would involve ropes, stakes, honey, and an anthill. Keep going like this and see how long it takes to get there.

RT @Peoples_Pundit: Here's some free, unsolicited advice for @spencerpratt. If they haven't already, you will soon be bombarded by profess…

Why are are Spencer Pratt's political ads the best in the history of the game? Because AI is fake, but LA progressive politics is faker. The medium is the message.

They keep trying to date the breakdown as late in his presidency as possible, preserving a stretch of hypothetical legitimacy and competence, because in fact it happened before he took office.

Since I’m going to be hearing this for the next 6 months as a Texas voter, let me answer the question: “You would vote for an adulterer over James Talarico? That’s not very Christian.” Here’s the truth: I would rather vote for almost anyone else who is going to at least advocate for conservative *policies* over a literal heretic who wears my faith like a skin suit, advocates for policies that harm children, endorses immorality and generally harm society. Ken Paxton has personal baggage. I don’t deny that. But Talarico has plenty too — and he openly mocks God’s law and treats Jesus as a political mascot all while pushing a radical far-left agenda that would be a disaster for my state. You see, I’m an adult. I do not expect those who are seeking political office to be my moral superiors or even trustworthy. They are tools to be used to do the least amount of damage via policy. I wish more pastors and men who live godly lives were running. I really do. But the options we get are what they are. Paxton supports secure borders, law enforcement, lower taxes, unleashing American energy, the Second Amendment, just to name a few. Talarico supports unlimited abortion, trans-ing children, higher taxes, government-run “healthcare,” and is incredibly comfortable blaspheming the word of God. I’m not voting for a priest. I’m voting for an imperfect person to represent my interests. That’s how it works. You’re not going to guilt trip Texans into supporting a looney tunes candidate like Talarico. Paxton will win by 5 . It’s about policy, not personality.

Let me explain something to Democrats commenting on Talarico being a “seminarian,” apparently believing that automatically makes him the Christian choice. And you probably won’t get it, but that’s okay. I’m going to explain it anyway. In the Book of James, people who assume the mantle of teacher but spread heresies are said to have “stricter” judgment that your average sinner. False teachers are repeatedly warned against throughout the scriptures, described as the worst types of wolves. In other words, while you can point to Paxton’s past transgressions, and that’s fair to talk about, you need to understand that what Talarico does and has done is no less sinful. And for the average devout Christian who isn’t part of a progressive heretical body, they see that and know that. You may not get it. You may think all this Christian stuff is just about saying a few words. But it’s not. Heresy is a grave sin, and something Christians are expressly told to flee from. So Christians are going to take that issue seriously in this race, even if it seems silly, unimportant, or unfair to you because you think, “Well, Talarico is nice so that makes him righteous.” Not how it works.

Shocking moment when I agree with David French.

Isn't it weird how the two comedians histrionically lashing out against me are both in the "Epstein files"? What are the odds?

The least racist part of my life was right before Obama was elected. Once the left settled on racism to combat the tea party, it had two primary results. First, it hardened the hearts of those unfairly accused of being racist. Second, it created a cancer in black culture by excusing poor behaviors by creating a scapegoat.

Let’s see if a random fork can break 6.74M views.

This would really threaten the extensive GOP legislative agenda if there were one.

Hypothetical: You’re the owner of an MLB team. I offer to take $0 salary and sign a minor league contract and go to Low A. If the “he sucks now” crowd is right and I get lit up, you cut me, lose $0 and there’s no risk to the big league club. If the “clubhouse cancer” crowd is right, you see it immediately at Low A and cut me. You lose $0 and there’s no risk to the big league club. If there’s massive negative PR, which we already know there won’t be, you just cut me and move on. The story is dead in a couple days, you lose $0, and there’s no risk to the big league club. But, assuming none of those things happen, which they obviously wouldn’t, if you like what you see, you can promote me to AA and re evaluate me there. Then AAA. Then the big leagues. If I earn it, which you’d be 100% in control of deciding. If you don’t think I’m good enough, you lose $0 and there’s no risk to the big league club. You could take away my “antics”. You could take away my social media. You could ask anything of me. If I don’t comply, you cut me, lose $0, and there’s no risk to the big league club. What logical reason is there to not do this? At worst, you cut me and there’s no risk to the big league club. At best, you get a Cy Young winner for $0 who you know can still pitch and could help the big league team if and when you see fit.

RT and ❤️ for a chance to win a signed Dexter Lawrence II Bengals helmet!

Remember, if Kagan joins a Sotomayor/Jackson opinion, it’s likely at least plausible. If Kagan declines to join a Sotomayor/Jackson opinion, it’s definitely insane. And if *Sotomayor* declines to join a *Jackson* opinion, you’re in for a real treat.

People who believe men can become women and vice versa tend to also believe a lot of other crazy things. You might be the rare relatively sane person, but the exception often proves the rule.

And free crab cakes…can’t forget the crab cakes