Purple Hearts In middle of the Vietnam War, a Navy surgeon and a nurse fall in love. Their affection for one another provides a striking contrast to the violence of warfare Cast: 1984 viewing When CONTINUE READING... The post 84 From ’84: Purple Hearts appeared first on The Retro Network.

Police in Florida finds and rescues a dog trapped inside a hot U-Haul truck after its owners left it to go to the beach on Sunday, June 02.

Is This Really Necessary, Texas Democrats?

In the opening scenes of 1964’s Goldfinger, James Bond is asked why he always carries a gun. His wry and surprisingly self-deprecating answer? “I have a slight inferiority complex.” It’s a familiar stereotype. Guns, the popular idea says, are a stand-in for penises – and men who own them are probably just overcompensating for something. It’s not only a trope in movies, either: it turns up in Freud, in the headlines – even in supposedly rigorous “scientific studies”. There’s just one problem: according to a new analysis out of the University of Texas at San Antonio Hill, it’s entirely backwards.“Guns are clearly phallic symbols. Guns are clearly associated with masculinity,” the authors write. “However […] the psychosexual theory of gun ownership consistently fails in its assertion that men who have trouble with their penises or are dissatisfied with their penises are especially likely to acquire guns as a means of compensation.”The results come from analysis of data collected from more than 1,800 men in the 2023 Masculinity, Sexual Health, and Politics (MSHAP) survey, a national probability sample from across all 50 states plus the District of Columbia. “The primary purpose of the MSHAP survey is to empirically document the intersection of masculinity, sexual health, and politics in the United States,” the study explains – it covers all kinds of lifestyle questions, from your feelings about your penis size, to your employment status, to mental health, to even how cool and nice you are.It also asks about gun ownership. And to be honest, the results were pretty much what you’d expect: older men, US-born men, straight men, and men who live in rural or Southern areas were more likely to own guns; men with college degrees, who scored higher on “social desirability,” tended to own fewer guns.But there was one surprise – at least for anybody who bases their worldview on movies like Deadpool or Dirty Harry. “The odds of owning a gun […] are lower for men who are more dissatisfied with the size of their penises,” the study reports. “In fact, each one-unit increase in penis size dissatisfaction reduces the odds of owning any gun by 11 percent […] and the odds of owning a military-style rifle by 20 percent.”Now, we know what you’re thinking. We’re just taking these guys’ word for it about how big their dicks are? In a study about penis size dissatisfaction?? Have we learned nothing?Well, you’re not wrong. “Although we control for social desirability bias, our measurements of penis size are based on self-reports, not direct measurements,” Terrence Hill, a professor of sociology and demography and first author of the study, told PsyPost. There are also limitations intrinsic to the study design: as a cross-sectional study, it can’t draw any conclusions about causality, or how gun ownership patterns may change over time.Indeed, finding some explanation for the results may prove difficult – or even impossible. “Because there is no theory for why men with bigger penises would be more likely to own guns, we do not believe that this association is real,” Hill said. “In other words, we believe that this association is likely spurious or due to factors that we failed to account for in our study.”But that doesn’t mean Hill and his colleagues can’t speculate. “For example, the association […] could be due to the fact that men with higher levels of testosterone tend to have bigger penises and are more likely to engage in risk-taking behavior,” he suggested. “In the future, we would like to acquire funding to formally assess our testosterone hypothesis. We also have other projects in mind that test other taken-for-granted assumptions about guns.”The study is published in the American Journal of Men’s Health.

If you search “shrimp Jesus” on Facebook, you might encounter dozens of images of artificial intelligence (AI) generated crustaceans meshed in various forms with a stereotypical image of Jesus Christ. Some of these hyper-realistic images have garnered more than 20,000 likes and comments. So what exactly is going on here? The “dead internet theory” has an explanation: AI and bot-generated content has surpassed the human-generated internet. But where did this idea come from, and does it have any basis in reality? An example of a shrimp Jesus image on Facebook with no caption or context information included in the post. Facebook What is the dead internet theory? The dead internet theory essentially claims that activity and content on the internet, including social media accounts, are predominantly being created and automated by artificial intelligence agents. These agents can rapidly create posts alongside AI-generated images designed to farm engagement (clicks, likes, comments) on platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and TikTok. As for shrimp Jesus, it appears AI has learned it’s the current, latest mix of absurdity and religious iconography to go viral. But the dead internet theory goes even further. Many of the accounts that engage with such content also appear to be managed by artificial intelligence agents. This creates a vicious cycle of artificial engagement, one that has no clear agenda and no longer involves humans at all. Harmless engagement-farming or sophisticated propaganda? At first glance, the motivation for these accounts to generate interest may appear obvious – social media engagement leads to advertising revenue. If a person sets up an account that receives inflated engagement, they may earn a share of advertising revenue from social media organisations such as Meta. So, does the dead internet theory stop at harmless engagement farming? Or perhaps beneath the surface lies a sophisticated, well-funded attempt to support autocratic regimes, attack opponents and spread propaganda? While the shrimp Jesus phenomenon may seem harmless (albeit bizarre), there is potentially a longer-term ploy at hand. As these AI-driven accounts grow in followers (many fake, some real), the high follower count legitimises the account to real users. This means that out there, an army of accounts is being created. Accounts with high follower counts which could be deployed by those with the highest bid. This is critically important, as social media is now the primary news source for many users around the world. In Australia, 46% of 18 to 24-year-olds nominated social media as their main source of news last year. This is up from 28% in 2022, taking over from traditional outlets such as radio and TV. Bot-fuelled disinformation Already, there is strong evidence social media is being manipulated by these inflated bots to sway public opinion with disinformation – and it’s been happening for years. In 2018, a study analysed 14 million tweets over a ten-month period in 2016 and 2017. It found bots on social media were significantly involved in disseminating articles from unreliable sources. Accounts with high numbers of followers were legitimising misinformation and disinformation, leading real users to believe, engage and reshare bot-posted content. This approach to social media manipulation has been found to occur after mass shooting events in the United States. In 2019, a study found bot-generated posts on X (formerly Twitter) heavily contribute to the public discussion, serving to amplify or distort potential narratives associated with extreme events. More recently, several large-scale, pro-Russian disinformation campaigns have aimed to undermine support for Ukraine and promote pro-Russian sentiment. Uncovered by activists and journalists, the coordinated efforts used bots and AI to create and spread fake information, reaching millions of social media users. On X alone, the campaign used more than 10,000 bot accounts to rapidly post tens of thousands of messages of pro-Kremlin content attributed to US and European celebrities seemingly supporting the ongoing war against Ukraine. This scale of influence is significant. Some reports have even found that nearly half of all internet traffic in 2022 was made by bots. With recent advancements in generative AI – such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT models and Google’s Gemini – the quality of fake content will only be improving. Social media organisations are seeking to address the misuse of their platforms. Notably, Elon Musk has explored requiring X users to pay for membership to stop bot farms. Unfortunately, a small fee for new user write access is the only way to curb the relentless onslaught of bots. Current AI (and troll farms) can pass “are you a bot” with ease. — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 15, 2024 Social media giants are capable of removing large amounts of detected bot activity, if they so chose. (Bad news for our friendly shrimp Jesus.) Keep the dead internet in mind The dead internet theory is not really claiming that most of your personal interactions on the internet are fake. It is, however, an interesting lens through which to view the internet. That it is no longer for humans, by humans – this is the sense in which the internet we knew and loved is “dead”. The freedom to create and share our thoughts on the internet and social media is what made it so powerful. Naturally, it is this power that bad actors are seeking to control. The dead internet theory is a reminder to be sceptical and navigate social media and other website with a critical mind. Any interaction, trend, and especially “overall sentiment” could very well be synthetic. Designed to slightly change the way in which you perceive the world. Jake Renzella, Lecturer, Director of Studies (Computer Science), UNSW Sydney and Vlada Rozova, Research Fellow in Applied Machine Learning, The University of Melbourne This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The post The ‘dead internet theory’ makes eerie claims about an AI-run web appeared first on Anomalien.com.

Researchers say that much of the human genome was previously thought to be “junk DNA,” but it turns out it’s not that simple. Back in the spring of 2003, scientists who worked on the Human Genome Project completed sequencing the human genome, reports Science Focus. However, this human “Book of Life” remains difficult to read even for the world’s leading geneticists. Researchers are still sorting through the data. One of the biggest questions that has been raised is: why is the human genome so huge? The striking thing about the completed human genome was how little of it seemed to do anything at all. The human genome contains about three billion nucleotide pairs. Of this amount, less than 2% (about 20,000) are genes encoding proteins that direct the cells of our body. But what does the rest of the human genome do? Some called this part junk DNA, considering it genetic gibberish—a remnant of millions of years of evolution. While some of this genetic “gibberish” really doesn’t work, not all of it is useless. Gradually, scientists are beginning to shed light on this dark side of the human genome. Some of this “garbage heap” performs crucial regulatory or modification functions for genomes that encode proteins. Some compare these DNA sequences to volume buttons that determine the expression of our genes. Large sections of the dark genome are also made up of long, repeating DNA sequences known as transposons. They play an important role in the expression of genes associated with crucial stages of human evolution. Scientists suggest that they are related to our ability to adapt to the environment. Transposons, also known as “jumping genes,” can move from one region of the genome to another. This ability can cause significant genetic mutations and changes. For example, transposons may be associated with the development of opposable thumbs in humans, as well as the loss of the tail in us and other great apes. In some cases, “jumping genes” are associated with the development of tumors, as well as some hereditary diseases. For example, hemophilia and Duchenne muscular dystrophy arise from repetitive DNA sequences associated with transposons. In the coming decades, scientists hope to decipher this dark human genome, leading to a new generation of treatments for genetic diseases. The post Genes make up just 2% of our DNA, scientists still puzzled by 98% appeared first on Anomalien.com.

In the heartwarming video, viewers are introduced to Holly, affectionately known as Beaver Mom, and her beloved beaver, Tulip. Tulip’s journey from a vulnerable baby beaver found by construction workers in Mississippi to a playful, healthy animal showcases the dedication and love Holly and her family have invested in her care. Beavers are often considered... The post Rescued baby beaver’s instincts kick in and uses stuffed toys to build ‘dam’ appeared first on Animal Channel.

While the networks mostly skipped over Saturday's nasty pro-Hamas demonstrations outside the White House, The Washington Post filed a story Saturday evening, but the word "whitewash" came to mind. "The demonstration and march remained largely peaceful. A D.C. police spokesperson said the agency had not made any arrests, while the U.S. Park Police did not respond to an inquiry on arrests." Despite smoke bombs, vandalizing statues, overt celebration of Hamas, and crazy talk about "vampirical" universities, the headline was bland: "Thousands circle White House to demand Biden enforce Gaza ‘red line’." The picture at the top of the story cast the protesters as possessing the moral authority as the opponents of "genocide." Reporter Meagan Flynn's introduction was vaguely promotional:  Thousands of demonstrators surrounded the perimeter of the White House in a sea of ' fabric Saturday, saying they were drawing a red line for President Biden and calling for a cease-fire in Gaza. On the same day that Gazan officials said at least 210 Palestinians were killed in a refugee camp, the demonstrators — many of whom had arrived on buses from more than two dozen cities — marched to chants of “Free Palestine!” while holding signs that said “Genocide is our red line” and “Israel bombs, your taxes pay.” While marching, they held a seemingly unending strip of red fabric around the entire perimeter. There were no ideological labels -- no "liberal," no "leftist," not even a "progressive." There was a "pro-Palestinian" in the copy, but there were no "anti-Israel," which certainly fit. "Genocide" was used in three quotes. “If Joe Biden’s red line was a fiction … and it was designed to make us become quiet, instead of that, we are going to become louder,” said Brian Becker, a leader of the ANSWER Coalition, one of the organizers of the march. “Only we can be the red line against genocide.” Becker and his ANSWER Coalition are Marxist-Leninists, which you could see from its official Liberation Store -- a curious choice for communists. The word "Hamas" only appeared once in the piece:  For Mohammad, a leader in the Palestinian Youth Movement who addressed the demonstrators before the march, it’s personal. His aunts and uncles are in Rafah, not far from where an Israeli strike killed dozens of people at a tent camp. His parents and other family are in North Gaza. He remembers the first call he got from his family members after the Oct. 7 Hamas attack that ignited the deadly war. “They told me, ‘We go to sleep knowing we might not wake up in the morning. The sun rises and we hope Gaza is still there,’ " recalled Mohammad, who did not share his last name for safety reasons. The word "graffiti" only appeared once, in a caption to a photo of a child examining "pro-Palestinian graffiti." Flynn posted one tweet on the event, with a bland ten-second video which underlined the "largely peaceful" company line:  Thousands of demonstrators have surrounded the perimeter of the White House, marching to a chorus of Free Palestine pic.twitter.com/YejsyDyr5V — Meagan Flynn (@Meagan_Flynn) June 8, 2024 There's an interesting contrast to the Post coverage of the annual "March for Life" protest against abortion in January. This year, the trio of Post reporters called the protesters "antiabortion" five times and "abortion opponents" three times. But Flynn's story never called these protesters "anti-Israel," or "Israel opponents," which they clearly are, with all the "genocide" talk. 

We often hear the phrase “courage is contagious.” This suggests that courage is something that spreads from one person to another, igniting bravery among groups through shared influence. While the sentiment is well-intentioned, it inadvertently suggests that courage is fleeting and dependent on external validation or support. Instead, we should focus on making courage a habit, one that is cultivated and maintained independently of others’ influence.When we say courage is contagious, we imply that it is temporary and reliant on our social environment. If we surround ourselves with financially savvy people, we are likely to become more financially aware, reading wealth-building books and listening to relevant podcasts. Similarly, if we hang out with fitness enthusiasts, we may adopt healthier habits, such as working out more and eating cleaner.When courage is a habit, it becomes an intrinsic part of who we are, not something that waxes and wanes based on our surroundings.Conversely, if our social circle includes heavy drinkers, even the most moderate drinker might find himself indulging more frequently. This “contagion effect” means that when we remove ourselves from these influences, we tend to revert to our default habits. A person who isn’t naturally inclined to drink heavily will likely return to moderate drinking once they leave the heavy-drinking environment. The same principle applies to fitness and financial habits. Without the external influence, our behaviors revert to our natural inclinations.This phenomenon underscores why viewing courage as contagious ultimately sets us up for failure. If we believe that courage is something we acquire from others, then our bravery becomes conditional upon our environment.This is particularly concerning when it comes to the critical issue of parents standing up against political and sexual indoctrination in government-run K-12 schools. If these parents rely on a large group to muster the courage to support and defend their children, what happens when the group is no longer there?Instead, we should view courage as a habit. Habits are built through consistent practice and become ingrained in our behavior, independent of external influences.When courage is a habit, it becomes an intrinsic part of who we are, not something that waxes and wanes based on our surroundings. If courage is seen merely as a contagion, parents might only find the strength to support and defend their children when bolstered by a supportive community. If that community dissipates or their circumstances change, however, their resolve may falter.If we view courage as a habit, parents can cultivate a steadfast bravery that persists regardless of external support. This kind of courage is rooted in personal conviction and consistent practice. It means that whether parents are surrounded by a thousand supporters or standing alone, their commitment to protecting their children remains unwavering.To develop courage as a habit, it requires daily actions and decisions that reinforce bravery. This could mean speaking up at school board meetings, consistently questioning and challenging inappropriate school culture and content, and teaching children to think critically about what they are taught and not just accept the mainstream media narrative.Over time, these actions become second nature, and the habit of courage becomes ingrained. Moreover, framing courage as a habit empowers individuals. It shifts the focus from needing external validation to relying on one’s own inner strength.This internalization of courage is crucial in situations where immediate support might not be available. For instance, parents might find themselves in a position where they need to confront a teacher, school counselor, or school administrator alone. In such scenarios, the habitual courage will drive them to act to project their child, regardless of whether others are watching or supporting them.In our current climate, where political and social pressures can be overwhelming, it is more important than ever to cultivate courage as a habit. Parents need to model this for their children, demonstrating that standing up for what is right should not depend on the presence of a supportive crowd but should be a consistent practice grounded in personal integrity.While contagious courage might inspire temporary acts of bravery, habitual courage fosters enduring a lifetime of bravery. By cultivating courage as a habit, we ensure that our bravery is not subject to the whims of our environment but is a steadfast trait that empowers us to stand firm in our convictions, protect those who need it, and defend the freedoms granted us through our Constitution. Whether in the realm of parenting or personal endeavors, make courage your habit.