I presume the goal was to put the remains in low earth orbit, where they would eventually have reentered anyway—right?

Who would even follow Elon Musk?

Candidates looking for funding.

I can’t see a significant percentage of Trump’s MAGA supporters abandoning him in favor of Musk. But I can see Musk being a divisive figure among the non-MAGA Republicans, with some refusing to work with him while others are happy to take his money.

The most likely outcome is nothing.

The second most likely outcome is a fracturing of Trump’s opposition, further weakening their ability to impede him.

If they weren’t such fragile idiots I’d suspect it was a ploy to create a controlled opposition.

You could restrict it to cases where the victim and defendant belong to significantly different demographics, then.

You could expand that to a general principle for all criminal cases: select one judge that matches the demographics of the defendant as closely as possible, one that matches the victim, and one that differs to an equal degree from both.

He was originally jailed for life but at an appeal doctors told the court the rapes arose of sexual frustration arising out of his marriage to an “ambitious and demanding” wife. The sentence was reduced and he spent only about two years in jail.

Why are rapists seemingly the only category of offender judges always manage to find sympathy for?

They do say the rate of change was greater than the pre-COVID trend, but I don’t know if that means the level is now below where it would be if the pre-COVID trend had continued without interruption.

It’s interesting that the same stimulus (COVID) could cause crime to spike in the short term, then decline to below the original level.

I wonder if that could be a general pattern with societal trauma or social change in general—there’s an initial period of disruption, then a re-adaptation that creates an opportunity to resolve long-standing issues with the previous status quo.

It always seemed to me that the obvious conclusion to draw from the idea that some teens are under so much social pressure to align their mental and biological genders that they see suicide as the only alternative is that that aspect of society is in urgent need of fixing, not the bodies of the teens in question.

These days elders are printing screenshots of emails (and wondering why they’re cut off).

The “editor’s note” indicates that it’s not part of the original article—it would be misleading to insert it in the middle of the article if it wasn’t written by the attributed author.

It’s at the very end of the (desktop) article, immediately following the paragraph

“The path to unification might require fundamentally reconsidering the nature of physical reality itself,” he said. “This theory demonstrates how viewing time as three-dimensional can naturally resolve multiple physics puzzles through a single coherent mathematical framework.”

To its credit, the article does include a pretty thorough disclaimer:

Editor’s note (6/24/2025): While Kletetschka’s theory of three-dimensional time presents an intriguing new framework, its results have not yet been accepted by the broader scientific community. The theory is still in the early stages of scrutiny and has not been published in leading physics journals or independently verified through experiments or peer-reviewed replication. Publishing in Reports in Advances of Physical Sciences (World Scientific Publishing), while a legitimate step, is not sufficient for a theory making such bold claims. This journal is relatively low-impact and niche, and its peer review does not match the rigorous scrutiny applied by top-tier journals like Physical Review Letters or Nature Physics. For a paradigm-shifting idea to gain acceptance, it must withstand critical evaluation by the wider physics community, be published in highly regarded journals, and provide reproducible predictions that align with existing evidence—standards this work has not yet met.

The Time Cube guy was right all along!

My kingdom for the lord of all horses!

Since 1995, I’ve always associated Ian McKellan with his iconic portrayal of Richard III.

Which colored my impression of Lord of the Rings a bit.

AI models aren’t willing to do anything—they’re just generating hypothetical behaviors based on the predictions they’ve learned to make about the behavior of others.

It’s like asking a child to describe the behavior of their imaginary friend.

Part of the ideology of the major AI companies is that AI is actually profoundly dangerous, and only the companies who recognize the danger should be allowed to develop it.

The dam company is going to be verifying who they’re paying.

Are they, though?

Or are they just going to sign off and pass the bill on to the government?