es because they say, "See, look how good our records are. I told you they were accurate. Now you can see for yourself. Take a look." Why would they withhold it? I can only think of one reason. They know their voter records are either fraudulent or so poorly maintained that it's a security problem. I can't think of another reason unless it's just sort of general say no to everything Trump wants.

Axios is reporting that this year white men have made up a majority of new directors at the top 500 companies in the US for the first time in nearly a decade because American corporations are reversing their diversity efforts. So is that a problem? Is it a problem that white men got a dominant number of the director jobs? Is that a problem? Well, it would be a problem if they were not qualified, but nobody said that. If it were not based on merit and or what that person can do for your company, it's more about what they could do for the company, which would include contacts. Remember everybody got mad that Hunter Biden didn't know much about the oil business but he was a director at Burisma. So everybody said well that's got to be a problem because he had no experience in that industry. And I kept saying you don't look for people with experience in the industry, not for directors. For directors, you look for people who have something that the industry doesn't have and they do, such as a connection to another industry that they need to work with, such as background in AI for example if you thought your company was going to bring in a bunch of AI in the future. So you could think of a whole bunch of reasons but one of them is that somebody's just connected. If you're connected, you're going to be more likely to be a director. So anyway, that doesn't bother me. I'm happy about it if we assume it's based on merit.

All right. So Trump's going to take another run at the Supreme Court. I guess it's the first time to try to get the birthright citizenship overturned. So as it stands, you just have to be born in this country and you're a citizen. But the argument would be that that rule was about the children of slaves and that when it was extended beyond that it became ridiculous because other countries, most of them don't do this. And there's a reason they don't do it and it's the reason that we want to stop doing it. So we'll see. I don't know if I would predict that he's going to be successful in that even with a conservative court. I feel like the originalists who want to keep things the way it was originally intended, I feel like probably there's so much case law and precedent at this point it'd be hard to reverse that.

According to Beth Braley in the Federalist, there was a study about right-wing violence that was full of fake data because I guess they let some rabid Antifa-connected person into the research. That was one of the problems. I don't know if that was the only reason they think it was fake, but they believe it's fake. Now as I remind you, all data that matters is fake. Now sometimes it might be useful. It might be better that you have the fake than if you didn't. But all data that matters from economics to health to finance to violence to crime data. It's all fake. It's all fake and it probably always will be.

According to Dr. Singularity on X, there's big waves of innovation coming. Now he doesn't say it's because of AI, but it could be that there's just waves of innovation coming with or without AI. And he says there's a tsunami hitting every field simultaneously, a tsunami of new science. That'd be cool. But there's a potential cancer treatment that looks exciting. By the way, there's a story about a potential cancer treatment basically every day and almost none of them will pan out. You know, the ones that are for mice. They almost never pan out for humans. But now they've created a type of immunotherapy called glyco-dependent T-cell recruiters or glyoT that can kill many kinds of cancer cells without damaging healthy tissue. So I guess what it does is it just directly boosts your body's ability to fight the cancer and it does it so effectively that it doesn't matter too much which form of cancer it is. Now that would be amazing. And you know what I say to that? Could you please hurry up? Could you just work a little overtime for me? Could you please try to get this done in the next six months, please? And if you need somebody to test it on, here I am. Yeah. Test it on me.

Well, the makers of Tylenol, we've learned that as far back as 2018 they were saying that the evidence was getting quote heavy for autism risk from Tylenol. So apparently it's something they've known was at least a growing concern for a while. Is that why Johnson & Johnson spun them off into their own company? Was there any other reason for that? Or did Johnson & Johnson say, "Oh, we're going to be totally out of business from the lawsuits, so we'll spin it off into a separate company." And if that gets taken down, well, separate company, somebody else's company gets taken down. So that may have happened, but there may be more to why they spun it off. Maybe it was just a money situation.

Elon Musk according to Fortune is selling his Grok AI as a service to the US government for 42 cents for every department agency that uses it. Now, not 42 cents every time you use it, but just 42 cents for every agency. Now, why would he do that? And apparently the other AIs have been negotiating for super low cost AI for the government. Why would he do that? Well, I don't know. I can't read his mind, but I'm going to speculate a few things. Whoever's AI is the engine that drives the government controls the government because don't you believe that we will rapidly reach a point where AI will tell us what the right answer is for all of our policies. So there'll be less and less human thinking involved in all of our big decisions whether it's government or business or personal. It'll be more AI and less humans. And that trend will just keep continuing until you basically just ask the AI what to do and you still say yes or no. So the humans are still in charge but they won't override the AI as often the further you go into the future. So that would give whoever could tweak the algorithm on the AI and that person can determine what is true but maybe also what's policy. Now if you have an honest actor running the AI then that doesn't happen. But how can you guarantee that you'll have an honest actor even if the actor that's there passes away? Will the next person be an honest broker? I don't know. I am happy about the fact that Grok is in the mix because I do think it's the one that has the least risk of grotesque bias. They're all going to have bias, but I'd be happy about that.

Zelensky is asking the US for Tomahawk missiles because they could reach all the way to Moscow and they're hard to shoot down. So that would be sort of a World War III moment if he starts lobbing American-made missiles into Moscow. But Zelensky wants to do exactly that. He wants to make it hard for the government of Russia to ignore the fact that they're in a war. Now I don't know if I'm in favor of that, but I wouldn't be surprised if Trump decides to okay it. Wouldn't be surprised because he's clearly ramping up the danger to try to get something done. And I don't know if he would ramp it up that much. And I don't know what Russia would do. I assume that they would. Or