'My People': Deportations, Cries, and Lies

Is this the "Sputnik moment" of artificial intelligence?

The original photo from 2017 and the follow-up from 2018 show something massive moving about.

The effect remains even when you're not high.

"The World has not made sufficient progress on existential risks threatening all of humanity."

Imprinting genes have long been a stumbling block for unisexual reproduction in mammals, but scientists have now found a way past it.

Move over, phubbing – there’s a new annoying behavior in town.

If parallel universes exist, then there is at least one way to get to a place that is different from our reality. So far, the existence of parallel universes is mostly associated with science fiction. But there are scientific theories that suggest that other universes exist. If so, how can we get there? Physicist Paul Sutter believes that such a possibility exists, but it is a very difficult journey, writes Space. Theories suggesting the existence of parallel worlds The existence of parallel universes is suggested by at least two well-known theories in physics. One of them is called the inflation theory and describes an extremely early universe. Soon after the Big Bang, not one, but a huge number of universes could have been created, which began to expand at an accelerated rate. Moreover, each universe has different physics and distribution of matter. But getting to other universes is extremely difficult, because they are beyond the visible space and are moving away from us faster than the speed of light. Another theory, known as the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, says that when some random quantum process occurs, one universe gets one of the possible outcomes, while other universes get other outcomes. This creates a multiverse with all possible quantum outcomes. How to get to a parallel universe? To get into one of these parallel universes, you need to create a time machine to go back to the past. Usually, such time travel leads to the emergence of various paradoxes. For example, if you go back to the past and destroy the time machine, it will not exist, which means that you cannot go back in time. But the journey has already taken place. According to Stephen Hawking’s chronology-protection hypothesis, it is impossible to travel back in time. On the other hand, Novikov’s self-consistency principle suggests that traveling to the past is possible, but changing the past is impossible. But how can you travel to the past without changing it? This is possible if you go back in time, but not to your own past. Instead, you get into an alternate history and you can change things there. If you go back to the future, the past in this reality will remain unchanged. The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics offers a natural platform for creating such alternative histories. If the universe is constantly splitting anyway, then time travel simply moves you from one reality to another. On the other hand, going back to the future can create a new reality that did not exist before. But no one knows exactly how it works. It is not known how this process unfolds or by what mechanism an alternative history arises. To get into one of these parallel universes, you need to create a time machine to go back to the past. What does quantum physics say? Attempts to understand this question by studying quantum mechanics have yielded mixed results. Quantum fields tend to break down when time machines are involved. They can be stabilized by giving up some of the theory’s core principles, such as the correspondence principle, which states that quantum processes eventually lead to macroscopic behavior and that fundamental reactions are reversible. No one is willing to give these up, since they seem central to the theory. But even classical, non-quantum systems face problems. Suppose you have a switch that can turn a time machine on and off, perhaps by opening or closing a wormhole. We don’t know how alternate histories can accommodate such changes in their space-time structures, regardless of what quantum processes are going on at the subatomic level. If we could build a time machine, we could easily test whether alternative histories are created. All we would have to do is change something in our own past. If we can’t do that, then there is only one timeline. If we can, then alternative histories exist and the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct. It is not known whether any of these are possible, but such possibilities cannot be completely ruled out. So, although traveling to a parallel universe may be a very difficult process, it is not completely impossible. The post How to get to a parallel universe: the answer from physicists may surprise appeared first on Anomalien.com.

CBS’s Stephen Colbert twisted himself into a logical pretzel on Monday’s installment of The Late Show. First, Colbert suggested that President Trump’s immigration enforcement was the stuff of Nazis, but immediately afterwards, he conceded that former President Biden did pretty much the same thing. Taking his cues from a CNN headline, Colbert lamented, “Daddy Donny is keeping his promise to round up immigrants in order to save the dogs that weren't being eaten from imaginary Mexican Hannibal Lecter. Over the weekend, his administration launched a nationwide immigration enforcement blitz. Really? Blitz, short for blitzkrieg? Just once, can we do fun German stuff? I'd love to see a headline that says, ‘Trump administration launches nationwide strudel.’”     Before anyone could ask if the defensive football tactic was beyond the pale, Colbert conceded, “so far, ICE says these roundups are going after criminals, something like Biden tried to do.” So, not Nazi-like? Regardless, Colbert continued by recalling Sunday’s international incident with Colombia, “but unlike Biden, Trump's doing it in a way that pisses off our allies. Cuz yesterday, the president of Colombia refused to let a military transport filled with handcuffed migrants land in his country. So, Trump posted, [TRUMP VOICE] ‘Emergency 25 percent tariffs on all Colombian goods coming into the United States.’ [NORMAL VOICE] To which Don Jr. said, ‘Wait, not everything from Colombia, right? Dad? Dad?’” Colombian President Gustavo Petro is a funny definition of an ally. He’s old Marxist guerrilla who is an anti-Semitic Hamas propagandist who cozies up to Venezuela’s Nicholas Maduro. On Sunday, he authorized the use of deportation flights, but canceled them while they were in the air all over the type of plane being used because he wanted to become the main character in the global anti-Trump resistance. Here is a transcript for the January 27 show: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 1/27/2025 11:41 PM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: Daddy Donny is keeping his promise to round up immigrants in order to save the dogs that weren't being eaten from imaginary Mexican Hannibal Lecter. Over the weekend, his administration launched a nationwide immigration enforcement blitz. Really? Blitz, short for blitzkrieg? Just once, can we do fun German stuff? I'd love to see a headline that says, “Trump administration launches nationwide strudel.” So far—or even blitzes with strudel—so far, ICE says these roundups are going after criminals, something like Biden tried to do, but unlike Biden, Trump's doing it in a way that pisses off our allies. Cuz yesterday, the president of Colombia refused to let a military transport filled with handcuffed migrants land in his country. So, Trump posted, [TRUMP VOICE] “Emergency 25 percent tariffs on all Colombian goods coming into the United States.” [NORMAL VOICE] To which Don Jr. said, "Wait, not everything from Colombia, right? Dad? Dad?” 

"The integration of the military racially was a huge success. -- Pete Hegseth Sure sounds a lot like George Wallace circa 1963, doesn't it?? Hegseth might as well have been barring the Pentagon's door! That is, if you believe Kate Bedingfield, Biden's former communications director, now spinning wildly on DEI as a CNN commentator! Today's CNN This Morning began a segment on Trump's changes to the military with a clip of Hegseth during his confirmation process making a statement that included the line above in praise of the racial integration of the military. Bedingfield bizarrely cast Hegseth as the modern equivalent of a segregationist from back in the day: "It's striking to me, if you listen to what the clip we just saw of Pete Hegseth saying integrating the military racially was successful, but what we're talking about now is different. There are real differences.  If you took that sound bite, and you took it back to 1940, he would sound like people who are arguing against the racial integration of the military. " Republican strategist Brad Todd pushed back on this obvious faceplant, and triggered Bedingfield when he said: "Liberals don't really like the military much, so they want to use it to achieve a lot of other political domestic gains."   Bedingfield branded as "absurd" Todd's view that liberals don't like the military much. But statistics tend to bear Todd out. A recent Pew study found that Republicans have a positive view of the military by roughly a 2:1 ratio, 64/34. But liberal Democrats are evenly split, with about as many approving of the military as disapproving of it: 50/49. In his statement, Hegseth differentiated between racial differences, which are superficial characteristics, with women and transgenders, whose differences are real and can create complications for the military. Note: Kayla Tausche sat in for Kasie Hunt today. While she wasn't wildly partisan, at one point Tausche did let her liberal leaning slip. She described one of Trump's executive orders as "gutting" the military's diversity programs. Only a DEI fan would make the changes sound like a disembowelment!  Here's the transcript. CNN This Morning  1/28/25 6:16 am ET PETE HEGSETH: The dumbest phrase on planet Earth in the military is, our diversity is our strength.  The integration of the military racially was a huge success. But now we're pushing boundaries and lots of different levels that are different than that. Because men and women are different. Because being transgendered in the military causes complications and differences.  KAYLA TAUSCHE: That was now Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth prior to his confirmation. And yesterday, his first day on the job, President Donald Trump signed four new executive orders that could reshape the U.S. military.  His directives include banning transgender service members, gutting the military's diversity programs, and reinstating, with back pay, members who were discharged for refusing to get a COVID-19 vaccine.  . . .  KATE BEDINGFIELD: It's striking to me, if you listen to what the clip we just saw of Pete Hegseth saying, integrating the military racially was successful, but what we're talking about now is different. There are real differences.  If you took that sound bite, and you took it back to 1940, he would sound like people who are arguing against the racial integration of the military.  So I just, there is a, it feels to me like they are trying to solve for a problem that doesn't exist. Women are serving in combat. They are doing so effectively. Of course, are there physical differences and limitations with women relative to men in terms of physical strength? Yeah, of course. But the military is effectively fighting solving for that in a way that's allowing women to serve.  And so creating this division and creating this barrier to people who want to serve their country, being able to do so, it's solving for a problem that doesn't exist.  TAUSCHE: He softened his stance a little bit on women serving in the military, suggesting that it's just about the standards for them.  BRAD TODD: The physical standard.  TAUSCHE: The physical standard. TODD: The military has to have one standard, which is lethality. We have to have a lethal fighting force, and that has to be the only standard by which they judge who's in and who's out. Do you help make the United States more fearsome, more strong, more difficult to deal with in a combat situation?  We're peeling back a lot of the layers of social experimentation. You know, liberals don't really like the military much, so they want to use it to achieve a lot of other political domestic gains. That's what's going to come to an end if Pete Hegseth gets his way, although the Pentagon's a big bureaucracy. We'll see.