Is anyone still able to monitor Sam Altman’s progression in Trump‘s ass using conventional technology? Pentagon needs to step in
03.03.2026 06:26
👍 1
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
Is anyone still able to monitor Sam Altman’s progression in Trump‘s ass using conventional technology? Pentagon needs to step in
Pyongyang! Right here at home! This will be even better when they gild the columns
"An extrajudicial execution by security forces. This is where we are: armed agents of the state killing civilians with an apparent belief in their total impunity."
"The administration is urging Americans to reject the evidence of their eyes and ears. Ms. Noem and Mr. Bovino are lying in defiance of obvious truths. They are lying in the manner of authoritarian regimes that require people to accept lies as a demonstration of power."
Utterly inhumane behaviour. "In sworn court filings, a doctor who offered to render aid to Mr. Pretti described how agents initially hesitated and asked him for proof of a medical license."
www.nytimes.com/live/2026/01...
Defenceless under the night
Our world in stupor lies;
Yet, dotted everywhere,
Ironic points of light
Flash out wherever the Just
Exchange their messages:
May I, composed like them
Of Eros and of dust,
Beleaguered by the same
Negation and despair,
Show an affirming flame.
— W.H. Auden, Sept. 1, 1939
Masked government agents are conducting “show me your papers” stops, detaining 5-year-olds to use them as bait, and brutally murdering U.S. citizens.
Call it what it is — fascism.
History will not look fondly on politicians and so-called "leaders" of this country who stood by and enabled this.
“They weaponized decency, the last incorruptible defense we have against absolute misery and evil.”
"We have three years left with a mad king. It does not feel sustainable."
Great work deporting those dangerous criminals. Brave ICE heroes putting themselves in harm's way for our protection
Classic Onion Headline, except it’s in The NY Times
Hmm. The best evidence that dark energy is evolving rather than constant just got a little weaker.
The statistical significance of observational results don’t really have “momentum,” but we’ll have to continue to wait and see about this one.
Congratulations to my wonderful colleague John Clarke! And to Berkeley, and to UC. And to everyone who still believes that foundational research is worth investing in
3 new Physics Nobel Laureates from the University of California! 🥂🤙 (and one less parking space for the rest of us at Berkeley 🙃)
Everything is completely normal. Nothing to see here
“The damage that has been done to our world-leading scientific research infrastructure will take decades to repair, if we are ever able to.”
A public lecture/fireside chat at a pub in Marin, hosted by Wonderfest
(Hint: bad but probably not the worst. Also, we do have a solution.)
On behalf of the hundreds of thousands of children he killed?
Rubio just told 275000 people who did nothing wrong that he plans to destroy everything they worked for their entire life. This is utter madness and depravity
Ask ChatGPT! But here what we need is the "generalized" second law, which involves areas of causal horizons. The GSL is a conjecture. If it was false, then ordinary thermodynamics would become meaningless if black holes exist. And we have considerable evidence by now for the existence of black holes
If you don't take this limit, then the battle is veiled in fog. It's harder to formulate the GSL precisely. But it is also harder to claim that a bounce happened. The reason is that now spacetime geometry fluctuates, and saying a "a bounce happened" requires a well-defined notion of time ordering
You can think of the theorem as saying that the Generalized Second Law implies a singularity and thus is incompatible with bounces and baby universes forming inside a black hole. Both of these conflicting notions are completely well defined only in the limit of infinitely many matter fields
In a universe with many matter fields, the geometry does not fluctuate. Then we know what we mean by the Generalized Second Law of Thermodynamics, and we know what we mean by a Bounce (or cyclic) Cosmology. My recent theorem says you can't have both.
Do singularities exist? I'd always thought they were purely mathematical artifacts, but recent work in mathematical physics work from @bousso.bsky.social and others hint otherwise (for sufficiently broad definitions of "singularities" and "exist").
www.quantamagazine.org/singularitie...
