Heralded as the “missing evolutionary link” that proved modern-day birds evolved from feathered dinosaurs nearly three decades ago, the Archaeoraptor liaoningensis fossil was a discovery thought to change how the world saw evolution. The fossil, so-named in its unveiling, appeared to be a combination of a bird and theropod, or two-footed dinosaur. On publication, the turkey-sized fossil was described as "a missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds” that captured “the paleontological 'moment' when dinosaurs were becoming birds." The article, written by Chris Sloan, was published with a photograph of the fossil slab. In the photo's caption, a name was put to it for the first time. Except, it was all a fake. After a public outcry by scientific community members, National Geographic conducted an investigation that revealed the Archaeoraptor fossil was essentially two separate fossils glued together. In 2001, paleontologist Timothy Rowe published research in Nature that further confirmed through computed tomography (CT) that “sadly, parts of at least two significant new specimens were combined in favor of the higher commercial value of the forgery, and both were nearly lost to science.”In effect, the newly dubbed Archaeoraptor name appeared scientifically legitimate, “yet it referred to a fake,” Rowe told IFLScience. The “intentional forgery,” as it was later found to be, was smuggled out of China and into the US, where it sold on the commercial market for $80,000 at the time, roughly $150,000 in 2024. “New, persuasive evidence of the link between dinosaurs and birds”Rowe describes the 1990s as a time when the scientific community reexamined whether birds had derived their ancestry from dinosaurs. Following suit, the National Geographic Society announced on Oct. 15, 1999, the discovery and interpretation of Archaeoraptor. IFLScience found an archived version of the press release announcing the fossil’s discovery that reported the fossil, alongside the discovery of two other birdlike dinosaurs, provided “new, persuasive evidence of the link between dinosaurs and birds and of the belief that feathers were widespread among meat-eating dinosaurs, maybe even Tyrannosaurus rex.” National Geographic published without peer-reviewed evidence what they believed to be the ‘missing link ‘between birds and dinosaurs.Dr Jingmai O'ConnorIFLScience contacted National Geographic for a copy of the article, but our request went unanswered. Rowe, however, sent our newsroom a copy of a part of the article, which read, in part: With arms of a primitive bird and the tail of a dinosaur, this creature found in Liaoning Province, China is a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds. Scientists funded by National Geographic studied the animal, named Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, under ultraviolet light above) and used CT scans to view parts of the animal obscured by rock…Stephen Czerkas, who led the study of the specimen, reconstructed the new animal… “This fossil is perhaps the best evidence since Archaeopteryx that bids did, in fact, evolve from certain types of carnivorous dinosaurs,” said Czerkas. A so-called “bird-dinosaur controversy to the detriment of other research”  Paleontologist Jingmai O'Connor, who also serves as the associate curator of fossil reptiles at Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History, told IFLScience that at the core of this issue is that “National Geographic published without peer-reviewed evidence what they believed to be the ‘missing link ‘between birds and dinosaurs.” National Geographic had presented for the first time a scientific name for a supposed new species before publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Storrs Olson, renowned ornithologist and former curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History, wrote a letter to National Geographic calling the article an “all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism.” (Smithsonian confirmed to IFLScience that Olson died in 2021). In an April 2000 issue of the Smithsonian newsletter Backbone, Olson called the Archaeoraptor a “bird-dinosaur controversy to the detriment of other research.”Archaeorapter is not located in the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, which ensures that each described animal has a “unique and universally accepted scientific name.” Nor had the name previously been published and was only known in the scientific nomenclature by the National Geographic article “with Sloan as its author”. Olson wrote that the article did not inform its readers that “contrary viewpoints exist.”A fossilized slab shattered to resemble “an Oreo cookie pulled apart”In October 2000, National Geographic published the results of an investigation by American journalist Lewis Simons, who concluded the fossil was a composite. According to Simons, an unnamed farmer “hacked out a thin, buff-colored slab measuring roughly a foot square” in Juily 1997 while digging in a shale pit in Xiasanjiazi, China's northeastern Liaoning Province. For the record, Simons never met the supposed farmer and based his report on witness statements made by fellow villagers. Upon their first discovery, the farmer found a fossil specimen described as “extraordinary,” as it contained “the fossilized bones of what seemed to be a bird, including a faint aura of feathers and a beak lined with tiny teeth.” As the farmer dug with a pick and shovel, he shattered the slab to resemble “an Oreo cookie pulled apart.” Continuing to dig, the farmer “uncovered another, smaller slab a couple of yards away” that “contained a tail, rigid and about the size of a crocheting needle, a skull, a foot, and some other parts.”“Pleased with the day's finds, the farmer scooped up the fragments, shouldered his tools, and walked the two miles or so back across the red dirt fields to his tiny brick house,” wrote Simons. “Using a homemade paste, he glued the slab of the tail to the lower portion of the birdlike body. With counter slab pieces from the body itself – and possibly other scraps he'd kept over time – he glued in missing legs and feet. Aware that fossil fanciers, unlike paleontologists, prefer specimens assembled and suitable for display, the farmer was following basic market economics.” Simons added that it’s not clear whether the farmer knew he was forging a new species or if he was just “gluing pieces he thought belonged together.” Either way, Archaeoraptor was smuggled and taken to the US, selling for $80,000 at the time.A dealer, whose name was intentionally retained, bought the fossil from the farmer in 1998. The following year, Stephen A. Czerkas, director of a nonprofit dinosaur museum in Utah, came across the fossil at a “bazaar-style gem and mineral show in Tuscon.” Making a chimera fossil “more presentable”Using high-resolution X-ray CT, Rowe and his team further confirmed that the Archaeoraptor specimen was composed of at least two species built in three layers and grouted together.  A single, unbroken plate of shale was used for backing. The first layer contained a heterogenous mosaic of 88 separate pieces, some containing bone, indicating an “articulated bird skeleton.” A second phase contained 26 pieces with bones along the skeleton's rear half to “complete it.” A third phase included the placement of 39 shims not made of bone or to be naturally associated with either of the first two groups of bones, probably added to secure the chimera skeleton and make it “more presentable” It was deemed by researchers in 2002 that Archaeoraptor was a “chimaera formed of bird and dromaeosaur parts,” which included fossils from a primitive “fish-eating bird” known as Yanornis and a small, winged raptor known as Dromaeosaur, according to their study published in Nature.Two of the known components that made up "Archaeoraptor".Image credit: Entelognathus CC BY-SA 4.0An “ever-growing toolkit” to verify the ethical collection of specimens“In the case of Archaeoraptor, the tail and legs were added to make it more complete, and that greater completeness commanded a greater price on the commercial market” explained Rowe, adding that this monetary influence begs the question of whether fossil extractors are working for scientific or commercial value. This presents a greater issue examining the import and export of fossils under ethical means, O’Connor notes. Many institutions prohibit staff from accepting specimens not legally collected or sent from their country of origin. Based on Simons’ investigation into the origins of the Archaeoraptor, however, the fossil appears to have been obtained through unethical means. [F]orgeries are not that common and usually not all that well done. With experience, they are pretty easy to identify these days. The oddities stand out.Dr Jingmai O'Connor“Scientists generally look down on the commercial marketplace” for these reasons, Rowe added. International protective measures are in place to protect fossils from being illegally collected in most nations and from being smuggled out of others. But these protections vary from country to country. To combat this, Rowe refers to an “evergrowing toolkit” of ways to determine whether something is authentic or collected under ethical circumstances. There are standards for extraction, preparation, and reparation by which researchers continue to build today. “One of the things we try to do with students and recognize on our own is that there has been this varied history of how fossils have been treated once they find their way into human hands,” said Rowe. So, while some have argued that the Archaeoraptor forgery invalidates the scientific process, others suggest its correction strengthens peer review. Regarding the Archaeoraptor, the scientific community stepped in to correct an egregious error. O’Connor notes that there are many tools for finding a fake, but simply being careful and using the power of observation will “usually do the trick.” “The forgeries are not that common and usually not all that well done. With experience, they are pretty easy to identify these days. The oddities stand out, in my experience,” said O’Connor.

Have you heard that it's illegal to die in the cold distant reaches of Svalbard, Norway? The reasoning is that, due to the permafrost, bodies laid to rest in this Arctic territory will not decompose and so present a biological risk for future generations. However, this is not really true, especially the part about dying being outlawed. Nevertheless, the myth has spread quite far and is often reported as fact. But this raises an obvious question: is there anywhere else on Earth where it actually is illegal to die?The short answer is a kind of dubious shrug. Over the years, various places have “outlawed” dying, but the act has been less an effort to legally punish those unhelpful people who die (anyone), and more an effort to draw attention to some subtle political or social issue.For instance, in August 2015, the mayor of the Italian hillside town of Sellia signed an ordinance that forbade people to get “ill within the municipality” and made it clear that they were not allowed to die there either. Anyone caught defying this law by not getting regular health checks could be fined €10 a year.On the face of it, this is a ludicrous rule that demands the impossible, but the law was passed with the aim of promoting healthier lifestyles for local residents. The logic behind it was that Sellia was struggling with a shrinking population, and so the law was introduced to encourage citizens to take better care of their health or face higher taxation.  Similarly, in 2000 and 2008, two villages in France forbade their residents to die. In both instances, the local authorities could not get permission to expand their graveyards, so in protest, they decided to make the issue go away by discouraging death itself. The same tactic was adopted by the authorities of Biritiba Mirim, in Brazil in 2005, and Falciano del Massico, in Italy, in 2012.As you can imagine, the unreasonable nature of these bylaws eventually resulted in them gaining permissions to expand their graveyards.Then there’s the ban on dying for purity reasons. Although this is not something that is practiced too frequently these days, there are some historical instances where death has been forbidden for religious reasons.In Ancient Greece, the island of Delos, now a UNESCO World Heritage site, was considered so sacred that efforts were taken to keep it free from death and birth – basically anything related to the messiness of human existence. In the 6th century BCE, the Athenian leader, Peisistratus, ordered the graves on the island to be dug up, and later, anyone who was likely to die or about to give birth was escorted off the island.The same need to preserve sanctity influenced the history of the Japanese island of Itsukushima (now Miyajima), which is considered sacred in Shinto lore. For some time, the only people allowed to live on the island were Shinto priests and priestesses. If pilgrims visited, they were prohibited from dying or giving birth there, a rule that reflected Shinto ideas about pollution, blood, and decay. Contrary to what is often thought, this rule was actually abolished in 1868 (it is often cited as the start date of the law), but even today, burials and cremations are not allowed on the island.What is clear from these examples is that the prohibition of death, when unrelated to religious rules, has all been an effort to challenge local issues around health or the availability of burial spaces. So while they may be absurd on the face of it, it is proof that sometimes the ridiculous can be very practical.[H/T: The Guardian]

US presidential candidate Robert F Kennedy Jr, known to many as RFK Jr, hit headlines this week after a decade-old deposition emerged in which he talked about “a worm that got into my brain and ate a portion of it and then died.” No prizes for guessing that brain worms are not a great thing to have, but you might be surprised/horrified to learn just how common these parasites are. Now that RFK Jr is tweeting that he’d happily “eat five more brain worms” and still fancy his chances in the 2024 electoral race, here’s all you need to know about where these parasites come from, and how you get infected.What type of parasite did RFK Jr have?In a deposition from 2012, recently reviewed by the New York Times, Kennedy describes neurological symptoms that he had as far back as 2010. After experiencing memory issues and brain fog, he reportedly sought advice from medical experts, who noted a “dark spot” on scans of his brain.A number of medics concluded that this was a sign of a tumor, but even as he was preparing to undergo surgery, Kennedy received a call from a doctor with a different opinion: that the dark spot on his brain was the corpse of a parasitic worm.The New York Times has since spoken to several independent experts who say the symptoms would fit with a diagnosis of a pork tapeworm, although all were speaking in a general capacity and have not directly dealt with RFK Jr’s case.What are pork tapeworms?The pork tapeworm (Taenia solium) is a cestode worm responsible for the human diseases taeniasis and cysticercosis. Three species of Taenia worms can infect humans, but T. solium is the most devastating by far.Taeniasis occurs when someone eats undercooked pork from an infected pig containing worm larvae, called cysticerci. Over the course of a couple of months, the worms attach to the inside of the small intestine and mature. Adult T. solium can reach lengths of up to 8 meters (26 feet) – you’d think it couldn’t get much worse, but with this particular tapeworm, the adult is actually the least of your problems.As the 20-foot unwelcome visitor happily chills in your intestines, sometimes for years, it develops up to 1,000 segments called proglottids, and each of these can contain a staggering 50,000 eggs. These eggs are passed in feces. Like other diseases that can pass via the fecal-oral route – i.e. via food contaminated by traces of fecal matter or poor hand hygiene – it’s possible to then reinfect yourself, or infect someone else, with the parasite’s eggs.This is far more serious than the initial tapeworm infection. The eggs hatch in the intestine, and the resulting oncospheres can pass through the intestinal wall and reach lots of other areas of the body – including the brain. There they develop into cysticerci, and that’s how you get the disease known as cysticercosis, or neurocysticercosis if it affects the brain. The T. solium lifecycle is one of the more complex among human parasitic diseases, but it’s this ability for reinfection with one’s own tapeworm eggs that makes the pork tapeworm so much more dangerous than the similar beef tapeworm, for example.How common are pork tapeworms?According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), neurocysticercosis caused by the pork tapeworm is considered a Neglected Parasitic Infection in the US, with around 1,000 new hospitalizations each year, and is a leading cause of adult-onset epilepsy worldwide. This is a global parasite found across places where pork is commonly eaten, mainly in rural regions where pigs and humans may come into close contact.Higher rates of taeniasis from T. solium have been recorded in rural communities in Latin America, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, India, and Asia. Both taeniasis and cysticercosis are thought to be underreported. Studies have found high rates of infection among communities in Madagascar, Eastern and Southern Africa, and parts of China, among others, with researchers calling for better surveillance and monitoring around the world.In the US, taeniasis is most frequently seen in people who have immigrated from Latin America.Cysticercosis arises most commonly in people who already have T. solium taeniasis, via the process of autoinfection described above. However, it’s possible to develop cysticercosis through contamination – for example, eating food prepared by someone with taeniaisis if scrupulous hand hygiene has not been observed – even if you have never consumed undercooked pork and have not personally been exposed to the adult tapeworm.Can pork tapeworms be prevented or treated?Both taeniasis and cysticercosis caused by T. solium are preventable. Your best defense is to make sure that any pork products are cooked thoroughly before consumption. The CDC cites the recommendations of the US Department of Agriculture when it comes to preparing pork. Whole cuts should be cooked to a minimum internal temperature of 63°C (145°F) and left to rest for three minutes. Ground pork should be cooked to a minimum of 71°C (160°F) but does not require resting. A meat thermometer will be your best friend here.A 2020 study also looked at other cooking methods, and found that for boiled pork dishes, cooking for 10 minutes at 80°C (176°F) was sufficient to kill T. solium larvae. At 50°C (122°F), a cooking duration of over 40 minutes was required. They concluded that the majority of boiled pork dishes would meet safety requirements, but suggested that deep-frying pork could be an issue due to the shorter cooking times involved. T. solium larvae can also be thwarted by freezing meat at -20°C (-4°F) – slightly colder than most commercial freezers) – for one to three days.Other control methods targeting the pigs themselves, such as attempting to detect the parasite before animals are slaughtered and efforts to keep pigs and humans apart, have had varying degrees of success.Once someone is infected with T. solium, there are some treatment options, but these can be costly and may not be accessible. The most common medication used for taeniasis is called praziquantel, which is taken orally. However, both praziquantel and another drug that can be used, albendazole, may not be suitable for people with cysticercosis, as they’ve been linked with possible seizures. With neurocysticercosis, treatment starts by tackling symptoms like seizures and brain swelling before targeting the parasites themselves. Antiparasitic treatments can also make symptoms worse at first, so steroids may be given at the same time to help dampen down the inflammatory response.The brain damage caused by extensive neurocysticercosis can be permanent. In RFK Jr’s case though, the New York Times reports that his memory loss may be down to a different condition he reportedly had at the time, one with less terrestrial origins. The report explains how he was diagnosed with mercury poisoning, caused by eating excessive amounts of fish. That’s not one you can prevent by cooking it, unfortunately.All “explainer” articles are confirmed by fact checkers to be correct at time of publishing. Text, images, and links may be edited, removed, or added to at a later date to keep information current.  The content of this article is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of qualified health providers with questions you may have regarding medical conditions.  

As pro-Hamas campus protesters scream end-of-Israel slogans on college campuses and President Biden cuts off weapons to Israel, the New York Times put its investigative journalism to a very political task, neutralizing any attempt by Republicans to campaign against antisemitism:  How Republicans Echo Antisemitic Tropes Despite Declaring Support for Israel Prominent Republicans have seized on campus protests to assail what they say is antisemitism on the left. But for years they have mainstreamed anti-Jewish rhetoric. The Times spent some 3,500 words and used Artificial Intelligence and four staffers (Karen Yourish, Danielle Ivory, Jennifer Valentino-DeVries, and Alex Lemonides) to try to paint the GOP as the true anti-semitic party. Their methodology?  The Times used a variety of methods to examine the extent to which federal politicians have used language promoting antisemitic tropes. Reporters examined official press releases, congressional newsletters and posts on X (formerly Twitter) of every person who served in Congress over the past 10 years that contained the words “Soros,” “globalist” or “globalism” — terms widely accepted by multiple historians and experts on antisemitism as “dog whistles” that refer to Jews. The paper’s ideologically motivated thesis rests heavily on the false assumption being that criticism of left-wing ideological financier George Soros is by definition anti-Semitic. Some “seizing” occurred on the “largely peaceful” (really?) campus protests, which the Times severely underplayed. Amid the widening protests and the unease, if not fear, among many Jews, Republicans have sought to seize the political advantage by portraying themselves as the true protectors of Israel and Jews under assault from the progressive left. While largely peaceful, the campus protests over Israel’s bombardment of Gaza that has killed tens of thousands have been loud and disruptive and have at times taken on a sharpened edge. Jewish students have been shouted at to return to Poland, where Nazis killed three million Jews during the Holocaust. There are chants and signs in support of Hamas, whose attack on Israel sparked the current war. A leader of the Columbia protests declared in a video that “Zionists don’t deserve to live.” Debate rages over the extent to which the protests on the political left constitute coded or even direct attacks on Jews. But far less attention has been paid to a trend on the right: For all of their rhetoric of the moment, increasingly through the Trump era many Republicans have helped inject into the mainstream thinly veiled anti-Jewish messages with deep historical roots. The conspiracy theory taking on fresh currency is one that dates back hundreds of years and has perennially bubbled into view: that a shady cabal of wealthy Jews secretly controls events and institutions contrary to the national interest of whatever country it is operating in. The Times will not tolerate any criticism of leftist financier George Soros. The current formulation of the trope taps into the populist loathing of an elite “ruling class.” “Globalists” or “globalist elites” are blamed for everything from Black Lives Matter to the influx of migrants across the southern border, often described as a plot to replace native-born Americans with foreigners who will vote for Democrats. The favored personification of the globalist enemy is George Soros, the 93-year-old Hungarian American Jewish financier and Holocaust survivor who has spent billions in support of liberal causes and democratic institutions. The reporters extrapolated wildly to make standard political rhetoric “hate-filled speech of the extreme right.” This language is hardly new -- Mr. Soros became a boogeyman of the American far right long before the ascendancy of Mr. Trump. And the elected officials now invoking him or the globalists rarely, if ever, directly mention Jews or blame them outright. Some of them may not immediately understand the antisemitic resonance of the meme, and in some cases its use may simply be reflexive political rhetoric. But its rising ubiquity reflects the breaking down of old guardrails on all types of degrading speech, and the cross-pollination with the raw, sometimes hate-filled speech of the extreme right, in a party under the sway of the norm-defying former, and perhaps future, president. The reporters spared a few paragraphs of their diatribe to note left-wing anti-Semitism, referencing the campus protests and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) “for her statements after the Hamas attack, including ‘from the river to the sea.’” The Times repeated the same snotty “In fact…” formulation for the pro-Hamas protests. An “indirect” connection is still a connection, no matter how often the press throw around “anti-Semitism” in Soros’s defense. In fact, Mr. Soros’s connection to the protests is indirect: His foundation has donated to groups that have supported pro-Palestinian efforts, including recent protests, according to its financial records….

Crush! | iPad Pro | Apple www.youtube.com Given the prominence of psychedelic drugs in the Big Tech mythos, I doubt it’s a faux pas to share the story I’ve heard about Steve Jobs and the devil. As the story goes, asked what he learned on LSD, Steve replied that he sold his soul to Satan for charisma. Funny or not, given his way with marketing, it’s a plausible tale — as is the sad outcome wherein, it’s claimed, he believed his pancreatic cancer was the devil come to collect. However, it’s Steve’s corporate heir, the substantially less magnetic Tim Cook, who faces a related reckoning. After dining out on the cult of Jobs and the totemic devices Steve sold as the one true way to Think Different, Cook coasted through increasingly narrow shoals and now finds himself pitched for the falls. Beyond war, beyond rule, the most profound reason to keep stretching the human form to fit the tech, rather than the other way around, is because if we don’t do that we might question everything about the value of progress.Decent buzz and functionality haven’t been enough to lift the Apple Watch to the iPhone’s stratospheric heights — a lofty realm where, today, each subsequent model in the crowded field of commoditized smartphones feels more inessential than the last. Victim of its own success, Apple’s stalwart effort to change the game once again has coughed up a series of doubts. The Vision Pro is a bridge too far for all but a handful of self-style visionaries. The new iPad, introduced by a flashy, obliviously creepy ad, has triggered a wave of pro-human backlash that, in turn, has prompted an extremely uncharacteristic company apology. Public press chatter about Cook’s most likely successor has already begun. At this point, Cook may be asking his bathroom mirror, “Am I the App-hole?”The problems are myriad, the solution elusive. For a company as powerful as Apple, existential challenges are most likely to be found only at the most stubborn of limits — such as those that describe the form of humanity and technology themselves. Americans are no strangers to the way leading technologists eyeing a full-blown digitization of governance like to cast human limits as a problem that can be solved. But a simple look at the Vision Pro gives pause. The human field of vision is adaptable but finite, with bounds of comfort defined by your big-screen TV at one end and your smartphone at the other. Of course, we can and do push those bounds for the benefit of the high that comes from limited exposure to unsustainable extremes. IMAX can be breathtaking, but, as some recent social media pics of "Dune Part 2" in the third row make plain, at the margins, the image is too distorted to be useful or genuinely entertaining. Likewise, a smartwatch can offer some fun features for the person who doesn’t want to have to keep checking their phone, but you don’t want to watch "Dune Part 2" that way, either. That’s why the Sphere in Las Vegas, although improving on IMAX in terms of reducing distortion, worsens the experience by distorting us, the audience, shrinking us down into specks within what from the outside is often seen as a monstrosity-sized eyeball. The Vision Pro causes an inverse but similar effect: Instead of being trapped inside the all-encompassing screen of a vast eyeball, a small screen is brought so close to our eyeballs that it seems to be inside them. I can hear legions of neuro-tech nerds salivating over the prospect of finally getting the screen across that flimsy barrier and straight into our optic nerves. Yes — I’m sure there’s a way to achieve these machine dreams and even a way to do it without killing people or turning their brains to lentil soup. But what purpose is so important as to justify all the trouble we’ll have to go to in order to do so? The classic answer for runaway technological development is that it’s needed to defend ourselves militarily, or might be one day, probably soon, and after all, the best defense is a good offense, right? Even now, however, we’re starting to see that logic leap as a barrier of its own — rather than saving us from some foreign enemy, full-blown technologization is being pushed on us as the only viable form of government going forward. From the pharaohs to the Trump administration, we are told, all human forms of rule have been tried, and all have been found wanting. We need justice we can’t achieve, and the only place we can turn for it is the machines — programmed correctly, of course ...It’s a logic that reveals the primary use case for so many of our most cutting-edge technologies to be compulsory, not liberating. How far we’ve come from fifty years ago, when John Lennon commanded us to “imagine all the people” — today, Apple’s iPad demands that we “imagine all the things” the device might create. Our journey from subject to object is nearly complete!Yet, somehow, no matter how many people our dehumanization projects maim, torture, or kill, we human beings keep on ticking. Beyond war, beyond rule, the most profound reason to keep stretching the human form to fit the tech, rather than the other way around, is because if we don’t do that we might question everything about the value of progress. When that happens, the collapse will surely be nigh. Like it is right now? Hey, wait a minute. Much like “art for art’s sake,” tech for tech’s sake is a recipe for disaster. However prone to extremes we are, choosing just one extreme in the hopes of channeling all that self-destructive energy into a godlike creation project brings us back to a very ancient form of ruin, one we are always tempted, in ways large and small, to bring repeatedly on ourselves. Quite a lot for a humble technology company like Apple to wrestle with. But the titanic burden shouldn’t be much of a shock if your mission is really to Think Different about stealing a bite from the Garden of Eden. Just ask Steve Jobs.

Iconic comedian Katt Williams appeared in a series of official videos for the PGA Tour, serving up both jokes and life lessons.Williams has made an immeasurable cultural impact in 2024, mostly due to an interview with former NFL player Shannon Sharpe where the comedian shocked audiences with his claims about different celebrities and fellow stand-up comics.The interview has nearly 70 million views on YouTube alone, with Sharpe revealing that he made more money off the video than the entirety of his NFL career.With a May 2024 Netflix special, Williams has continued to impact the free speech movement through his successes. The "legend of comedy" partnered with the PGA Tour for several videos that likely wouldn't have been acceptable in the mainstream just a year ago.Williams explained at TPC at Sawgrass in Florida how golf teaches life lessons:"All of the things that I like about life in general are on the golf course," Williams told the PGA Tour. "Golf requires you to experience all those beautiful things, but then every shot requires you to block all of that out and just focus on the task at hand," he prophesized."You don't have the opportunity of doing it again. You're going to do it once, and you're going to live with how that works out.""If you can get that on the golf course, you can translate that everywhere. You could have three magnificent shots in a row, that has no bearing on your ability to three-putt, you can't afford to be high or low. You have to stay focused, and that translates all the time," Williams continued."A lot of people won't put it in the water, but you know who will? I will." A legend of comedy takes on the iconic @TPCSawgrass.\n\nKatt Williams explains the game of golf like pure poetry. — (@) "Golf is this thing where ... 18 times they set you up with a challenge and they put obstacles and hazards in the way and you have to try to navigate your way safely and try to do as much as you can. But you learn that if you do more than you can, you can't do that," the comedian added.After his wise remarks, Williams was then seen in subsequent videos making impressive golf shots, and even purposely hitting shots into the water. "A lot of people won't put it in the water, but you know who will? I will," he joked. View this post on Instagram A post shared by PGA TOUR (@pgatour) During his record-breaking interview, Williams made several statements that appeared to be proven true once they made their rounds online.He accused comedian Cedric the Entertainer of directly stealing one of his most-famous comedy routines and also called out lesser-known comedian Rickey Smiley for claiming he was the first choice for a role Williams played in Ice Cube's 2002 movie "Friday After Next." An addition to the more provable claims, Williams also claimed that rapper and entrepreneur Diddy wanted to have sex with him on multiple occasions. Less than three months later, Diddy's properties were raided during investigations from a federal sex trafficking probe.Williams also made claims about comedian and actor Kevin Hart being an industry "plant" and said Hart was the backup plan for movies that he declined."For a five-year period, every single movie that Kevin Hart did was a movie that had been on my desk," he said. Hart replied to the remarks the next day, indirectly telling Williams, "Gotta get that anger up outcha champ. ... It’s honestly sad."Williams also described an offer that he and rapper/actor Ludacris allegedly received from the "illuminati" to get $200 million to do 20 movies, implying Ludacris accepted the offer to do the "Fast and the Furious" movies."It was so laughable — what he said — to me, I couldn’t believe what he was saying," Ludacris told radio hosts from "The Breakfast Club." "I took it as laughable because he’s a comedian, and that’s why I kind of responded with some laughable stuff." View this post on Instagram A post shared by DJ Akademiks (@akademiks) Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Our borders are broken, and our leaders are fine with that. At least until January 20, 2025. Under President Biden’s watch, 8.3 million illegal immigrants have crossed our southern border and now live — somewhere — in the interior of the United States. About a fifth of these “migrants” bear no documentation and were never vetted by any authority. The companies behind this tech are a who’s-who of the military-industrial complex. The more “secure” the government makes us, the higher the market value of Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Palantir, et al., grows. Still, many in Washington pay lip service to border security, if only to secure re-election. Massive amounts are spent each year to strengthen our frontiers with methods old and new. These efforts are popular across party, race, and ideological lines. The only thing missing is the will, both from politicians and the business leaders who fund them. If Biden is tossed out in November, border enforcement will again become a possibility. While Trump was first elected shouting “build the wall,” a physical barrier can only mitigate, not eliminate, the influx. Walls can be climbed over, tunneled under, and avoided by air, sea, and ports of entry. By 2016, voters no longer trusted vague promises of virtual fences and demanded something more concrete. Wall or no, the growing complexity of security threats — terrorism, drug trafficking, cartel violence, hostile foreign infiltration — mean more advanced solutions are needed. Authorities must now monitor, detect, and eliminate broader threats well before crossing the border. Border tech That’s where technology comes in, much of which is already deployed. There has been an explosion in surveillance technology, including drones, sensors, and facial recognition systems. This enables authorities to remotely monitor vast stretches of border areas, detect unauthorized crossings, and identify potential threats with greater accuracy and speed. Companies such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Elbit Systems have been at the forefront of developing and supplying these technologies to the Department of Homeland Security. Furthermore, integrating artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms has enhanced the capabilities of border security systems. These technologies can analyze vast amounts of data in real time, allowing authorities to identify patterns, predict potential threats, and allocate resources more effectively. For instance, predictive analytics software developed by companies like Palantir Technologies helps the DHS anticipate smuggling routes and deploy personnel accordingly. Additionally, biometric authentication technologies, such as fingerprint and iris scanners, have become integral to border control processes. These systems enable authorities to verify the identity of travelers more securely and efficiently, reducing the risk of document fraud and identity theft. Implementing biometric exit procedures at airports and seaports has improved the tracking of individuals leaving the country, enhancing overall border security. These advances should be applauded when used to protect our borders. But will they be used or simply ignored for business and political advantage? And what other uses will our federal government find for them? A system used in El Paso can easily be duplicated in San Antonio, Dallas … or Cincinnati — for our protection, of course. As these new technologies dominate, concerns regarding their potential misuse and impact on civil liberties arise, particularly the risk of a surveillance state. In a choice between security and privacy, there are no solutions, only trade-offs. U.S. citizens are already subject to much of this tech when returning from abroad by air and sea. Those living near the border often pass through the checkpoints for work, leisure, or a lost weekend in Tijuana. Big brother borders The companies behind this tech are a who’s-who of the military-industrial complex. The more “secure” the government makes us, the higher the market value of Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Palantir, et al., grows. Neither Wall Street nor Washington has sufficient incentive to demand privacy for the proles. Facial recognition technology, particularly, has an incalculable potential for mass surveillance and privacy violations. Add in the collection and storage of biometric data, such as fingerprints and iris scans, that risk misuse not only by the government but by proxies via data breaches. Soon, the use of AI and predictive analytics will play a major factor in border security, raising obvious questions about algorithmic bias and ideological discrimination. Citizens may argue these concerns with their congressmen; the intelligence community can ignore that input as is all too common. Advancements in border security technology have improved the ability of authorities to detect and respond to various threats effectively. Biden has simply chosen to ignore their potential. One hopes a President Trump will use them as designed and somehow get the hostile administrative state to follow his direction. As these technologies become more pervasive, however, it is essential to strike a balance between ensuring national security and safeguarding individual rights. Government agencies must implement robust oversight mechanisms, transparency measures, and privacy safeguards to prevent the misuse of border security technologies and protect the civil liberties of all Americans.

Target says its Pride line has been ‘curated based on consumer feedback’ and will be available in select stores ‘based on historical sales performance.’

Didn't Think Biden's Lies Could Get Worse Than His DOOZY About Leaving People Behind BUT This One Is BAD

NY Post Editorial Board's List of Lies Biden Told in CNN Interview Is a Doozy