'This is asinine'

Our 10 Best Cover Versions Of “The Long And Winding Road” looks at some fabulous performances of one of the last great Beatles songs ever released.  The song stands as the last song on the last released Beatles album (not counting the “Get Back” reprise). The song’s lyrics seemed so fitting to be placed in that position. The song is one of the most beautiful Beatles songs ever written and recorded. It is one of a handful of Beatles songs that would be accepted in the jazz canyon of standards. I first got the idea to write this article when The post 10 Best Cover Versions Of The Long And Winding Road appeared first on ClassicRockHistory.com.

CRISPR is at it again: this time providing a single-dose option to cure a debilitating genetic disorder called hereditary angioedema. Patients who took part in the first human trial have reported dramatic improvements in their health and quality of life‚ easing or completely removing the painful and potentially fatal swelling that arises from the condition. […] The post Single-Dose of Gene Therapy Hailed as ‘Magic Wand’ for Patients with Deadly Condition‚ Transforming Lives appeared first on Good News Network.

News in remembrance Christopher Priest‚ 1943—2024 By Molly Templeton | Published on February 5‚ 2024 icon-comment 0 Share New Share Twitter Facebook Pinterest RSS Feed It’s possible that you might only know Christopher Priest as the author of The Prestige‚ which Christopher Nolan adapted into a very appealing movie in 2006. It is the reason so many Priest obits are headed with images that include David Bowie playing Nikola Tesla. But there was much more to the British author than that. Born in Cheshire‚ England‚ in 1943‚ Priest became a full-time writer in 1968‚ and was the author of more than 20 novels and dozens of short stories. He was also a journalist‚ writing regularly in the British press; as his bio notes‚ he was a “regular obituarist for the Guardian.” The Guardian‚ now‚ has a lovely obituary of Priest himself. As David Clute writes: His large body of work never fitted easily into any mould. Only in recent years has it become widely understood that the sometimes baffling ingenuity and thrust of his fiction has been of a piece‚ no more detachable into convenient genres than‚ say‚ Amis’s or Ishiguro’s tales of the fantastic. Clute also notes that in 1983‚ Priest was one of the authors featured in Granta‘s Best of Young British Novelists‚ along with the likes of Martin Amis‚ Ian McEwan‚ Salman Rushdie‚ and William Boyd. But he had been working much longer than his peers on this list. “He clearly felt‚” Clute writes‚ “that it was not so much the quality of his work that delayed his ‘promotion’ to the literary establishment‚ but his reluctance to deny‚ when asked‚ that he wrote science fiction.” Priest’s work was heavily influenced by the work of JG Ballard‚ who was a mentor to the younger writer. Priest was also a member of the H.G. Wells Society‚ and wrote an homage to Wells in 1976’s The Space Machine: A Scientific Romance. You might not always find his work in the science fiction and fantasy section of the bookshop‚ but the fantastical was there: people turn invisible; Britain itself changes; some stories take place in the Dream Archipelago. The Prestige was not Priest’s only encounter with the world of film. His most recent book‚ Airside‚ was published in the UK last year. It follows the story of an actress who disappears‚ and the film student who‚ years later‚ investigates her disappearance. Priest wrote the tie-in novel for David Cronenberg’s eXistenZ‚ and was brought on (by then-script editor Douglas Adams‚ no less) to write an episode of Doctor Who that was never produced. (You can read more about that experience in Priest’s interview with David Langford.) He also wrote a book‚ The Magic: The Story of a Film‚ about the experience of the adaptation of The Prestige—though he was not at all involved in the creation of the film. In an interview on Priest’s website‚ Don Iffergrin asks the author a simple question—Can he do magic?—but Priest’s answer says a lot about his own work: No‚ I’m just a novelist. I don’t even know how most tricks are done — it’s all in the performance‚ because magical secrets are never that complex. At the risk of sounding pretentious‚ my main interest in stage magic is its metaphorical nature in relation to art. For instance‚ I’ve always been interested in misdirecting my readers in my novels‚ and magicians use techniques of misdirection that are similar. This isn’t sleight of hand: real misdirection is when the performer allows or encourages his audience to make assumptions about what they are seeing … or in my case‚ assumptions about what they are reading. Over the years‚ Priest received the World Fantasy Award (The Prestige)‚ the Arthur C. Clarke Award (The Separation)‚ the James Tait Black Memorial Prize (The Prestige)‚ four British Science Fiction Association awards‚ and France’s Prix Utopia for lifetime achievement‚ among others. He never won a Hugo‚ though he was a finalist four times. Priest is survived by his wife‚ Nina Allan‚ and two children. [end-mark] The post Christopher Priest‚ 1943—2024 appeared first on Reactor.

Big Tech is back at the Supreme Court. Appealing from a big loss they suffered at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals‚ social media platforms are challenging Texas’ social media law that prohibits those companies from engaging in viewpoint discrimination when curating their platforms. They claim Texas’ law violates their First Amendment rights for compelling them to host content. In other words‚ the platforms are saying that prohibiting a platform’s viewpoint censorship is effectively the same as forcing students in public schools to salute the American flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. It’s an odd argument for myriad reasons‚ but mainly because Big Tech has continually said that they serve as neutral platforms that merely transmit information from one point to another‚ like an internet service provider or a telephone. They don’t claim to be publishers‚ like a newspaper or broadcaster. For example‚ Mark Zuckerberg told The New York Times that Facebook “explicitly view[s] [itself] as not editors … .”  Nor “does [Facebook] want to have editorial judgment over the content that’s in your feed.” Zuckerberg’s view is consistent with Big Tech’s court representations when seeking legal immunities under Section 230 of the Communications Act. Meta‚ the parent company of Facebook and Instagram; X‚ the former Twitter; and Google have all stated that they are neither responsible for‚ nor materially contribute to‚ their users’ content to avoid liability for hosting it. In other words‚ they are conduits of others’ speech‚ not speakers themselves. It’s why their First Amendment argument is patently confusing: You have to be speaking to avail yourself of its protection. It’s also why the First Amendment has long allowed the government to apply nondiscrimination laws‚ as Texas did‚ on communications platforms that merely transmit the speech of others. For instance‚ telephone companies are prohibited from discriminating against callers.  The courts have upheld nondiscrimination provisions imposed on internet service providers.  And the Supreme Court has held that even a property owner must allow expressive activities on his property. However‚ platforms say‚ on the one hand‚ they have every right to act as publishers to curate their platforms any way they see fit. On the other hand‚ they say they are not publishers to gain legal immunity under Section 230. Not only are these two positions contradictory‚ but they are also inconsistent with the First Amendment’s history and its jurisprudence. The relevant part of the First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech … .” James Madison‚ when drafting the Free Speech Clause‚ intended it as a bulwark against government influence over what we can say or do. It doesn’t provide for tech exceptionalism. Indeed‚ the opposite is true. Yes‚ the First Amendment does derive‚ in part‚ from Madison’s—and the nation’s—distrust over the concentrated power the government wields. But Madison also knew that private operators‚ too‚ could be a source of concentrated authority‚ and‚ if left unchecked‚ could amass more power than the government itself. Today’s tech behemoths have proven Madison’s skepticism warranted. The power of social media platforms have over speech eclipses that of any sitting president or government. As Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas succinctly put it‚ social media companies can “remove [an] account ‘at any time for any or no reason.’” In this case‚ Twitter‚ now X‚ “unapologetically argues that it could turn around and ban all pro-LGBT speech for no other reason than its employees want to pick on members of that community … .” And recent history shows that the tech titans aren’t shy at doing just that with impunity. YouTube blocks and demonetizes users who support certain political candidates or content creators that Google does not favor. What was then still Twitter censored The New York Post for accurate reporting ahead of a consequential election. Facebook even removed posts that shared a study published by the British Medical Journal—one of the oldest and most prestigious medical journals in the world—because the platform believed the study was disinformation for calling some of Pfizer’s data on its COVID-19 vaccines’ effectiveness into question. It’s clear from their advocacy in this case that Big Tech companies don’t truly care about free speech. What they really care about is liability. If Texas is now going to hold them accountable for these decisions to censor users‚ then they are going to need another liability shield for that. Big Tech thinks the First Amendment is the vessel to ensure they have complete immunity from any scrutiny. Candidly‚ it’s hard to imagine that Madison drafted the First Amendment as a corporate instrument to cut down an individual’s speech‚ but that’s what they argue. Not to mince words‚ their aim in this case is to contort the application of the First Amendment to create more protections to void every legislative proposal directed at them. It has almost nothing to do with free speech. The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Why Big Tech Needs First Amendment to Censor You appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties‚ subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Legacy media have a new target designated for tighter censorship – those they call “wellness influencers.” The usual starting point of discrediting an individual or generalizing a group of people unpalatable to the ruling narratives is there right away – the pandemic‚ and associated “misinformation.” But now there’s another accusation – that “wellness influencers” stand in the way of “proper and approved” information being the only that gets through on the subject of “climate change‚” and within the realm of “climate science.” Otherwise‚ not only media outlets that are little more than government policy mouthpieces but also aligned groups like the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) will brand them as peddlers of “climate conspiracies.” The “solution” is also a tried-and-tested‚ textbook one: get Big Tech under pressure to censor those designated by CCDH and their ilk‚ even more. CCDH is a non-profit that says its purpose is to stop the spread of “online hate speech and disinformation‚” and in the process it also meddles in what information Americans are allowed to express or learn about. The group features in a piece published by CNN. Other than making such ground-breaking revelations (not) like stating that influencers “crave attention‚” CCDH researcher Callum Hood says that because climate change is in the news all the time (for some reason…) – the subject naturally attracts attention-seekers‚ to monetize that attention. Who knows‚ perhaps CCDH itself falls in this category‚ in its own way. After all‚ CCDH is also wherever there’s lots of attention‚ such as Covid vaccines‚ and Hood appears to have no problem whatsoever linking the issue of vaccines and that of climate change‚ in terms of there being “a short ideological leap” between them. (Hood is not technically wrong‚ but it’s not the ideology of pushing Covid vaccines on people or forcing them to accept climate change-affirming theories that he has in mind.) “If the establishment is wrong about health‚ the thinking goes‚ then they’re also lying to you about climate change‚” Hood told CNN‚ trying to explain the “conspiracy influencers” – but maybe explaining the actual state of affairs‚ others might say. “Pre-bunking” is offered as one solution by “misinformation expert” Tim Caulfield. One of Hood’s ideas is for (Big Tech) to introduce “measures‚ including bans on amplifying and monetizing content that clearly contradicts climate science.” The post The Pro-Censorship Activist Group Pressuring Big Tech To Censor “Climate Conspiracies” appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties‚ subscribe to Reclaim The Net. More reports are emerging about the various forms in which the Big Tech/government collusion is taking place in the US. It’s not just directly pressuring‚ or “communicating with” – as current White House officials like to put it‚ social sites; reports are now emerging about companies getting hired to make massive databases of supposedly unlawful speech that are compiled thanks to users effectively spying and reporting on each other on messaging platforms like WhatsApp. Former State Department official‚ now executive director of Foundation For Freedom Online‚ Mike Benz‚ calls this “a snitch network of citizen informants.” Information thus obtained is then analyzed using some form of AI‚ resulting in identification of “misinformation trends.” One of these companies is Algorithmic Transparency Institute. The money comes from firms that receive government funds and congressionally chartered organizations. The need to resort to “old school” citizen-informant methods arises from the nature of the platforms the government would like to spy on‚ and get content flagged and eventually censored. It’s the likes of WhatsApp and Telegram‚ where‚ due to the nature of (particularly encrypted) private messaging‚ the now established forms of “monitoring” places like Facebook or YouTube cannot be used. Critics of this euphemistically (and confusingly) dubbed “civic listening” draw parallels with how authoritarian regimes famously employ(ed) people spying on each other even before the digital age‚ while some continue to do so. Now‚ the spying “format” once used by the likes of Stalin‚ the Nazis‚ etc.‚ has reached America. The principle is simple: where the hand (and the ears) of the government can’t reach‚ private chat apps’ users themselves are encouraged to report on what’s being said. That flagged “misinformation” data goes into what are by now likely the standard cogs of the censorship machine: creation of databases‚ “AI” analyses‚ etc. Foundation For Freedom Online singles out US-based non-profit Meedan as being “at the forefront of creating this snitch network.” Things go from bad to worse once it is revealed that the group received $5.7 million as a grant from the US authorities (and taxpayers)‚ specifically‚ via the National Science Foundation (NSF). Among the things flagged by some of these “useless (informant) idiots‚” as one might call them‚ are memes‚ and‚ “claims.” Read the full report here. The post Government-Funded Entities Build Network to Flag “Misinformation” In Private Messages appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Gathering Intel.

Terrorist Movsum Samadov (Coming to a Town Near You!)

How to Start a Hanging Vegetable Garden