'This gives me like, Kavanaugh yearbook vibes'

*THIS* IS THE BIG TRUMP-EPSTEIN SCOOP? ... WSJ ALLEGES TRUMP SENT EPSTEIN A NAUGHTY SKETCH IN 2003... AND THE NOTE DEFINITELY DOESN'T SOUND LIKE TRUMP... WSJ: Jeffrey Epstein’s Friends Sent Him Bawdy Letters for a 50th Birthday Album. One Was From Donald Trump.

'should not wait until the labor market deteriorates'

'People just don’t watch it like they did'

What happened when a wildcat and a small mammal met in the park? Dinner! This joke isn’t only terrible, it’s actually wrong. Scientists camera trapping in the Amazon revealed an extraordinary behavioral trend between a wildcat species called the ocelot and an opossum. Multiple video clips showed the two animals walking about “like old friends” […] The post Ocelot and Opossum Identified as Unlikely Friends After Footage Shows Them Strolling About Together appeared first on Good News Network.

In 1966, the Beatles perched in the boughs of a giant ceder for the music video of their song, “Rain.” Now, the tree has another claim to fame—a finalist in the UK’s Tree of the Year Contest. Rightly nominated under this year’s theme of being “Rooted in Culture,” the Beatles’ Lebanese Ceder in Chiswick House […] The post Ceder Tree Climbed by The Beatles and Stunning Violet Beech Highlighted for Euro Tree Awards appeared first on Good News Network.

Books space Checking in on Our Old Friend, Barnard’s Star In case you’ve been waiting for an update for the last seven years… By James Davis Nicoll | Published on July 18, 2025 Credit: NASA/ESA and G. Bacon Comment 0 Share New Share Credit: NASA/ESA and G. Bacon In the seven years since I last mentioned Barnard’s Star on Reactor (back when it was Tor.com), Barnard’s Star has traversed an astonishing 70 arcseconds across the sky. On a less positive note, the proposed planet on which that article focused turns out to have been spurious1. Bah and also humbug. Science takes, but it sometimes also gives. In this case, the current data support a model in which Barnard’s Star has at least four planets. I shamelessly screenshot the relevant table from Wikipedia: Credit: Wikipedia Yes, it would make sense if b was the exoplanet closest to Barnard’s Star and e the outermost. Exoplanets are lettered in the order they are found. In this case, b was noticed first, then c was spotted farther from Barnard than b, then d turned up closer to Barnard than either b or c, and finally e is currently the outmost world. The new-found worlds range from a fifth of Earth’s mass to a third (which would be two to three times Mars’ mass). Unfortunately, all of them orbit Barnard’s Star within the inner edge of the habitable zone. Currently the data does not rule out a world within the habitable zone2. It also doesn’t support it. All hope is not lost for skiffy authors wanting to set stories on Barnard’s b, c, d, or e. The estimated temperatures for the planets may range from about 70o C to over 200o C3. However, Barnard’s Star is very dim. Any orbit within the habitable zone is therefore very close to Barnard’s Star. All four worlds are almost certainly tide-locked with one face towards the star and one face away. Bad news for the day sides, but the night sides might be considerably cooler. As footnote one points out, Barnard’s Star has fascinated humans since Edward Emerson Barnard measured its parameters back in 1916. It is, after all, the second closest star system and the closest singleton system to Earth. No surprise that it appears in science fiction stories again and again. However, the work that established Barnard’s Star in my imagination was a non-fiction work. Or perhaps “speculative non-fiction” is closer to the mark. Whereas the American Rocket Society judiciously attempted to present a sober, sensible face to the American public4, the British Interplanetary Society flew its freak flag enthusiastically. The BIS sketched out plans for trips to the Moon and the planets in our solar system. It was inevitable that they would turn their gaze to the stars. In 1978, the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society presented Project Daedalus: The Final Report on the BIS Starship Study. Edited by Anthony Martin, it outlined a wonderfully ambitious design for a space probe capable of traversing the distance between Sol and Barnard’s Star in an eyeblink, a mere half century5! Of course, the BIS was well aware that no technology on hand in 1978 was equal to the task. Therefore, they did their best to imagine what might one day be sufficient. The end result: Not merely speculations about the advanced technology necessary to permit a 46,000 ton+ vehicle to deliver a 450-ton payload to Barnard’s Star6, …but also hints about the industrialized solar system necessary to support such a project. This would be a civilization so much more capable than ours that our entire industrial output would be lost in the error bars of their accounting systems. It was very heady stuff back in the Disco Era. No doubt it would be heady stuff today. Alas, fifty-year-old back issues of Journal of the British Interplanetary Society can be hard to come by, and the summary to which I would otherwise point readers, Project Daedalus: Demonstrating the Engineering Feasibility of Interstellar Travel, appears to be out of print.[end-mark] Spurious reports of planets orbiting Barnard’s Star are nothing new, as the late astronomer Peter van de Kamp could attest. This is because planets can be hard to spot, humans are adept at seeing patterns in noise, and because Barnard’s Star, being the second closest star system to ours, is subject to intensive scrutiny. ︎Or rather, astronomers are sure there’s nothing in excess of 0.7 Earth-masses towards the inner edge of the habitable zone, and nothing in excess of 1.2 Earth-masses towards the outer edge. However, that leaves room for smaller worlds. ︎For metric-averse readers, somewhere between a very hot giraffe to an extremely hot giraffe. Presumably these are lower limits, as greenhouse gases would increase the equilibrium temperatures. Although I suppose very high albedos (from salt deposits, say, or chrome plating) might produce cooler worlds. ︎Which didn’t stop American rocket fans from engaging in zany hijinks. Had one of William F. Sykora’s exuberant rocket tests detonated at launch rather than up in the air, the casualties would have included Donald A. Wollheim, and SF would look very different. ︎Or as seventeen-year-old me put it, almost three times as long as I’d been alive. ︎Daedalus would have used Helium-3 as fuel. The proposed source was Jupiter. It was not, regardless of claims inserted into certain Wikipedia articles, the Moon. The idea of mining lunar regolith for Helium-3 didn’t come along for over a decade after BIS pitched Daedalus. In any case, mining regolith for Helium-3 is such a ludicrous idea it has only one application: identifying gullible dupes who might very well appreciate affordably-priced Bre-X stock. ︎The post Checking in on Our Old Friend, Barnard’s Star appeared first on Reactor.

“Uh oh—have you guys completed your income tax? Things kind of happened real fast down there, and I need an extension.”—Apollo 13 astronaut Jack Swigert Even in space, Americans worry about taxes. That’s not a screenwriter’s joke. Hours before Apollo 13 almost ended in disaster, astronaut Jack Swigert, called in as a last-minute replacement, wasn’t worried about launch. He was worried about filing his taxes. Only in America could bureaucracy follow you into orbit. That story says everything about our national identity. We cherish the rule of law. We believe in due process. But in the race to lead in artificial intelligence, it’s becoming clear: The very systems we treasure may be the ones slowing us down. The 2 Biggest Threats to US Artificial Intelligence Leadership Right now, America is out front in both generative AI (which predicts content) and agentic AI (which makes autonomous decisions). But two very American forces are putting that lead at risk: (1) A regulatory Rubik’s Cube.Congress recently passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to jumpstart AI innovation. But it stripped out a crucial provision: a 10-year moratorium on conflicting state-level AI laws. Now, companies face 50 different interpretations of what AI is allowed to do. Some states require bias audits. Others impose disclosure mandates. A tool that’s legal in Florida could get fined in California. Even top-tier compliance lawyers can’t map it all out fast enough. Because AI models cross state lines the moment they’re deployed, this isn’t just inefficient, it’s paralyzing. (2) A litigation gold rush.Trial lawyers have found their next deep-pocketed target: AI. I say this as someone who used to be one of them and now defends companies against the legal risks of AI deployment. Lawsuits are already moving. The most prominent? A federal case against UnitedHealthcare, accusing the company of using AI to deny long-term care without sufficient human oversight. And that’s only the beginning. The playbook is already forming. Here are the claims AI developers are now defending against: Product liability for algorithmic defects. Failure to warn about tool misuse. Discrimination based on automated decisions. Negligence for not keeping a “human in the loop.” In America, you don’t have to prove intent. Just tie the harm to an AI tool and let a jury decide. Today, every AI developer is one bad headline away from a class action lawsuit. Let’s be clear: Our legal system is the envy of the world. But when lawsuits are filed before laws are even written, we aren’t protecting consumers, we’re punishing innovators for playing on a field without any lines drawn. China Doesn’t Have to Worry About This Let me be crystal clear: We do not want China’s system. We don’t want central planning. We don’t want censorship. And we don’t want a government-controlled tech industry. But it would be naive to pretend China faces the same friction. Yes, they have courts. But they don’t have: Billboards from class action lawyers. Contingency-fee lawsuits built around algorithmic outcomes. Juries “sending a message” to tech companies with punitive damages. Their developers don’t plan around litigation. Ours have to. While companies like Nvidia plead to sell advanced chips to China after the H20 export ban was lifted, Beijing isn’t waiting around. It’s racing ahead, deploying AI in defense, logistics, and manufacturing without lawsuits, regulators, or legal second-guessing. We don’t envy China. But we must acknowledge that its AI teams aren’t operating with a target on their back. We’ve Fixed Problems Like This Before We’ve been here before. In 1996, Congress passed Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, shielding internet platforms from liability for user-generated content. That one provision allowed Amazon, YouTube, and countless others to thrive. We need an AI-specific shield now, a legal safe harbor that ensures developers aren’t liable for what users do with their tools, unless there’s fraud or criminal intent. Without it, legal departments will keep killing products before they launch. Congress must also revisit a national moratorium on conflicting state AI laws. National consistency doesn’t mean more bureaucracy. It means sane, scalable innovation. The American Way Forward This is our Apollo 13 moment. We have the best technology. We have the best talent. We have an entrepreneurial fire. But we’re losing altitude because the systems designed to protect us are choking progress. Let’s not become the bureaucracy we escaped to get to the moon. Let’s be the country that answered Apollo 13’s “Houston, we have a problem” and brought our tax-conscious astronauts safely back home. Let’s fix this the American way with clear rules, real urgency, and freedom that actually works. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Why American AI Could Die in Court Before It Ever Takes Off appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In the first episode after CBS announced it would be canceling The Late Show, Stephen Colbert welcomed Sen. Adam Schiff to the program to make the nonsensical claim that Congress passing President Trump’s rescission package, which included cuts to PBS and NPR, showed how Congress is ceding its spending powers to the executive. Additionally, both men would have positive things to say about the rise of the socialist wing of the Democratic Party. Colbert wondered, “So, last night the Senate passed something called a rescission bill. I've never heard of a rescission bill. It sounds like a court-ordered appendectomy. Can you explain what is a rescission bill? What does this do to Congress?"     After decrying the Big Beautiful Bill, Schiff claimed, “This rescission bill is a little ugly bill. It’s like a mini reconciliation bill. It, like the reconciliation bill, only requires 50 votes and the VP and they can cut further. So in this bill that we voted on until about 3:00 in the morning last night, they cut funding for AIDS and tuberculosis and malaria and public broadcasting, and NPR." Colbert asked, “Would Congress take back what they had already passed? Why are they doing this? Especially things like that?" The correct answer would’ve been that when Congress passes massive spending bills, not everyone who votes for it agrees with every last detail, so rescission allowed them to extract specific provisions they think shouldn’t have been included. Instead, Schiff reduced it to, “Donald Trump has made the Republicans afraid.” Colbert then declared, “But people get into office, I mean, I don't know your motivations, I’m sure they’re very pure, but some people just like the allure of power, and it seems like Congress is giving its power away to Donald Trump, that they’re reducing their coequal status." Schiff agreed, “Congress is absolutely giving its power away, and in this case, really the most important power we have, which is the power of the person. At the end of the day, what power does Congress have to stop a rogue executive but to defund them?” The opposite is true. The rescission package is an acknowledgement by the executive that they could not cut this spending without Congress’s approval. Earlier in the interview, Colbert summarized the socialist argument as simply wanting people to be able to eat, “They’re saying that there's already a message the Democrats have, and it’s the FDR message, it’s the LBJ message, it’s caring for the farmers, caring for people who are marginalized, it’s caring—it’s making sure people can eat and people can get good jobs. Where did that message go?"     Schiff played along, “Well, I think that's absolutely right. I think our democracy is in trouble in significant part because the economy is not working for millions of Americans, and it's not that Americans aren't working. they are working harder than ever. The problem is they are working, and they still struggle to get by, more than their parents struggle to get by, and I think when that's the case, all too many people are open to any despot who comes along promising they alone can fix it." After the show, Schiff tweeted, “Just finished taping with Stephen Colbert who announced his show was cancelled. If Paramount and CBS ended the Late Show for political reasons, the public deserves to know. And deserves better.” Many people on the left think Paramount settling with President Trump in his 60 Minutes lawsuit represents the company trying to get on Trump’s good side so his administration approves their merger with Skydance. As part of this theory, the anti-Trump Colbert had to go to further appease Trump. However, there is no evidence for this. All of the recent turmoil in the late night industry has been at Paramount-owned properties. The Daily Show has not had a permanent host since 2022, which has allowed it to save money. When James Corden quit and CBS cancelled The Late Late Show, it replaced it with the cheaper After Midnight. When host Taylor Tomlinson quit this year, CBS decided to cancel the show altogether and not replace it with any original programming. Likewise, CBS isn’t firing Colbert. It’s simply refusing to renew his contract, and as Colbert himself admitted in his cold open, the whole show is going away, not just him. Here is a transcript for the July 17-taped show: CBS The Late Show 7/18/2025 12:05 AM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: They’re saying that there's already a message the Democrats have, and it’s the FDR message, it’s the LBJ message, it’s caring for the farmers, caring for people who are marginalized, it’s caring—it’s making sure people can eat and people can get good jobs. Where did that message go? ADAM SCHIFF: Well, I think that's absolutely right. I think our democracy is in trouble in significant part because the economy is not working for millions of Americans and it's not that Americans aren't working. They are working harder than ever. The problem is they are working, and they still struggle to get by, more than their parents struggle to get by, and I think when that's the case, all too many people are open to any despot who comes along promising they alone can fix it. … COLBERT: So, last night the Senate passed something called a rescission bill. I've never heard of a rescission bill. It sounds like a court-ordered appendectomy. Can you explain what is a rescission bill? What does this do to Congress? SCHIFF: Yeah, well, first there's the Big Ugly Bill which was another term that probably many people hadn't heard of called reconciliation where they massively cut health care, and they cut food for hungry kids, to fund a tax cut for rich people, but not content with that and the harms that's going to cause, they decided they want a lot of little ugly bills. And this rescission bill is a little ugly bill. It’s like a mini reconciliation bill. It, like the reconciliation bill, only requires 50 votes and the VP and they can cut further. So in this bill that we voted on until about 3:00 in the morning last night, they cut funding for AIDS and tuberculosis and malaria and public broadcasting, and NPR. COLBERT: And was this money that had already been allocated? SCHIFF: It’s money that had already been allocated. COLBERT: How—why would Congress take back what they had already passed? Why are they doing this? Especially things like that? SCHIFF: Because Donald Trump has made the Republicans afraid. COLBERT: But people get into office, I mean, I don't know your motivations, I’m sure they’re very pure, but some people just like the allure of power, and it seems like Congress is giving its power away to Donald Trump, that they’re reducing their coequal status. SCHIFF: Congress is absolutely giving its power away and in this case, really the most important power we have, which is the power of the person. At the end of the day, what power does Congress have to stop a rogue executive but to defund them?