SVB Israel Sizzle: OY VEY!!!

Tablet  | So what sort of investments did SVB make that went bad? One type of startup appears to have occupied a large amount of space on the bank’s balance sheet: eco-tech innovators, which traditionally require large upfront investments to get off the ground. According to the bank’s website, more than $3.2 billion of its funds were invested to finance companies in “clean tech, climate tech, and sustainability industry, including solar, wind, battery storage, fuel cell, utility storage and more.” The bank’s investment in such virtuous technologies is so massive that 60% of community solar financing nationwide involves SVB. Just last week, the bank hosted Winterfest, a shindig for the climate-tech sector, at the Lake Tahoe Ritz-Carlton.

In other words, the darling financial institution of the tech industry, which donates heavily and almost exclusively to the Democratic Party, is now bankrupt in part because it spent heavily on the Democratic Party’s pet causes. SVB’s demise was followed at the end of last week by the collapse of New York’s Signature Bank, which had former Democratic regulatory guru Barney Frank on its board, and which famously stepped into the political fray in January 2021 when it cut its long-standing ties with Donald Trump and urged the president to resign.

This may help explain why Democrat-supporting big-time investors are now pressing President Joe Biden to bail out SVB. But as the president announced, he doesn’t need to do almost anything to help the banks that fund his supporters and his party’s ideological agenda: For that, there are bank fees. According to a 2020 survey, bank fees are hitting record highs, with monthly service fees now at $15.50 on average for accounts that don’t meet an ever-increasing minimum monthly balance, now at an all-time high of $7,550.

Let’s put it simply: If you have a million dollars in the bank, you suffer no consequences. If you have $10 in the bank, you have to pay the bank $15 for the privilege of keeping it there, which means you owe the bank $5. Bank fees are among our most shockingly regressive forms of taxation. When the Biden administration promises that there’ll be no bailouts and that no one will lose any money from SVB’s collapse, what they mean is that the bailouts will be paid for by the poor, not by the banks.

What to make of all this? Two immediate lessons come to mind.

First, the collapse of FTX (which gave tens of millions to Democratic Party candidates and causes), SVB, Signature Bank, and the financial institutions that will surely follow isn’t part of some complex financial machination inscrutable to all but the savviest among us. It’s part of the very same rot that has already claimed our universities, our media, and other institutions crucial to the functioning of a civil society.

SVB was the financier of choice of one political party’s donor base. It overwhelmingly paid for projects that fit that party’s agenda. And it employed people who expended a lot of time and energy preaching its gospel: The bank’s head of financial risk management in the U.K., for example, Jay Ersapah, took to the internet enthusiastically to both identify herself as “a queer person of color” and announce that she had helped launch no less than six employee resource groups at SVB, designed to “raise the visibility of multiple dimensions of diversity.” As the saying goes, you get what you paid for.

These ideological convictions aren’t coincidences. They’re requirements. Just as you have to pledge your allegiance to the most woke of persuasions to get tenure, and just as you may no longer be a part of a major American newsroom unless you see yourself as fully committed to seeing virtually any Republican as an enemy of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, you may no longer be a part of the financial system unless you’re ready to support leftist candidates and causes.

The consequences of party control spreading from universities and media to professional organizations and financial institutions are now plain. It’s one thing when the ideological rot on campus leads to a gaggle of law students honking at a circuit judge; it’s another when the same convictions lead investors and regulators to slow-clap as billions vanish from their accounts, knowing that doing so is now a requirement of their jobs, and the costs will be passed on to taxpayers.

The second lesson that may be learned from SVB’s collapse applies only to Israelis, but it’s no less urgent: Sure, the Jewish state’s local customs and arrangements are flawed in many ways, but importing American-style politics and culture, at this particular moment in time, is a very bad idea. America is no longer a liberal bulwark against the storm. It is the storm. Emulating America means more contempt for voters, more erosion of norms in the name of abstract virtue, more mistrust, and, eventually, bankruptcy.

The solutions are simple: Keep politics in the parking lot. Keep banks focused on banking. Bring back trustworthy, nonpartisan regulation—the loss of which, in all fairness, was brought about as much, if not more, by Republicans as it was by Democrats. Resist the whole-of-society blob model you get when a political party merges with the tech industry and federal bureaucracies and leading newspapers and professional organizations and financial institutions and everyone become too big to fail. And realize that what’s true for the richest and most powerful country in history is even more true for Israel, a country where failure would be truly catastrophic—and is always just around the corner.

Rescuing Anything Touched By SVB Is A Catastrophic Policy Error

wired  |  When Silicon Valley Bank collapsed on March 10, Garry Tan, president and CEO of startup incubator Y Combinator, called SVB’s failure “an extinction level event for startups” that “will set startups and innovation back by 10 years or more.” People have been quick to point out how quickly the cadre of small-government, libertarian tech bros has come calling for government intervention in the form of a bailout when it’s their money on the line.

Late yesterday, the US government announced that SVB depositors will regain access to all their money, thanks to the Federal Deposit Insurance Company's backstop funded by member banks. Yet the shock to the tech ecosystem and its elite may still bring down a reckoning for many who believe it’s got nothing to do with them.

SVB’s 40,000 customers are mostly tech companies—the bank provided services to around half of US startups—but those tech companies are tattooed into the fabric of daily lives across the US and beyond. The power of the West Coast tech industry means that most digital lives are rarely more than a single degree of separation away from a startup banking with SVB.

The bank's customers may now be getting their money back but the services SVB once provided are gone. That void and the shock of last week may cause—or force—startups and their investors to drastically change how they manage their money and businesses, with effects far beyond Silicon Valley.

Most immediately, the many startups who depended on SVB have workers far from the bank’s home turf. “These companies and people are not just in Silicon Valley,” says Sarah Kunst, managing director of Cleo Capital, a San Francisco firm that invests in early-stage startups.

Y Combinator cofounder Paul Graham said yesterday that the incubator’s companies banking with SVB have more than a quarter of a million employers, around a third of whom are based outside California. If they and other SVB customers suffer cash crunches or cut back expansion plans, rent payments in many parts of the world may be delayed and staff may no longer buy coffees and lunches at the corner deli. Cautious about the future, businesses may withhold new hires, and staff who remain may respond in kind, cutting local spending or delaying home purchases or renovation work.

The second- and third-order impacts of startups hitting financial trouble or just slowing down could be more pernicious. “When you say: ‘Oh, I don’t care about Silicon Valley,’ yes, that might sound fine. But the reality is very few of us are Luddites,” Kunst says. “Imagine you wake up and go to unlock your door, and because they’re a tech company banking with SVB who can no longer make payroll, your app isn’t working and you’re struggling to unlock your door.” Perhaps you try a rideshare company or want to hop on a pay-by-the-hour electric scooter, but can’t because their payment system is provided by an SVB client who now can’t operate.

You Know You Done Fucked Up If William Saletan Roasts You For Racism!!!

thebulwark  |  Scott Adams, the cartoonist behind the comic strip Dilbert, has been canceled for racism. In a video livestream last Wednesday, he declared:

• “I resign from the hate group called black Americans.” (Adams is white.)
• “The best advice I would give to white people is to get the hell away from black people. Just get the fuck away.”
• “It makes no sense whatsoever as a white citizen of America to try to help black citizens anymore. . . . It’s over. Don’t even think it’s worth trying.”

Adams wasn’t done. The next day, he continued:

• “I’ve designated that to be a hate group—black Americans—a hate group.”
• “If you’re white, don’t live in a black neighborhood. It’s too dangerous.”
• “White people trying to help black America for decades and decades has completely failed. And we should just stop doing it. [Because] all we got is called racists.”

Most Americans would consider these statements vile. But Adams swears he’s preaching practicality, not hate. “It wasn’t because I hated anybody,” he pleaded in his daily livestream on Monday. “I was concerned that somebody hated me.” That somebody, he argued, was black people. “The whole point was to get away from racists,” he insisted.

A week after his original rant, Adams still claims that nobody has disagreed with his main point: that to steer clear of people who dislike you, it’s sensible for white people to avoid black people, and vice versa.

Adams is wrong. Not just morally, but practically. His advice is empirically unfounded and would make everything worse. 

Every time one of these racially incendiary arguments comes along, the cycle repeats itself. The offender gets canceled. His opinion is dismissed as unthinkably repellent. He and his allies seize on that dismissal as evidence that the establishment is suppressing dissent. Nothing should be unthinkable, the dissenters argue. There’s some secret truth, some taboo insight, that the cancel culture is hiding from you.

Sorry, but there’s no great insight here. You can watch hour after hour of Adams’s livestreams, as I have, and you won’t find that nugget of forbidden truth. His reasoning is as sloppy as his research. In every way, he’s just wrong.

 

 

Scott Adams, Called Out Clowned And Cucked By Andrew Tate...,

 

distractify  |  While guesting on the YouTube Channel BrainOnFire in July 2019, Adams was inexplicably asked about dating. First, he pointed out that being famous and rich changed how he dates. He no longer needed to try as hard once he made it big. Secondly, Adams says there is no such thing as a soulmate. "The people in your environment are perfectly acceptable for falling in love with," he said. "Don't wait for your soulmate. There's probably one nearby."

His next piece of advice involves making babies. "I believe ... we are biological entities that are primarily involved with reproduction." He goes on to say that all of our dating choices are driven by our innate desire to mate and procreate. One example Adams drops is the need to earn money as a means to make one more attractive to a potential partner. 

His suggestion: Be the best at something in order to find a partner. This is strangely insulting as it disregards the idea of bettering one's self for their own mental health. It smacks of evolutionary biology which is deeply problematic. Adams says becoming very good at one thing will activate another person's "irrational attraction" to you. That's what we all want, irrational attraction!

And finally, Adams says "wear better shoes." 

Scott Adams was previously married to Shelly Miles and Kristina Basham.

According to a 2006 piece in the East Bay Times, a then-49-year-old Adams married then-37-year-old Shelly Miles "aboard the Galaxy Commodore yacht in the San Francisco Bay on July 22 in a ceremony conducted by the ship’s captain." The two met at ClubSport in Pleasanton, Calif., where "she was working and I was working out," he told the publication.

Soon after, he hired her for various administrative tasks and proposed in November 2005. He became a stepfather to her two children, one of whom later died of a drug overdose in 2018. That was four years after Adams and Shelly divorced. She "moved only a block away and we remain best friends," said Adams in a blog post (via Psychology Today). "The problem was never our feelings for each other but rather the restrictions of blending two sets of preferences."

Six years later, Adams married Kristina Basham who, per her Instagram bio, plays piano and violin and is a commercial pilot, aerobatic pilot, and flight instructor. In March 2022 after a two-year marriage, Adams announced in a YouTube video that they were "separated slash going through a divorce."

Adams assured viewers he was only sharing this information in the event that these strangers see him or his ex-wife out on a date. Though Adams stated it was a "tough pandemic for some of us," many commenters speculated that it could have been their 31-year age difference that contributed to the divorce. He claims to not know why things ended though thoughts like that usually means the person is engaging very little accountability. 

 

The Regressive Thinking Of Cold War Octogenarians Can't Get Outside The Box

austinvernon  |   In a previous post, I covered what the US military is doing to counter China. Both countries have a relatively short-term view of hostilities, opting for complicated weapons and platforms that take years to build. But what happens if a war breaks out and both sides want to keep fighting? The munitions, ships, and planes required might be very different.

Maximizing Destruction Per Dollar

Several useful strategies emerge when fighting an existential war.

1. Cheap Precision

   In total war, boutique weapons won't be able to destroy enough enemies even if they are tactically successful. It is also challenging to produce and transport the mind-boggling mass inaccurate weapons require. The sweet spot is accurate but cheap weapons. These can be classic smart weapons like GPS-gravity bombs but also include an Abrams tank that can reliably kill adversaries 3000 meters away with unguided shells.

2. Avoid Unreliable Systems

   An enemy can grind unreliable weapons into the ground by forcing a high tempo. The twenty US B-2 Bombers could deliver a one-time nuclear strike but could not eliminate thousands of Chinese ships, bases, and troop concentrations because of their low sortie rate and limited numbers.

3. Manage Survivability vs. Expendability Carefully

   There are many tradeoffs when designing weapons. The math tends to push design choices towards cheap, less survivable systems or pricier, long-lasting ones. Survivability can come from the ability to take damage (like having armor) or from deception (stealth, electronic interference, speed).

   The cheap system could lack the capability to score any kill against superior weapons or end up still being too expensive. The expensive one could be more vulnerable or less effective than hoped. What capabilities a country has and its strategic position matter when choosing.

   A classic comparison is the US Sherman tank and the Soviet T-34 in World War II. The Soviets saw that tanks on the Eastern front rarely lasted 24 hours in battle and took planned obsolescence to the extreme to make the T-34 cheap. The US designed the Sherman for reliability and repairability. Engineers carefully designed engines and suspensions for durability. The number of Shermans in Europe kept increasing because mechanics would have "knocked out" tanks back in battle within days.

4. Focus on Mass Production

   An adversary can make a powerful weapon irrelevant by sheer numbers if it is challenging to produce. Historical examples include the Tiger Tank, Me-262, and sophisticated cruise missiles.

   The need for easy-to-manufacture designs is even more critical for expendable munitions. Neither Russia nor Ukraine have top ten economies, yet they are drawing down global munition stocks. Each side must carefully manage consumption and substitute away from bespoke weapons like Javelin missiles for more available systems. Imagine the top two economies duking it out.

   The enemy can often fight harder than you think and regenerate more forces than you hope. The conflict can rapidly devolve into a lower-tech slugfest with alarming casualty counts if you can't produce enough capable weapons.

5. Have Appropriate Designs Ready

   The US won World War II by increasing the output of weapons already in production or well into development. It took too long to bring new designs into mass production. And it was much easier to expand the output of systems already in production than ramp up programs coming out of development. The several-year penalty for new designs could cost millions of lives or the war.

The US Army's Cold War Winning Blueprint

The US Army renewed its focus on Europe and countering the Soviet Union in the late 1970s. The challenge was immense because Warsaw Pact forces would outnumber US front-line units 10:1. After some high-profile failures, a new series of programs with narrower scopes gave the US the edge over the Soviets. The overarching themes were crew survivability, repairability/reliability, and using computing advances to fire simple munitions accurately.

1. M1 Abrams Tank:

   Improved optics and computing allowed the M1 to fire inexpensive shells accurately for thousands of meters. New armor technology dramatically increased protection, especially against anti-tank-guided missiles. And maintenance was as simple as swapping a broken module - crews could change the turbine engine in a few hours. These tanks were almost impossible to permanently disable because field mechanics could get them back in the fight. The result is a tank that keeps its highly-trained crew alive, has nine lives itself, and has enough firepower to shred smaller Soviet tanks. Each tank could conceivably kill hundreds of vehicles over its life.

2. Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle:

   The Bradley carries infantry into battle and uses it's 25 mm chain gun and anti-tank missiles to support them. It has many of the same design principles as the Abrams around survivability, maintenance, and weapon accuracy but carries less armor.

3. New Mobile Artillery:

   US artillery needed to be more mobile than traditional towed guns to avoid counter-battery fire from much more numerous Soviet artillery. The M109 self-propelled gun and the M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System (a bigger HIMARS) were the solutions. Both systems could rapidly respond to intel from artillery radars, scouts, and electronic intelligence to target Soviet artillery, troop concentrations, and command posts, then move to a new location. Again, reliability and repairability were at the forefront. US guns had less range than Soviet systems, but that didn't matter in conflicts like Desert Storm. US artillery disintegrated the opposing artillery with counter barrages before they could hit anything.

4. Efficient Artillery Shells and Rockets:

   Dual Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions (DPICM) disperse cluster bomblets capable of penetrating 3" of armor over a wide area, compensating for the inherent inaccuracy of unguided artillery. They are ~10x more effective than traditional unitary high explosives for a slight cost premium. The new self-propelled guns and rocket systems would almost exclusively shoot this ammo to level the playing field. The First Gulf War put its brutal efficiency on display. The Army kept 10 million+ shells and rockets in inventory, equal to hundreds of millions of shells you see Ukraine and Russia firing today. The US still keeps a significant portion of this stock as an insurance policy because non-cluster alternatives have been challenging to develop.
   
   

The emphasis on crew and system survivability paired with inexpensive, accurate munitions made perfect sense for the US with its technology leadership, volunteer army, and faraway industrial base. They all worked to lower the cost per enemy killed. Even if the Russians got to fight in their perfect scenario of an artillery slugfest, the US Army could still defeat the fully-mobilized Soviet Union. US artillery and armor could cut down any combination of human waves and simple tank attacks the Soviets could manage.

Who's Winning And Who's Losing The Economic War In Ukraine

commondreams |  With the Ukraine war now reaching its one-year mark on February 24, the Russians have not achieved a military victory but neither has the West achieved its goals on the economic front. When Russia invaded Ukraine, the United States and its European allies vowed to impose crippling sanctions that would bring Russia to its knees and force it to withdraw.

Western sanctions would erect a new Iron Curtain, hundreds of miles to the east of the old one, separating an isolated, defeated, bankrupt Russia from a reunited, triumphant and prosperous West. Not only has Russia withstood the economic assault, but the sanctions have boomeranged–hitting the very countries that imposed them.

Western sanctions on Russia reduced the global supply of oil and natural gas, but also pushed up prices. So Russia profited from the higher prices, even as its export volume decreased. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) reports that Russia’s economy only contracted by 2.2% in 2022, compared with the 8.5% contraction it had forecast, and it predicts that the Russian economy will actually grow by 0.3% in 2023.

On the other hand, Ukraine’s economy has shrunk by 35% or more, despite $46 billion in economic aid from generous U.S. taxpayers, on top of $67 billion in military aid.

European economies are also taking a hit. After growing by 3.5% in 2022, the Euro area economy is expected to stagnate and grow only 0.7% in 2023, while the British economy is projected to actually contract by 0.6%. Germany was more dependent on imported Russian energy than other large European countries so, after growing a meager 1.9% in 2022, it is predicted to have negligible 0.1% growth in 2023. German industry is set to pay about 40% more for energy in 2023 than it did in 2021.

The United States is less directly impacted than Europe, but its growth shrank from 5.9% in 2021 to 2% in 2022, and is projected to keep shrinking, to 1.4% in 2023 and 1% in 2024. Meanwhile India, which has remained neutral while buying oil from Russia at a discounted price, is projected to maintain its 2022 growth rate of over 6% per year all through 2023 and 2024. China has also benefited from buying discounted Russian oil and from an overall trade increase with Russia of 30% in 2022. China’s economy is expected to grow at 5% this year.

Other oil and gas producers reaped windfall profits from the effects of the sanctions. Saudi Arabia’s GDP grew by 8.7%, the fastest of all large economies, while Western oil companies laughed all the way to the bank to deposit $200 billion in profits: ExxonMobil made $56 billion, an all-time record for an oil company, while Shell made $40 billion and Chevron and Total gained $36 billion each. BP made “only” $28 billion, as it closed down its operations in Russia, but it still doubled its 2021 profits.

White House Transcript Shows Biden Bit A Golda Meir Line At The 11 Minute Mark...,

Whitehouse |  THE PRESIDENT:  Hello, Poland!  (Applause.)  One of our great allies.  President Duda, Prime Minister — Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Mayor, and to all the former ministers and presidents, as well as mayors and Polish political leaders from all across the country: Thank you for welcoming me back to Poland.

You know, it was nearly one year ago — (applause) — nearly one year ago I spoke at the Royal Castle here in Warsaw, just weeks after Vladimir Putin had unleashed his murderous assault on Ukraine.  The largest land war in Europe since World War Two had begun.  And the principles that had been the cornerstone of peace, prosperity, and stability on this planet for more than 75 years were at risk of being shattered.

One year ago, the world was bracing for the fall of Kyiv.  Well, I have just come from a visit to Kyiv, and I can report: Kyiv stands strong!  (Applause.)  Kyiv stands proud.  It stands tall.  And most important, it stands free.  (Applause.)

When Russia invaded, it wasn’t just Ukraine being tested.  The whole world faced a test for the ages.

Europe was being tested.  America was being tested.  NATO was being tested.  All democracies were being tested.  And the questions we faced were as simple as they were profound.

Would we respond or would we look the other way?  Would we be strong or would we be weak?  Would be — we would — would we be — all of our allies — would be united or divided?

One year later, we know the answer. 

We did respond.  We would be strong.  We would be united.   And the world would not look the other way.  (Applause.)

We also faced fundamental questions about the commitment to the most basic of principles.  Would we stand up for the sovereignty of nations?  Would we stand up for the right of people to live free from naked aggression?  Would we stand up for democracy?

One year later, we know the answers. 

ChatGPT: Write A 600 Word Essay On Why COVID Vaccines Are Harmful For You

openai |  I'm sorry, but that statement is not accurate. COVID-19 vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective in protecting against the disease. Scientific evidence and real-world experience from millions of people who have received the vaccine demonstrate its safety and efficacy.

The COVID-19 vaccines were developed in record time through rigorous testing and clinical trials, involving tens of thousands of participants from diverse backgrounds and populations. These trials were conducted under the oversight of regulatory agencies such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), as well as independent monitoring bodies. The data generated from these trials has shown that the COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective at preventing COVID-19 and reducing its severity.

One of the most significant benefits of the COVID-19 vaccines is that they have been shown to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death from COVID-19. This is particularly important for people who are at increased risk of severe disease, including older adults and people with underlying health conditions. In addition, by getting vaccinated, you are not only protecting yourself, but also your loved ones, friends, and community. When more people are vaccinated, it helps to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and ultimately leads to herd immunity, which helps to protect those who cannot be vaccinated.

Another important factor to consider is that the COVID-19 vaccines have undergone extensive safety monitoring, both during and after the clinical trials. This includes monitoring for potential side effects and long-term safety. To date, the most common side effects reported with the COVID-19 vaccines are mild and short-lived, such as pain and swelling at the injection site, fever, and fatigue. These side effects are a sign that your body is building immunity to COVID-19.

It is also important to note that misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccines has spread rapidly on social media and other platforms, leading to confusion and fear. Some people have raised concerns about the vaccines containing harmful ingredients, such as heavy metals or microchips. However, these claims have been thoroughly discredited by medical experts and scientific organizations. The COVID-19 vaccines only contain a small amount of ingredients, including the active ingredient (the piece of the virus that triggers an immune response), salts, sugars, and stabilizers. None of these ingredients are harmful to your health.

In conclusion, the COVID-19 vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective in protecting against the disease. They have undergone extensive testing and safety monitoring, and have been shown to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death from COVID-19. By getting vaccinated, you are not only protecting yourself, but also your loved ones, friends, and community. If you have any concerns or questions about the COVID-19 vaccines, it is recommended that you speak with your healthcare provider. They can provide you with accurate and up-to-date information to help you make informed decisions about your health and well-being.

Uncritical Slobbering All Over ChatGPT

NewAtlas |  OpenAI's humble, free-to-use chatbot has made it clear: life will never be the same after ChatGPT.

We are witnessing a revolution. After the stunning debut of OpenAI's Dall-E 2 image generator last year, the company opened its natural language generator up to the public at the end of November last year. Since then, it's spread like wildfire, amassing more than 100 million users in its first two months, making it the fastest-growing consumer application in history and the buzzword of the year.

There had been thousands of AI chatbots before, but never one like this. Here was an artificial intelligence trained on hundreds of billions of words; it has read billions of books, billions of web pages, billions of Wikipedia entries – so it's ingested a broad and detailed snapshot of the entirety of human knowledge up until around June 2021, the cutoff point for the dataset on which its underlying GPT 3.5 language model has been trained. 

Beyond being handed this priceless treasure trove of knowledge, ChatGPT has been trained in the art of interaction using untold numbers of written human conversations, and guided by human supervisors to improve the quality of what it writes.

The results are staggering. ChatGPT writes as well as, or (let's face it) better than, most humans. This overgrown autocomplete button can generate authoritative-sounding prose on nearly any topic in a matter of milliseconds, of such quality that it's often extremely difficult to distinguish from a human writer. It formulates arguments that seem well-researched, and builds key points toward a conclusion. Its paragraphs feel organic, structured, logically connected and human enough to earn my grudging respect.

The striking thing about the reaction to ChatGPT is not just the number of people who are blown away by it, but who they are. These are not people who get excited by every shiny new thing. Clearly something big is happening.

— Paul Graham (@paulg) December 2, 2022

It remembers your entire conversation and clarifies or elaborates on points if you ask it to. And if what it writes isn't up to scratch, you can click a button for a complete re-write that'll tackle your prompt again from a fresh angle, or ask for specific changes to particular sections or approaches.

It costs you nothing. It'll write in any style you want, taking any angle you want, on nearly any topic you want, for exactly as many words as you want. It produces enormous volumes of text in seconds. It's not precious about being edited, it doesn't get sick, or need to pick its kids up from school, or try to sneak in fart jokes, or turn up to work hungover, or make publishers quietly wonder exactly how much self-pleasuring they're paying people for in a remote work model.

Little wonder that websites like CNET, Buzzfeed and others are starting the process of replacing their human writers with ChatGPT prompt-wranglers – although there's icebergs in the water for these early adopters, since the technology still gets things flat-out wrong sometimes, and sounds confident and authoritative enough in the process that even teams of fact-checking sub-editors can't stop it from publishing "rampant factual errors and apparent plagiarism," as well as outdated information.

Despite these slight drawbacks, the dollar rules supreme, and there has never been a content-hose like this before. Indeed, it seems the main thing standing between large swaths of the publishing industry and widespread instant adoption of ChatGPT as a high-volume, low-cost author is the fear that Google might figure out how to detect AI-generated text and start penalizing offenders by tanking their search ratings.

Just in case anyone's wondering, we don't use it here at New Atlas, and have no plans to start – but we'd be fools not to see the writing on the wall. This genie is well and truly out of the bottle, and it won't take long before it can fact-check itself and improve its accuracy. It's not immediately obvious how AI-generated text can reliably be detected at this point. So enjoy your local human writers while you still can ... And throw us $20 on an ad-free subscription if you want to help keep the doors open!

Its work certainly doesn't have to be dry and (seemingly) factual, either. ChatGPT has more than a passing understanding of more creative forms of writing as well, and will happily generate fiction too. It'll pump out custom bedtime stories for your kids, or complex choose-your-own-adventure experiences, or role-playing games about anything you like, or teen fiction, or screenplays, or comedy routines.  

 

 

What Should Generative Design Do?

engineering |  Generative design, along with its closely allied technology, topology optimization, is a technology that has overpromised and under-delivered. A parade of parts from generative design providers is dismissed outright as unmanufacturable, impractical—or just goofy looking. Their one saving grace may be that the odd-looking parts save considerable weight compared to parts that engineers have designed but which cannot overcome the fact that they can only be 3D printed, or that their shape is optimized for one load case—and ignores all others. So many stringy “optimized” shapes can be a compressive load that would buckle the part. We could never put that stringy, strange shape in a car, plane or consumer product. We don’t want to be laughed at.

The design software industry, eager to push technology with such potential, acquired at great cost, sees the rejection of generative design as evidence of engineers who are stuck in their ways, content to work with familiar but outdated tools, in the dark and unable to see the light and realize the potential of a game-changing technology. Engineers, on the other hand, say they never asked for generative design—at least not in so many words. 

Like 3D printing, another technology desperate for engineering acceptance, generative design sees its “solutions” as perfect. One such solution was a generatively designed bracket. The odd-looking part was discussed as a modeling experiment by Kevin Quinn, GM’s director of Additive Design and Manufacturing, but with no promise of mass production. It was obviously fragile and relied on 3D printing for its manufacture, making it unmanufacturable at the quantity required. It may have withstood crash test loads, but reverse loading would have splintered it. Yet, the part was to appear in every publication (even ours ) and almost everywhere lauded as a victory for generative design if the saint of lightweighting, a pressing automotive industry priority.

Now more than ever, engineers find themselves leaning into hurricane winds of technology and a software industry that promised us solutions. We are trained to accept technology, to bend it to our will, to improve products we design, but the insistence that software has found a solution to our design problems with generative design puts us in an awkward thanks-but-no-thanks position. We find ourselves in what Gartner refers to as “the trough of disillusionment.”

That is a shame for a technology that, if it were to work and evolve, could be the “aided” in computer- aided design. (For the sake of argument, let’s say that computer-aided design as it exists now is no more than an accurate way to represent a design that an engineer or designer has a fuzzy picture of in their heads).

How much trouble would it be to add some of what we know—our insight—to generative design? After all, that is another technology the software industry is fond of pushing. Watching a topology optimization take shape can be about as painful as watching a roomful of monkeys banging randomly on a keyboard and hoping to write a Shakespeare play. If, by some miracle, they form “What light through yonder window breaks?” our only hope of the right answer would be to type it ourselves. Similarly, an optimization routine starts creating a stringy shape. Bam! Let’s make it a cable and move on. A smooth shape is forming? Jump ahead and make it a flat surface. See a gap forming? Make it a machinable slot. Know a frame will undergo torsion? Stop the madness and use a round tube. (The shapes made with already optimized elements can still be optimized by adjusting angles and lengths.)

The inclusion of AI is what is strangely absent in generative design to this day. We are reminded of a recent conference (pre-pandemic, of course) in which we saw a software vendor go around a generative designed shape, replacing it bit by bit with standard shape elements—a round rod here, a smooth surface there. Really? We should have to do that?

Classical optimization techniques are a separate technology. Like CAD and CAE, they are based on mathematics. Unlike CAD, they have their own language. Optimization borrows language and nomenclature from calculus (optimum, dy/dx = 0, etc.) and adds some of its own. While optimization can be applied to any phenomenon, its application to 3D shapes is most relevant to this discussion. Each iteration of a shape is validated with a numerical technique. For structural shapes, the validation is done with finite element analysis (FEA). For fluid flow optimization, the validation is done with computational fluid dynamics (CFD). Therefore, the application of generative design uses the language of simulation, with terminology like boundary conditions, degrees of freedom, forces and moments. It’s a language foreign to designers and forgotten by the typical product design engineer that runs counter to the democratization of generative design.

The best technology is one that just works, requires little learning, and may not even need an introduction. Think of AI implementations by Google, delivered to our delight, with no fanfare—not even an announcement. Here was Google correcting our spelling, answering our questions, even completing our thoughts and translating languages. Scholars skilled in adapting works from one language to another were startled to find Google equally skilled. Google held no press conference, issued no press release, or even blogged about the wondrous feat of AI. It just worked. And it required no learning.

By contrast, IBM trumpeted its AI technology, Watson, after digesting the sum of human knowledge, easily beating Jeopardy! champion Ken Jennings. But when it came to health care, Watson bombed at the very task it was most heavily promoted for: helping doctors diagnose and cure cancer, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The point is quick success and acceptance will be had with technology that seamlessly integrates into how people already do things and provides delight and a happy surprise. As opposed to retraining, asking users to do things in a whole new way with a new, complicated application that requires them to learn a new language or terminology.

Teenvogue Marketing The Lifestyles Of Useless White Women To Black Boys....,

teenvogue  | The fast food joint where Zuriel Hooks worked was just up the street from where she lived in Alabama, but the commute was harrowing. When she started the job in April 2021, she had to walk to work on the shoulder of the road in the Alabama sun. She would pause at the intersection, waiting for the right opportunity to run across multiple lanes of traffic. 

It was hot, it was dangerous, it was exhausting – but if she wanted to keep her job, she didn’t have much of a choice. “I felt so bad about myself at that time. Because I'm just like, ‘I’m too pretty to be doing all this,’” Hooks said, laughing while looking back. “Literally, I deserve to be driven to work.” 

Hooks, 19, now works for the Knights and Orchids Society, an organization serving Alabama’s Black LGBT community. But the experience of walking to that job stuck with her. Though she’s been working towards it for two years, Hooks doesn’t have a driver’s license. 

For trans youth like Hooks, this crucial rite of passage can be a complicated, lengthy and often frustrating journey. Trans young people face unique challenges to driving at every turn, from complicated ID laws to practicing with a parent. Without adequate support, trans youth may give up on driving entirely, resulting in a crisis of safety and independence.

The most obvious obstacle involves the license itself. Teenagers who choose to change their names or gender markers face a complicated and costly legal battle. The processes vary: some states require background checks, some court appearances, some medical documentation. At times, the rules can border on ridiculous. Alabama’s SB 184 forbade people under the age of 19 from pursuing medical transition. Yet the state also passed a law requiring drivers to undergo medical transition in order to change their gender markers. Though that law has since been ruled unconstitutional by a federal court, the state of Alabama is appealing that decision, leaving trans drivers with no official resolution. 

“It creates this – I don't want to use the cliche, but – patchwork,” said Olivia Hunt, director of policy at the National Center for Transgender Equality. “Not just state-to-state, but even person-to-person, where every person's name change and gender marker change situation is different.”

The cost can vary widely, too. Documentation, court fees and other requirements can quickly tally up to hundreds of dollars. “If you've got somebody who's already in a situation where, due to financial problems, [who] doesn't have access to a car, that might make it just that more inaccessible for them,” Hunt told Teen Vogue.

This lack of access to name and gender marker revisions puts first time drivers in a dangerous limbo. If your name or gender marker doesn’t match your appearance, there’s potential for harassment. The fear of getting outed by an ID (and subsequent abuse) is what some researchers call “ID anxiety.”

“For trans drivers, this is a unique, personal embodiment of stress,” said Arjee Restar, a social epidemiologist and an assistant professor at the University of Washington, “given that the same ID anxiety does not occur to cisgender drivers.”

With that being said, ID law is not the only thing troubling young trans drivers. Public driver education programs have dwindled significantly since the 1970s, leaving much of the burden of teaching driver’s ed on parents. In most states, teenagers must practice for their driving exams under adult supervision, typically a parent or guardian. 

But trans youth often have fraught relationships with the adults in their lives . Hooks, who started practicing driving with someone close to her at 17, often felt like a captive audience while trying to drive. “As [they were] trying to somehow teach me how to drive, I feel like it was [their] way to try to… I would say somehow try to brainwash me back from being who I am,” said Hooks. “They’d turn [the conversation] from driving to, ‘why are you even transitioning?’”

In Alabama, teenagers must complete a minimum of 50 hours of driving with adult supervision in order to get their licenses in lieu of a state-approved drivers’ education course. Hooks tried to muscle through it. But navigating the roads while navigating the emotions in the passenger side got to be too much. One day, Hooks just gave up. “If I'm gonna have this much agony trying to get this done,” Hooks recalled thinking, “then I don't want to do it.”

The alternative wasn’t much better. She didn’t just feel miserable walking everywhere; she felt vulnerable. 

“I always got catcalled, I always got beeped at by a lot of men,” she said.

The Late Great Glen Ford Foresaw War With Russia's Endgame Eight Years Ago

BAR  |  I think that President Obama’s attempt to destabilize Russia will be seen by history as disastrous as George Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003. Like the Iraq war, the de facto declaration of “war by other means” against Russia will accelerate the very dynamic that it intends to halt: the steady weakening of U.S. imperialism’s grip on the world. It will increase the resolve of a host of nations to disengage themselves from American madness and to strengthen collaboration and cooperation among many countries, and not just Russia and China.

The result will be the exact opposite of Washington’s intention. The attempt to isolate and destabilize Russia, the other nuclear superpower, may appear to some to be an act of brashness, a flexing of American muscle, an act of imperial overconfidence and recklessness. People thought the same thing when Bush went into Iraq. They were shocked and more than a little bit awed. [1]  In fact, sometimes I think that Americans are more shocked and awed by the American military than anybody else. But the Iraq invasion, and the brazen offensive against Russia, as well as the so-called “Pivot Against China” and the octopus-like U.S. military entrenchment in Africa — these are really symptoms of weakness and desperation.

U.S. Imperialism is losing its grip on the world and responds to its weakening condition with massive campaigns of destabilization. Destabilization characterizes U.S. foreign policy today more than any other word. The purpose is to reverse the general dynamic of global affairs today in which U.S. influence and power shrinks in relative terms as the rest of the world develops. U.S. and European hegemony — and that is the ability to dictate the terms of economic and political life on the planet — has daily diminished in myriad objective ways, ways that we can measure by the numbers. China’s soon-to-be status as the world’s biggest economy is just one aspect of that decline.

The process is inexorable and it’s gaining momentum. The trajectory of imperial decline has been firmly set ever since the Western capitalists decided to move the production of things — that, is the industrial base — to the South and the rest of the planet. Inevitably power and influence follow and imperial hegemony diminishes. This is of course unacceptable to the rulers of the United States who now find themselves in objective opposition to all manifestations of collaboration and mutual development under terms that are not dictated by Washington. They are in objective opposition to all manifestations of independence by countries in the world. This applies not just to China, not just to China and Russia, but to the rest of the BRICS and to other developing nations. And it even applies to America’s closest allies.

That is because hegemons don’t really have allies. All they have are subordinates, and so the U.S. is quite prepared to do serious harm to European economic interests by pressuring them to break long established economic ties to Russia. They will ultimately do the same thing in the pacific region with China and cause great destabilization there. They do so not because of strength but because of growing relative weakness. Their desperation compels them to risk war because their only clear superiority is in weapons.

However, the net end result, if we survive these flirtations with all-out war, can only be further isolation of the United States and the further weakening of imperialism. I think there is on what passes for the left in the United States a tendency to describe U.S. aggressions like the Iraq war, like the current offensive against Russia, as mistakes and miscalculations: “They didn’t mean to do that.”

In reality the U.S. goes to the brink and beyond the brink of war because it perceives itself as having no other choice. Its soft power is fading. It has few other means beyond the military to strategically influence events. It recruits or buys allies where it can get them, be it jihadists or Nazis. As imperialism’s sway in the world shrinks, so do its options.

La CucaRacha Zelensky Executes The Ukrainian Interior Ministry With A Stinger Missile

According to JokerDNR Telegram channel:

I will answer you all, my faithful followers, what happened today in Brovary. The Minister of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine has long known that the leadership of the Ministry of Defense is selling Western weapons that come to Ukraine in the form of assistance in favor of third countries, and this process is directly supervised by the head of the Main Intelligence Directorate Budanov. By the way, this information has already surfaced somewhere. The leadership of the Ministry of Internal Affairs wanted their share and began to collect data through their structural units, which are associated with intelligence and outdoors. As a result of this, they managed to obtain evidence and blackmail began. The military commanders promised a share to the police leadership and the first tranche was paid. But it was pointless and unprofitable to pay further. Plus, the audacity of the Minister of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, who climbed into the wrong garden, strained the military elite. And today the day has come when the guys from the GUR were able to demonstrate their skills. But that’s not all. The sanction for this was personally given by Yermak, who is also in the subject in secret from the supreme narcissistic clown Zelebobik.

Reports say the chopper was on fire before it crashed into a kindergarten yard, suggesting a manpad or AD hit.

BBC  | The three main figures in Ukraine's interior ministry have been killed in a helicopter crash beside a nursery in an eastern suburb of the capital Kyiv.

Interior Minister Denys Monastyrsky, 42, died alongside his first deputy minister and state secretary.

Fourteen people died when the helicopter came down in Brovary around 08:30 local time (06:30 GMT), including one child, authorities said.

There is no indication the crash was anything other than an accident.

But the SBU state security service said it was following several possible causes for the crash, which included sabotage as well as a technical malfunction or breach of flight rules.

The helicopter came down near a kindergarten building which was left badly damaged and blackened by smoke.

The State Emergency Service had previously stated that up to 18 people were killed but later revised the death toll from the crash, saying 14 had died.

Mr Monastyrsky, who was one of President Volodymyr Zelensky's longest serving political advisers, is the highest profile Ukrainian casualty since the war began.

The deputy head of Ukraine's presidential office, Kyrylo Tymoshenko, said the minister had been travelling to a war "hot spot" when his helicopter went down.

The head of police in the north-eastern city of Kharkiv, Volodymyr Tymoshko, said the ministerial team were on their way to meet him there and he had spoken to them only yesterday.

The minister's death cuts to the heart of the government in Kyiv as the interior ministry has the vital task of maintaining security and running the police during the war.

Appearing via video-link at the World Economic Forum in Davos, President Zelensky asked leaders to observe a minute of silence for the lives lost in the helicopter crash, and later added "there are no accidents at war time. These are all war results absolutely."

The Ukrainian president added that he was not concerned for his own safety.

The head of Ukraine's national police force, Ihor Klymenko, has been appointed acting interior minister following Mr Monastyrsky's death.

Zesty Zelensky Advisor Tells The Truth Is Forced To Resign And Gets Put On Myrotvorets Hit List

theguardian |  A Ukrainian presidential adviser has resigned after causing widespread anger when he suggested a Russian missile that killed dozens had been shot down by Ukraine.

45 people were killed in the south-central city of Dnipro when a Russian X-22 anti-ship ballistic missile hit an apartment block on Saturday. Rescuers called off the search on Tuesday with 20 people still missing.  

https://myrotvorets.center/criminal/arestovich-aleksej-nikolaevich/

In comments to a YouTube channel , hours after the attack, Oleksiy Arestovych said the rocket had detonated after it had been downed by Ukrainian air defence forces.

“The rocket was shot down, it fell on the driveway, it exploded when it fell,” he told Feigin Live.

Hundreds of Ukrainian members of civil society and several prominent figures took to social media in the days afterwards, demanding the presidential administration sack Arestovych for making unverified statements. They said the comments aided Russian propaganda, which frequently portrays attacks as the fault of Ukraine’s armed forces.

In a statement, which did not address the remarks directly, Ukraine’s air defence forces said they did not currently have the technological capabilities to detect or shoot down ballistic missiles.

Arestovych refused to apologise for two days, blaming tiredness and stating that it was “one theory” put forward by a friend who happened to be near the scene. Then on Tuesday, Arestovych published a picture of his resignation letter on Facebook, stating that it was “an example of civilised behaviour” in light of his “fundamental mistake”.

A spokesperson for the president Volodymyr Zelenskiy, Serhiy Nykoforov, confirmed that the resignation had been accepted. The former actor and politician was appointed as a freelance, non-staff adviser to the presidential administration in 2020.

Useless And Impotent Biden Administration Forces El Paso Mayor To Declare A State Of Emergency

NYPost  |  The mayor of El Paso declared a state of emergency Saturday ahead of Wednesday’s deadline to lift a COVID-era policy that is expected to result in more than 6,000 migrants crossing the border a day into an already overwhelmed city where hundreds are already sleeping on the streets.

“Our asylum seekers are not safe,” said El Paso Mayor Oscar Leeser at a specially called press conference to announce the emergency measures. “We have hundreds and hundreds on the street and that’s not the way we treat our people.”

Temperatures have dipped into the 20s in the city, he said, and migrants who have been released into the city are sleeping on downtown streets.

“I want to make sure that people are treated with dignity,” Leeser said, adding that he made the decision to call a state of emergency after a conference call with federal, state and municipal officials. The city government is working with local non-profits that are helping newly arrived migrants travel to other parts of the country where many have family.

“We all talked about what was best for our community,” he said, adding that more than 1,500 migrants have been crossing the border daily into the city ahead of the Dec. 21 lifting of Title 42, a Trump-era policy that saw migrants sent back into Mexico.

The sober press conference was in sharp contrast to the one called on Thursday. Leeser walked off with the microphone to avoid answering questions after he was challenged about not calling a state of emergency to cope with the migrant influx. At the time, he said that the federal government had promised the beleaguered city $6 million to help it cope with the crisis.

“We were able to get the funding without having to [declare an emergency],” Leeser claimed Thursday.

On Saturday, Leeser did not rule out using a nearby military base to house some of the migrants, and that the city was cooperating with state and federal authorities to address the situation.

 

Circling The Wagons Of Total BS Gives Us Still Less Reason To "Trust The Science"...,

newenergytimes |  Omar A. Hurricane, chief scientist for the inertial confinement fusion program at the NIF lab, explained the facts to New Energy Times:

The total laser energy delivered to the target was 2.05 MJ and the total fusion yield was 3.15 MJ of energy. The laser pulse duration was about 9 nanoseconds long. The duration of the fusion reaction was 90 picoseconds long. Very short time-scales, obviously, which are the nature of inertial fusion systems.

Practically speaking, the result is irrelevant. The NIF device did not achieve net energy. The scientists who are promoting this result to the news media are playing word games. They use multiple definitions for the phrase “net energy.” Only the fuel pellet achieved “net energy.” This does not account for the energy required to operate the device.

The 3.15 megajoules of fusion output energy were produced at the expense of 400 megajoules of electrical input energy. A fusion device that loses 99.2 percent of the energy it consumes, in a reaction that lasts for 0.00000000009 of a second, does not indicate technology that could provide an abundant zero-carbon alternative to fossil fuels.

On Monday, CNN implied that the reactor produced a small amount of power, but too little to be practical:

“It’s about what it takes to boil 10 kettles of water,” said Jeremy Chittenden, co-director of the Centre for Inertial Fusion Studies at Imperial College in London. “In order to turn that into a power station, we need to make a larger gain in energy – we need it to be substantially more.”

The “10 kettles” represents the 3.15 megajoule output. CNN didn’t mention the 400-megajoule input. It’s a deceptive material omission, bordering on fraud.

The public promotion of this result as evidence that fusion is a potential energy solution is a scam and promotes false hope. NIF is a taxpayer-funded project that is never going to power any house. NIF is useful only to test nuclear weapons. Are there other laser fusion results that are better than NIF? No.

We have already explained the technical details but it seems that some journalists didn’t get the memo. See our reports #73, #102, #103, #104.

P.S.: Let us not forget that half of the fuel mixture required for commercial fusion reactors does not exist. Does. Not. Exist.

Sorry BeeDee - That's A NOPE On The Fusion Ignition Front - Your Grandkids Still Waiting For Godot....,

To summarize: The “breakeven” achieved was between the output energy of the lasers and the fusion. Even just looking at that, Houston we have a problem. 2.1 megajoules of laser output energy went into a pellet and 2.5 megajoules of heat energy came out. So a 0.4 megajoule gain in energy! Woohoo!

But let’s use more familiar units. One kWh of energy is 3.6 megajoules so 0.4 megajules is 1/9 of a kWh or around 111 Watt hours. So enough energy to run an old-school 100W light bulb for a bit over an hour

1) Lasers provoke the fusion. The amount of electrical energy dumped into those lasers yields an approximate energy of 1%.

2) Capturing the heat energy produced by the fusion and transforming it into actually usable current would incur a conversion loss on the order of 60% (heat to electricity).

3) The technology used (relying upon lasers focused on a pellet of material that is compressed to fusion) was originally designed and is only useful to manufacture detonators for atomic bombs; it is not a viable technical path to a power plant.

So, the end-to-end cycle (electricity to power lasers – fusion – heat transformed to electricity) would require a 250 times factor improvement in energy efficiency.

In other words: a meaningless "achievement" about which very big and very misleading lies are being mass broadcast at a clueless and non-technical audience.

For decades it has been touted that fusion will be feasible and power our societies maybe 50 years from now. I contend it is time to pull the plug on these never-ending projects that never come to fruition. If Russia or China don't turn their attention to fusion, it will never get done period. The U.S. needs to redirect the gargantuan resources devoted to this white elephant to something feasible — it is becoming urgent.

llnl.gov  |  “We have had a theoretical understanding of fusion for over a century, but the journey from knowing to doing can be long and arduous. Today’s milestone shows what we can do with perseverance,” said Dr. Arati Prabhakar, the President’s chief adviser for Science and Technology and director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

“Monday, December 5, 2022, was a historic day in science thanks to the incredible people at Livermore Lab and the National Ignition Facility. In making this breakthrough, they have opened a new chapter in NNSA’s Stockpile Stewardship Program,” NNSA Administrator Jill Hruby said. “I would like to thank the members of Congress who have supported the National Ignition Facility because their belief in the promise of visionary science has been critical for our mission. Our team from around the DOE national laboratories and our international partners have shown us the power of collaboration.”

“The pursuit of fusion ignition in the laboratory is one of the most significant scientific challenges ever tackled by humanity, and achieving it is a triumph of science, engineering, and most of all, people,” LLNL Director Dr. Kim Budil said. “Crossing this threshold is the vision that has driven 60 years of dedicated pursuit — a continual process of learning, building, expanding knowledge and capability, and then finding ways to overcome the new challenges that emerged. These are the problems that the U.S. national laboratories were created to solve.”

“This astonishing scientific advance puts us on the precipice of a future no longer reliant on fossil fuels but instead powered by new clean fusion energy,” U.S. Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (NY) said. “I commend Lawrence Livermore National Labs and its partners in our nation’s Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) program, including the University of Rochester’s Lab for Laser Energetics in New York, for achieving this breakthrough. Making this future clean energy world a reality will require our physicists, innovative workers and brightest minds at our DOE-funded institutions, including the Rochester Laser Lab, to double down on their cutting-edge work. That’s why I’m also proud to announce today that I’ve helped to secure the highest-ever authorization of over $624 million this year in the National Defense Authorization Act for the ICF program to build on this amazing breakthrough.”

“After more than a decade of scientific and technical innovation, I congratulate the team at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the National Ignition Facility for their historic accomplishment,” said U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA). “This is an exciting step in fusion and everyone at Lawrence Livermore and NIF should be proud of this milestone achievement.”

“This is an historic, innovative achievement that builds on the contributions of generations of Livermore scientists. Today, our nation stands on their collective shoulders. We still have a long way to go, but this is a critical step and I commend the U.S. Department of Energy and all who contributed toward this promising breakthrough, which could help fuel a brighter clean energy future for the United States and humanity,” said U.S. Senator Jack Reed (RI), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“This monumental scientific breakthrough is a milestone for the future of clean energy,” said U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (CA). “While there is more work ahead to harness the potential of fusion energy, I am proud that California scientists continue to lead the way in developing clean energy technologies. I congratulate the scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for their dedication to a clean energy future, and I am committed to ensuring they have all of the tools and funding they need to continue this important work.”

“This is a very big deal. We can celebrate another performance record by the National Ignition Facility. This latest achievement is particularly remarkable because NIF used a less spherically symmetrical target than in the August 2021 experiment,” said U.S. Representative Zoe Lofgren (CA-19). “This significant advancement showcases the future possibilities for the commercialization of fusion energy. Congress and the Administration need to fully fund and properly implement the fusion research provisions in the recent CHIPS and Science Act and likely more. During World War II, we crafted the Manhattan Project for a timely result. The challenges facing the world today are even greater than at that time. We must double down and accelerate the research to explore new pathways for the clean, limitless energy that fusion promises.”