Here’s the second of Bill Maher’s “New Rules” segments that I haven’t posted. The YouTube caption is “New Rule: Before they can take on Donald Trump, Democrats have to decide which wing of their own party is best to lead them out of the wilderness.” Well, the segment doesn’t even really tackle that question. It only says that Democrats have to be less “judgey” if they want to start winning elections.
The theme is who should be the face of the “New” Democratic party, but starts by recounting an episode of the t.v. show “Love is Blind,” which apparently is in its last season (“season 8”) and yet I’ve been completely unaware of it. The bride, Sarah, leaves her fiancée Ben at the altar because he had no strong political opinions, much less strong progressive ones.
His moral for our party: “If the standards on the Left are going to be this high, and politics is going to be this much of a cock-block, we’re never going to win elections or have any more babies. This inclination from certain liberals to always and immediately excommunicate instead of communicate is what makes them so unlikeable.” He does dwell on the rigor women’s standards rather than men’s, but I don’t know whether they differ. (By the way, I’m a tad under 5’8″ so I guess I’m unacceptable.) Nor do I know whether Republicans would spurn a potential paramour because they aren’t 100% down the line with Trump. All in all, this is a pretty mediocre episode of Maher, though it may appeal to those who have watched “Love is Blind.” Personally, I’d prefer more lessons for Democrats and less summary of television plots.
The guests include journalist Kara Swisher and a man I don’t recognize (readers?).
A short while back I added a new comment to “Da Roolz,” the list of posting guidelines that everyone should read (especially newbies). The last guideline now reads:
26.) I will tolerate no comments that are generated with AI. Even one of them will lead to instant banning for life.
Now I will be the judge of whether a comment is likely generated by ChatGPT or the like, but this one, which someone attempted to post on the thread after “Bill Maher: New Rules #1“, is surely the product of a bot. I won’t give the hapless writer’s handle:
Bill Maher’s “New Rules” segment, as discussed on Why Evolution Is True, delivers the comedian’s signature blend of sharp satire and cultural critique—this time tackling modern hypocrisy with his usual unflinching wit. The analysis highlights Maher’s ability to skewer both political extremes, though a deeper dive into his factual accuracy (or occasional oversimplifications) could add nuance. Fans will appreciate the curated highlights, while critics might crave more counterpoints. A thought-provoking read for those who miss Real Time’s mix of humor and hard truths.
Oy, my kishkes! All I can say is that if you post something this bloody obvious—something that doesn’t add anything to the discussion—you better find another site for your Ai-generated lucubrations. And this person must now do that.
If we could peel back the Moon's cratered crust and examine its mantle, we might find answers to some foundational questions that date back to the Apollo moon landings. We lack the technological capability to excavate the Moon's mantle, but Nature has a way. A massive, ancient impact excavated material from deep beneath the Moon's crust and left it on the surface for us to study. It could help confirm the Moon's origins.
NASA's Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) has already uncovered hundreds of exoplanets of all sizes. Now, a team of astronomers is pushing the search even further—this time, looking for signs of planetary rings. Scanning 308 TESS planet candidates, they zeroed in on large, fast-orbiting worlds circling bright, nearby stars. Out of those, six showed subtle hints that rings might be present. But despite the tantalising clues, none offered definitive evidence of ring systems—at least not yet.
You’ve probably heard that black holes stick around for a long time—but even they are not eternal. Over unimaginable spans of time, they slowly evaporate into space through a process called Hawking radiation. And here’s the kicker: this doesn’t just apply to black holes. Anything with mass—stars, moons, even you—can, in theory, evaporate in this way. Black holes are a special case since they don’t have a surface and can actually swallow some of their own radiation, making their demise painfully slow. The biggest ones might take up to 10^100 years to disappear. But smaller objects? Something like the Moon—or a human being—could fade into nothingness in "just" 10^90 years.
James Webb Space Telescope zoomed in on Jupiter's turbulent north pole in 2023 on the lookout for aurora. The results were amazing. Scientists have finally crunched through the data, revealing how the aurora rapidly change, fizzing and popping with light over the course of a few minutes. The team didn't stop there, training Hubble's ultraviolet eye on the same light show, they've created the most comprehensive view of Jupiter's auroral displays ever captured.
How can artificial intelligence (AI) be used to advance mapping and imaging methods on other planets? This is what a recent study presented at the 56th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference hopes to address as a lone researcher investigated using machine learning models to enhance mapping and imaging capabilities from orbital images obtained from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) Context Camera (CTX), which is currently orbiting Mars. This study has the potential to help scientists, engineers, and the public better understand the benefits of AI in conducting more advanced science, specifically regarding global images around Earth and other worlds.
When NASA's Galileo spacecraft flew past asteroid Ida, it discovered a second, smaller asteroid in orbit: Dactyl. This was the first confirmed discovery of an asteroid with a moon, but now we know of many, including 13 asteroids larger than 100 km with satellites. Researchers have found that the mostly rapidly spinning asteroids are more likely to have moons; a large impact both spins up the asteroid and creates the debris that remains in orbit.
Veteran NASA scientist Richard H. Stanton describes the results of a multi-year survey of more than 1300 Sun-like stars for optical SETI signals. This survey revealed two fast identical pulses from a Sun-like star about 100 light-years from Earth, that match similar pulses from a different star observed four years ago.