Columbia U shameful antisemitism

 I guess many of us have seen the outbreak of antisemitism in many Ivy League Univesrites. Columbia is one that has received more attention recently due to its encampment where Hamas supporting students have declared they have taken over, Jewish students have been orecpvented from attending classes and have been advised to stay at home. This is all supported by many academics and management has done nothing to stop it.

Watch this Columbia U graduate state her views, she does not hold back!

Well done!

The robots are coming, the robots are coming…

AI has been quietly simmering in the background for years, but it’s suddenly burst into the limelight like a tech celebrity crashing a college frat party. While the public is just now catching AI fever, the brilliant minds behind the scenes have been relentlessly tinkering away to produce these mind-blowing breakthroughs.

But as amazing as AI’s meteoric rise seems, there’s another game-changing technology lurking in the shadows, poised to make an even bigger splash – the incredible world of robots. We’ve been dreaming about intelligent humanoid machines since Isaac Asimov’s sci-fi days, but when real-world robots first arrived, they were more like glorified appliances than the stuff of our wildest imaginings.

These early robots were essentially robotic worker bees, meticulously following pre-programmed instructions to crank out repetitive tasks 24/7 without needing breaks or overtime pay. Factories and warehouses were quick to adopt these tireless automatons, but they were a far cry from the sentient androids we’d envisioned.

That’s all about to change, though. A new breed of robots is emerging, one that integrates AI to create humanoid assistants that are shockingly close to Asimov’s vision. These cutting-edge 'bots use AI to understand instructions and generate their own programs, eliminating the need for arduous task-by-task programming. They can also see, hear, and interact with us like science fiction come to life.

While the first wave of robots replaced human muscle, this new generation will replace human minds. AI has already started automating cognitive tasks, and AI-powered humanoid robots will be able to handle both mental and physical labor. From factories to offices, retail to travel, you name it – these robot assistants could eventually take over virtually every job that doesn’t require elite-level brainpower.

For now, the high-minded jobs like research scientists, CEOs, and politicians are probably safe. But for most other professions? You might want to watch your back, because the 'bots are coming for your paycheck.

This sci-fi futureshock raises some crazy questions, like how society will function when most jobs are automated. How do we overhaul the entire system without causing total chaos? Those are ridiculously tough challenges to tackle another day.

But for now, let’s bask in the mind-blowing potential of these humanoid worker 'bots. I’ve got a couple of cool videos lined up that’ll really blow your circuits…

First up is this flick from the Cold Fusion YouTube channel, covering the recent crazy strides in humanoid robot development.

The second is a promotional video for one such robot from China;

So it seems it is no longer ‘where are the robots?’ but, ‘don’t bother, they’re here’.

In memoriam of the Brave

 

In fields where poppies bloom, they lie, The valiant souls who dared to try, For freedom's call, they stood so tall, Their sacrifice, our nation's pride.

Through tumultuous times they strode, With courage, in the face of woe, Their legacy, a beacon bright, Guiding us through darkest night.

Their blood, the ink on history's page, A testament to courage's gauge, For liberty, they fought with might, And in their memory, we unite.

Eternal vigilance, our creed, To honor those who bravely lead, Their sacrifice, a sacred trust, For freedom's cause, we must adjust.

Leaders, heed this solemn call, Invest in defense, stand tall, Against all threats, both near and far, Protecting peace, our guiding star.

Let us speak with voices strong, In harmony, a nation's song, For love of country, freedom's reign, In unity, we find our gain.

With respect, we forge ahead, A society by bonds of thread, And in our hearts, let patriotism soar, For those who've given all and more.

(Assisted by ChatGPT)

Of babies and bathwater.

Disinformation, misinformation, tech giants, and censorship have suddenly become the singular issue of the day. Illegal immigrants arriving magically on Australia's shores, the record level of migration, the dirty tricks played by Labor ministers relating to Brittany Higgins, and even the cost of living issues have been replaced in the headlines. I guess that seems to be justification enough. Yet today's talking points are about Elon Musk and Jacqui Lambie's calls for an 'X-odus'. 

The issue is being presented in such naive terms that it is hard not to react. As presented it is a simple case. Do we want wanton violence pushed by Social media to unsuspecting innocent users? Why should these high-tech billionaires corrupt the minds of the innocent? 

It is hard to argue that the violence shown on social media is healthy for anyone. Even a short sojourn through the pages of X or Meta shows many videos portraying violence, sometimes wanton violence. Youth seem to capture fights with multiple assailants ganging up on a single victim, or one on one fights, or even just accidental capture of an unprovoked attack on a passerby. Then of course there are the demonstrations with large mobs screaming slogans at pedestrians who happen today to be Israeli, or even just 'look openly Jewish'.  Then again there is the footage of terrorist attacks and war in action. At a less direct level, there is the precursor of violence. The full-throated exhortations by so-called 'preachers' to denigrate, vilify and demean a race, a religion a people and quote the Koran that condones their murder. 

So yes, there is widespread violence, threats of violence and incitement to violence on Social Media.

But then again these are not confined to social media alone. You can see the same in our Newspapers our televisions and of course plenty of violence in our movies. Violence is not confined to social media. Yes, many will counter, that there are better controls on our media, with some well-defined rules as to what can and what cannot be shown and at various time-slots. Social media seem to have an exemption as they are not classified as 'publishers'. Of course the publishers would like to level the playing field and have social media also classified as publishers. And maybe so. I will leave that argument, for another occasion. Yet it will not solve the problem given that wanton violence is everywhere in our 'publisher ' media too.

The sudden focus on a single video of a terrorist attack on a Christian bishop however seems strangely convenient. Convenient? Yes, convenient. Just last year the government tried to introduce legislation that would have given widespread power to some media bureaucrats to censor social media.  In response to a request for public commentary the government received some 25000 submissions against the legislation so the government reluctantly shelved its implementation

Given this history, many are suspicious that the sudden vilification of social media following the recent terrorist attack is being used to soften us up for another attempt at this legislation. Certainly the government has not asked for many equally offensive videos to be removed from social media. On ABC television there is still a video showing an indigenous assailant stabbing a police officer and in trun being shot by a second police officer. This video is similar in violent content to the stabbing of the Christian Bishop. So what standard are they really pushing?

Censorship is a difficult area, We have a wide range of views regarding what should or should not be censored. I too have my own limits and find much of what I see,  and pass through quickly, on X beyond my limit. Yet censorship has a cost. We should be very cautious about our willingness to censor speech/video we do not like. Any laws that prevent speech/video we personally do not like will end up restricting our access to information that we need. One does not have to think too far back to our recent Pandemic handling to realise the types of abuse governments will use to prevent us from accessing information they do not want us to have. Consider these questions regarding the recent COVID-19 pandemic

• Did COVID-19 come from a lab? 
• Are the vaccines safe? 
• Did the masks work? 
• Were lockdowns necessary? 
• what is the cause of excess deaths? 
• Does Ivermectin work?

All these questions have been taboo, and really remain taboo even today. Yet consider if we had had the chance for open discussion and consideration of these questions. We would have greater trust in our Police and our government, and our society would be better prepared for any future pandemic. So the consequences of censorship are very serious indeed. 

The possibility of abuse of censorship laws is the major argument against such censorship. 

So let's avoid censorship and not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

'The Most Secure Election in American History'

In an in-depth article published in The Gatestone Institute John Eastman raises a range of issues that put a lie to the oft-quoted statement that the 2020 Presidential election was "The most Secure Election in American History"

The article is rather long and well worth a full read, but here is a summary of the key points. (Note I have used Copilot AI to assist with this)

"The article raises concerns about the 2020 U.S. election and highlights specific issues:

1. Legal Challenges:

   • Texas Lawsuit: Texas filed an action in the Supreme Court against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
     • Allegations: These swing states’ election officers violated election law, potentially impacting the election outcome.
     • Specific Violations:
       • In Georgia, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger unilaterally changed signature verification rules, rendering them unconstitutional.
       • Pennsylvania’s Secretary of the Commonwealth, Kathy Boockvar, eliminated signature verification statutes.
       • In Wisconsin, election officials set up drop boxes and ran a ballot harvesting scheme.
   • These legal challenges question the integrity of the election process.

2. Pennsylvania’s Vote Discrepancy:

   • Records indicate that there were 120,000 more votes cast than the total number of voters in Pennsylvania.
   • The margin of victory in Pennsylvania was only 80,000 votes.
   • This discrepancy raises concerns about the accuracy of the vote count.

3. Georgia’s Signature Verification Change:

   • Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s rule change undermined signature matching requirements.
   • The alteration may have affected the validity of ballots.

4. Wisconsin’s Ballot Harvesting:

   • Human drop boxes were set up in Madison, Wisconsin, which violated state law.
   • Some ballots lacked complete witness signatures.
   • These irregularities warrant scrutiny.

5. Overall Concerns:

   • The elimination of protective statutes may have facilitated fraud.
   • The article underscores the need to address these issues to ensure election security and restore public confidence.

In summary, John Eastman’s article critically examines the 2020 election process, highlighting potential vulnerabilities and urging further investigation."