Cerebras initially filed to go public in September 2024 but ran into several regulatory delays due to foreign investments.

DoorDash's 350-pound autonomous vehicle will hold your food in its robot mouth as it drives 20 miles per hour to deliver it to you.

The Amazon-owned company will start by mapping public streets of the nation's capital before testing begins later this year.

The agriculture industry in the United States is deeply broken. Farmers are the foundation of it all, but they are being financially squeezed from every direction. They are being squeezed by the giant monopolies that control the seeds, fertilizer and machinery that they need. And they are also being squeezed by the giant monopolies that …

Politics Vance on Knife’s Edge Prioritizing peace among the warmongers. (Sean Gallup/Getty Images) President Lyndon B. Johnson, the most vulgar—second-most vulgar?—occupant of the White House, used to boast that he kept Vice President Hubert Humphrey’s “pecker in my pocket.” The Hump was a Cold War liberal who nevertheless expressed reservations about the U.S. role in Vietnam in a memo to Johnson in 1965. He didn’t make that mistake again. HHH would spend the next three years disgorging bilge about the need for Americans to display the “patience to work and bleed and die 5,000 miles from home.” Chasing Richard Nixon in the fall of 1968, Humphrey haltingly reestablished a measure of independence, but it was too late to save his campaign. Watching Vice President J. D. Vance, whose Senate voting record placed him squarely in that chamber’s small but doughty war-skeptical bloc, play the company man, publicly defending an Iran bombing of which he surely disapproved in private, one winced at the thought of another phallectomy. But perhaps I am jumping the gun. If Vance really is made of the Appalachian grit he assayed in Hillbilly Elegy, he will break, much sooner than Humphrey did, with his unstable boss. (I’m talking principled defiance, not resignation. In Woodrow Wilson’s unwontedly humorous asseveration, “There is very little to be said about the Vice President. . . . His importance consists in the fact that he may cease to be Vice President.” Which is the case against quitting.) Vance, unlike his unprepossessing predecessors Pence and Harris, is a rara avis in American politics: an intellectual, a talented writer, and a man with impelling affection—so it appears—for a place. Since the exigencies of politics and the job description of a second banana militate against intellectual integrity, good prose, and most of all loyalty to place, Vance’s current situation is triply interesting. Devils—one Ambition, the other Power—are whispering in each ear, and one wonders if these will drown out the echoes of Jackson, Kentucky, which he claims as his spiritual home in Hillbilly Elegy. I had a parti pris against Hillbilly Elegy before reading it. From reviews, I was given to understand that Vance professed to have been “rescued” from his violence-prone family in a hardscrabble southern Ohio town by three institutions: the standing army, Yale Law School, and Silicon Valley, each of which I believe to be a significant contributor to the destruction of local life, regional vitality, and the health (or even existence) of the American Republic.  This interpretation of Hillbilly Elegy is not without merit, but nor is it sufficient. For one thing, Vance’s policy prescriptions, which came off as standard-issue conservative in 2016, consume only the dozen or so worst pages in Hillbilly Elegy, and for another, his political views have evolved substantially in the decade since its publication. (Thank God: Vance actually voted in 2016 for independent candidate Evan McMullin, the glabrous front man for the national security state whose resume proudly boasted of his service to the CIA and Goldman Sachs.) But Vance moved back to Ohio in 2017, and something seems to have clicked. Healthy familial sentiment pushed his politics in a populist direction, and a trace of that most un-Mamaw-like patrician Buckeye statesman, Senator Robert Taft, “Mr. Republican,” worked its way into Vance’s foreign policy views.  When, in the Great Debate of 1950–51, defenders of the Old Republic desperately warned their countrymen against committing U.S. ground forces to Europe or Asia, Taft stated, “The principal purpose of the foreign policy of the United States is to maintain the liberty of our people. Its purpose is not to reform the entire world or spread sweetness and light and economic prosperity to peoples who have lived and worked out their own salvation for centuries, according to their customs, and to the best of their abilities.” Appeasing traitor! The anarchist in me scoffs that I’m a fool to repose a measure of trust in any politician, but folks I respect who know Vance well speak highly of him, so I give him the benefit of the doubt. I also like his use of Merle Haggard’s “America First” as his GOP convention theme music and the fact that the War Party hates and fears Vance and will do whatever it can to sink his inevitable 2028 campaign. Besides, his ancestral Bluegrass State supplied three Republican doves in the Vietnam debate (Senators John Sherman Cooper and Thruston Morton and Rep. Eugene Siler) and today boasts the praiseworthy pair of Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Thomas Massie—or “TOTAL LOSERS!” in Trumpian tweetese. May Mamaw, Bob Taft, and the Kentuckians supply the necessary courage to one of the most interesting national political figures of recent years. There will be more impulsive bombings, idiotic tweets, and autocratic gestures to test his mettle and challenge his honor. Let us hope, for Vice President Vance’s sake and ours, that he guards the family jewels. The post Vance on Knife’s Edge appeared first on The American Conservative.

From a ginormous relative of the garden pillbug to fish with translucent heads, these organisms are adapted to the dark, cold, pressurized environment of the deep sea.

Making music the wrong way. The post ‘Crossroads’: The guitar-based movie that Eric Clapton thought was “appalling” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

There was a time, not long ago, when a man in a skirt belonged in a psychiatric ward, a prison, or a pride parade. Now the skirt shows up in the classroom, leg hair optional, defended as normal by teachers and activists alike. Against this bizarre backdrop, Slovakia has just passed a law that recognizes only two sexes. Male and female. For many synapse-starved souls in the West, this sounds shocking. For most of human history, though, it was considered common sense. A man is a man. A woman is a woman. Children understood this truth long before activists tried to complicate it. Yet today, elites in Brussels, New York, and London insist that there are dozens of genders. They mock anyone who dares say otherwise. Slovakia has now stood up and said “Enough.” The debate often gets clouded by bad-faith arguments. So-called experts claim there are more than two sexes because of intersex conditions. But that is misleading. Intersex people are not a third, fourth, or fiftieth sex. They are rare medical cases where development does not follow the usual male or female path. In fact, they prove the rule. If there weren’t two sexes to begin with, there would be nothing for intersex conditions to deviate from. To pretend otherwise is not science but ideology masquerading as science. The true prevalence of intersex traits is vanishingly small, about 0.018 percent of births. And the overwhelming majority of these cases still resolve within the male or female framework once examined genetically or hormonally. In other words, the biological rule of two sexes remains intact. Rare developmental disorders do not create a third category; they simply mark exceptions that prove the binary. To pretend otherwise is like claiming that because some people are born with extra fingers, humanity has multiple species of hands. The rare biological quirks that complicate development don’t rewrite the rule of two sexes any more than color blindness abolishes the reality of sight. Yet passion-filled, proof-free activists seize on these exceptions to claim “sex is a spectrum,” hoping the public won’t notice the sleight of hand. They conflate disorders of development with proof of dozens of new categories. But no civilization in recorded time recognized “intersex” as a distinct third sex. Ancient Rome, medieval Europe, traditional China — all acknowledged anomalies but never mistook them for the creation of new sexes. The modern West alone insists on turning medical irregularities into political weapons. Predictably, Slovakia’s move is being painted as hateful by groups like Amnesty International. These groups are wrong. Is it hateful to affirm reality? Is it hateful to say that children deserve a mother and a father, not a social experiment? For centuries, societies across the world recognized marriage as between a man and a woman, tied to the natural reality of children and family. Slovakia has simply codified that tradition. Western critics warn that Slovakia is moving closer to Hungary or even Russia. But why should standing up for family and biological reality be compared to tyranny? It is a strange moment when defending truth gets you branded as “illiberal.” This tells us more about the critics than about Slovakia. They live in a bubble where common sense is treated like contraband. Robert Fico, Slovakia’s prime minister, called the vote “a great dam against progressivism.” He’s right. Progressivism has turned into a mind virus that refuses limits. It demands that men can become women at will, that pronouns can be multiplied without end, and that family itself can be redefined until the word means nothing. Slovakia has dammed the river before it could drown the valley. The law also restricts adoption to married heterosexual couples and bans surrogacy. Again, critics cry “discrimination.” But is it discrimination to say that a child deserves both a mother and a father? That biology matters? That deliberately cutting a child off from one or the other is not progress, but cruelty dressed up in rainbow colors? The new Slovak law says no. Some argue this is all a distraction from Prime Minister Robert Fico’s political troubles. Even if it is, that doesn’t erase the principle. Politicians may act for selfish reasons, but the truth of two sexes stands apart from motives. Reality is not up for debate because one man benefits politically. You can only pretend for so long that men can have babies, or that women can become men by changing underwear and hormones. Reality reasserts itself. Biology bites back. The broader issue here is cultural sovereignty. Slovakia has told the European Union that its Constitution comes first. Brussels may fume. Sanctions may follow. But this is a small country standing tall. Slovakia has reminded us that societies have a right — and a duty — to defend the basic truths that make life possible. There are men. There are women. Together they form families. Families form nations. And nations that forget this, that chase after gender experiments and social fads, will not stand the test of time. The West used to know this. America used to know this. Our churches taught it. Our schools reinforced it. Our laws reflected it. Now those same institutions often deny it. Slovakia’s vote is a signal flare: It doesn’t have to be this way. A country can choose common sense over nonsense. READ MORE: Why All Christians Should Reject Open Borders The Absurd Nazi Label on American Christians America’s New Theology of Violence

For a party long sidelined in the west, the AfD’s performance in the mayoral elections signals meaningful gains and growing voter recognition.

No description available