Neocons in Overdrive to Aid Ukraine Before January

US Deficit Explodes: Blowout October Deficit Means 2nd Worst Start To US Fiscal Year On Record

How To Make Homemade Yeast (With Pictures)

Prepping Food Storage – Top 10 Foods to Stockpile

Kids Need Freedom

The search for life in the universe stands as one of humanity’s most ambitious and transformative endeavors, promising to reveal entirely new worlds and reshape our understanding of existence. Recently, however, scientists have begun rethinking the methods used to uncover extraterrestrial life on other planets. In 2020, the detection of phosphine gas in the atmosphere of Venus sparked excitement among scientists and the public alike. Phosphine is a compound potentially linked to biological activity, and at the time, no known non-biological processes could explain its presence. This led to speculation that life might exist on Venus. However, subsequent studies cast doubt on these findings. Researchers are now questioning whether phosphine is present at all, and if it is, whether its origins are biological or abiotic. This controversy highlights the broader challenges in identifying life on exoplanets. A central issue in astrobiology, often referred to as the “problem of unperceived alternatives,” complicates the search for extraterrestrial life. As Durham University philosopher Peter Vickers explains, this problem arises from the difficulty of ruling out unknown non-biological explanations for observed phenomena. Biosignature studies have repeatedly grappled with this obstacle. For instance, scientists initially considered oxygen and phosphine as definitive indicators of life until plausible abiotic sources, such as volcanic activity or specific chemical reactions, were proposed. These missteps underscore the inherent complexity of interpreting potential signs of life. The arrival of NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has revitalized the search for extraterrestrial life. Observations from JWST of K2-18 b, a planet 120 light-years away, have revealed hints of dimethyl sulfide (DMS), a compound associated with biological activity on Earth. Some researchers interpret this as evidence of a “water world” with conditions favorable for life. Others caution that the data might instead reflect an inhospitable atmosphere akin to Neptune’s, illustrating the ambiguity of analyzing atmospheric data from distant planets. To address this uncertainty, researchers are now focusing on combinations of gases, such as oxygen and methane, that are unlikely to coexist without biological processes. Despite this promising approach, skepticism remains. Astrobiologist Sarah Rugheimer emphasizes the importance of exploring alternative abiotic scenarios to ensure robust interpretations of biosignatures. While she remains optimistic that a compelling ensemble of gases could signal life, Rugheimer also advocates for caution in public communication to preserve scientific credibility. The Venus phosphine episode has served as a reminder of the need for rigorous validation and has inspired new missions to Venus. These missions aim to clarify its atmospheric chemistry and geological activity, offering insights that could refine the search for biosignatures on exoplanets. Clara Sousa-Silva, a leading expert on phosphine, views the renewed focus on Venus as a valuable step forward. She argues that unraveling Venus’s mysteries could provide lessons applicable to other worlds. Astrobiology thrives on iteration, where bold claims spur further investigation and refinement. This process of continual hypothesis testing, as Vickers and others suggest, reflects the dynamic and self-correcting nature of science. As research into Earth’s enigmatic “twin planet” and other celestial bodies progresses, the scientific community remains hopeful that these efforts will lead to groundbreaking discoveries about life beyond Earth. The post Scientists Question Popular Methods in the Search for Life in the Universe appeared first on Anomalien.com.

A November 14 Substack post by left-leaning political science professor and freelance journalist Yascha Mounk had pithy things observations on how the liberally biased press is actually hurting Democrats by keeping them blind to genuine political threats, in “Dear Journalists: Stop Trying to Save Democracy -- Journalists who turn themselves into political activists inadvertently undermine democratic institutions.” He opened with a story of being sent home to change during his 2006 internship at the International Herald Tribune, an English-language newspaper based in Paris: I had put on a T-shirt a friend had given me during the presidential campaign a few years earlier: a depiction of Edvard Munch’s The Scream bearing the inscription “Bush Again?” I doubt the T-shirt offended anyone at the office. In fact, I imagine that the great majority of staffers at the IHT shared the sentiment. But the leaders of the newsroom took very seriously their duty both to be neutral and to be seen to be neutral (….) This nicely sums up the bygone attitude of journalists. As a group, they have always skewed left, and perhaps always will. But they also had a strong conception of their role and the professional standards it entails: Their job was to be fair arbiters, reporting without fear or favor….. If that period of journalists being "fair arbiters" ever did exist, it certainly passed in the age of Trump: All of that went out of the window when Donald Trump first entered politics. Political scientists like myself were sounding the alarm that authoritarian populists may represent a genuine danger to democracy. Other commentators were going even further, claiming that Trump should be understood, simply, as a fascist…. Mounk took the angle that not only were journalists driving readers away, they were driving their supposed friends in the Democratic Party into an electoral ditch, thanks to "the aspiration of many journalists to save democracy" which, he argued, "has not just proven counterproductive because it drove a big part of their readership away from mainstream outlets, but "deprived Democrats of key facts they would have needed to make good strategic decisions[.]" He added that this "ironically, has helped to strengthen the very political forces that the journalists who were self-consciously striving to preserve democracy were trying to contain." How? For one, by sweeping President Biden’s obvious cognitive struggles under the rug. As it happens, the reluctance to level with readers ultimately accomplished the opposite of what was intended. It allowed Biden to stay in the race long enough to make the entire Democratic establishment complicit in covering up the true state of his mental health. And it made it virtually impossible to stage an open primary to choose his successor. Mounk described the bubble of (yes) “elite misinformation” journalists erected to shield Biden but which left Democrats driving blind, leaving "palpable" "irony" with journalists being "careful not to emphasize facts which might make it harder for Democrats to beat Trump." He continued: But at each step, this created a bubble of “elite misinformation” that made it impossible for Democrats to make the hard strategic choices they needed to win the election.... Mounk got in some well-deserved hits on the media’s hypocritical outrage over right-wing “misinformation": If you were a faithful reader of The New York Times or a frequent listener of NPR, you were less likely than the average American citizen to believe that Biden was suffering from serious mental decline or that Harris was an unpopular politician with a steeply uphill path towards winning the presidential election.

Ironies abound in Donald Trump’s election victory. It’s the people who truly believe he will end democracy or is literally Hitler who did the most to help him win through their total ideological commitment to open borders. They would rather see American democracy destroyed than merely enforce our existing immigration laws. And it’s those who most enthusiastically tore down all the old Christian moral superstructure of America, the guardrails that would have barred the way to the Oval Office for someone like Trump, who are most horrified by his wins. Donald Trump is truly the president for post-Christian America. I noted that the decline of Christianity in America has gone through three phases or worlds: a positive world (1964-1994) in which it was declining but still seen positively by society; a neutral world (1994-2014) in which it was no longer seen positively but not yet seen negatively; and a negative world (2014-present) in which for the first time in the 400-year history of America, official, elite culture now views Christianity negatively or at least skeptically. And its moral system has been rejected. When I tell this story about Christianity in America, people tend to think about what that means for American Christians. But it has profound implications for American society as a whole. Donald Trump is only a plausible president in a negative world. Trump had talked about running for president since at least 1988, but he never did it. The fake 2012 Reform Party bid doesn’t count. He knew that whatever his fame, America would not elect someone like him. In a country where Sen. Gary Hart had to drop out of the presidential race because he allegedly had an affair, Trump’s stormy personal life in that era would have disqualified him. Another example of why Trump could not have gotten elected: He had owned gambling casinos. Back the 1980s, if you wanted to gamble, you had two choices. You could go to your local mob bookie, or you could go to Las Vegas or Atlantic City and bet at a casino that was probably mob-controlled. Gambling was a seedy business, publicly perceived as deeply tied to the Mafia. This was a major plot element in the "Godfather" movies. While Trump may never have been involved with the mob himself, the idea of America electing a casino owner was unthinkable. Today, gambling is legal, pervasive, and socially approved. The major sports leagues are actually partners in the gambling industry. Clean-cut, all-American types like Peyton Manning and Eli Manning signed up to be gambling pitchmen, apparently without hurting their brands. Trump’s casino ownership is no big deal today. Trump also benefited from the final decay of WASP norms in America. His gaudy consumption style, braggadocio, and love of celebrity are an affront to WASP values. But in a country that fetes Cardi B’s “WAP” and other such music, in which drug use is now mostly legal and approved of, tattoos are very common, becoming a social media star is one of the top career ambitions of young people, and consumption of expensive products and experiences is now a core element of the lifestyle of the American elite, how can Trump’s behaviors be critiqued? It’s hard to complain that he’s crude when we live in a crude society and people like it that way — except when it comes to him. In fact, compared to the rest of the country, Trump is a retro model of rectitude in not drinking or doing drugs, having a relentless work ethic, wearing suits, etc. If we were still the America that elected George H.W. Bush or even George W. Bush, Donald Trump would not have won this election. In fact, there’s a good chance he wouldn’t even have run in the first place. But in 2015, he saw that something had changed in the country, that there was now a viable path for someone like him to make it to the White House. He came down that escalator, and the rest is history. Donald Trump is an example of what’s changed with the advent of the negative world in America. The fallout will be pervasive. We see it in how everything you used to have to go to the Mafia for is now legal and approved at some level: drugs, gambling, loan sharking (payday loan stores), and, coming soon, prostitution (“sex work”). Maybe that’s one reason you don’t hear as much about the American Mafia these days. There’s not as much for them to do as there used to be. If Michael Corleone were real and alive today, he actually would be able to go legit. Donald Trump’s presidencies are two of the first signs of the social implication of a negative world, post-Christian America. They're unlikely to be the last. This essay was originally published on Aaron Renn's Substack.

Every Fallout game is different. While they might look and play similar, each leverages a range of ideas and mechanics to create vastly unique experiences. Fallout 3 has an incredible sense of exploration as soon as you step outside Vault 101, New Vegas has thought-provoking and tough decisions to make around every corner, and Fallout 4 has stellar gunplay. No two games in the series are the same, and this is what makes choosing the best one nigh impossible. Mods, on the other hand, often mean we don't even need to choose. That's why this brand new FO4 mod is on my radar, because it straight up just brings over one of the best New Vegas features to The Commonwealth. Continue reading New Fallout 4 mod brings over the best New Vegas feature MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Fallout 4 console commands, Fallout 4 mods, Fallout 4 System Requirements

Skews the Polls and BAILS? Ann Selzer Retires, Claims Kamala IA Poll Is NOT the Reason Why BUT X Calls BS