Subscribe
10K658,344 views Mar 12, 2026
Lecture by Robert Sapolsky Spring 2024 BIO 150: Human Behavioral Biology (HUMBIO 160) Multidisciplinary. How to approach complex normal and abnormal behaviors through biology. How to integrate disciplines including sociobiology, ethology, neuroscience, and endocrinology to examine behaviors such as aggression, sexual behavior, language use, and mental illness.
Dec 12, 2024
Robert Sapolsky Father-Offspring InterviewsEpisode 41 of Father-Offspring Interviews. This episode discusses the role of sleep in depression, whether Bipolar Disorder is a sleeping disorder, and the psychosomatic nature of chronic pain. Captions available for translation.
https://twitter.com/SnDMediaNews/status/2112554296218661085/video/1
See new posts
Trump Warns Europe Faces Collapse from Mass Migration and “Treasonous” Political Policies President Donald Trump used a campaign rally near Wichita, Kansas yesterday to frame the violent unrest sweeping France as a stark warning for the United States and Europe.
Speaking at an event supporting Republican Senator Roger Marshall, Trump told the crowd that the scenes of burning buildings and looting showed “what’s at stake” in the upcoming midterm elections and the broader defense of “Western civilization.” “If you want to see what’s at stake in this election, just look at France,” Trump said. He described the country as “a once great nation that is being conquered, looted and burned to the ground by migrants, jihadists and communists who hate Christianity” and “Western civilization itself.” He blamed “globalist left-wing politicians” for having “treasonously imported millions of Third World Migrants who are totally incompatible with Western Values, and despise everything that makes France great.” These migrants, he said, “refuse to assimilate” and seek only the welfare state “paid for by hardworking citizens of France, while desecrating the culture.”
Trump urged Europe to “CLOSE THEIR BORDERS, and get out the people who hate their countries, and get them out FAST, before it is too late.” He recalled warning French President Emmanuel Macron years earlier: close the borders “or it will be the end of France,” adding that “Paris is going to be a Muslim city very soon.” He extended the critique to other European countries and linked the situation to U.S. politics, saying radical Democrats want the same outcome in America.
The remarks amplified earlier comments on Truth Social and to reporters, where he stated that the unrest “has to do with immigration, not schools, not anything. It’s immigration.”Nationwide demonstrations over school conditions, the cost of living, and public services escalated into some of the worst street violence in years. Hundreds of thousands marched, with groups setting fires, looting shops, and attacking public buildings in cities including Paris, Marseille, Lyon, and Bordeaux.
In Limoges, masked rioters set the 19th-century city hall ablaze, collapsing its roof and clock tower in what officials called a heritage catastrophe. More than 2,000 people were arrested and roughly 1,000 police officers injured. French authorities blamed far-left activists and opportunistic criminals, rejecting a pure immigration explanation for the immediate disorder. Trump’s framing casts the events as the result of long-term migration policies that imported populations hostile to Western culture without effective controls or assimilation, fueling ongoing debate ahead of France’s 2027 presidential election and the U.S. midterms.
BREAKING: Elon Musk says humans are unlikely to remain in control if digital intelligence becomes a million times greater than biological intelligence.
“It’s hard to imagine humans being in control in that scenario. So I hope the AI is nice to us.”
https://twitter.com/cb_doge/status/2112596569300320638/video/1
et al
https://twitter.com/tonjkb/status/2112592179277250657/video/1
et al
https://twitter.com/interr_x/status/2112402786038256038/video/1
By Fred Byrne and Benjamin Fox
Brussels
20 October 2026 18:10
A diverse array of MEPs on Tuesday (20 October) expressed their enthusiasm for the UK ‘correcting the mistake’ of Brexit by rejoining the European Union 10 years after its people narrowly voted to leave.
“Trump, Xi and Putin might form a troika of iliberalism standing in defiance of the achievements of liberal democracy”, warned Barry Andrews, an Irish MEP for Renew, saying that the EU should not treat the United Kingdom “like any other third country”.
His party ally Sandro Gozi, an Italian MEP, added: “Every option must be on the table, from a special partnership to full EU membership.”
The debate on EU-UK relations in the Strasbourg parliament came a month ahead of a highly-anticipated EU-UK summit in Brussels on 20 November.
Read more
Although the UK rejoining the bloc is still a distant prospect, it is back on the agenda because of new prime minister Andy Burnham.
Britain could “go all the way” back into the EU, added Burnham.
European parliament president Robert Metsola has given an open invitation for Burnham to address MEPs, her office told EUobserver, in another sign of goodwill.
The UK Treasury, meanwhile, is expected to publish a study in the coming days detailing the scale of the hit to the UK economy from leaving the bloc.
Burnham’s predecessor Keir Starmer, who resigned in July primarily because of dismal opinion poll ratings, had promised a ‘reset’ of EU-UK relations when his government took power in July 2024. But apart from rhetoric, little has changed, though the UK now has access to the Erasmus+ student exchange programme.
New deals agreed should be “the floor and not the ceiling” of bilateral relations, said David McAllister, a German MEP for the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP).
On the right, Polish MEP for the European Conservatives and Reformists Jadwiga Wiśniewska also welcomed new talks with the UK, calling for them to be based on “concrete elements” like agriculture deals, defence and Erasmus+.
Enjoy access to all articles and 25 years of archives, comment and gift articles. Become a subscriber for as low as €1,75 per week.
Signed in as
michellemarcella.clarke1@gmail.com
Let’s discuss. We’d love to hear your thoughts, questions or feedback below.
Commenter name and bio
Please enter your real name under which you will appear in the discussion. You may also fill in your discussion profile.NameDiscussion profile
100 characters remaining
Burnham’s UK‑first politics meet a more protectionist EU and its ‘Made in Europe’ plan
THIS WEEK: Budget fallout, Russian provocations, and could the ICC be awarded the EU’s Sakharov prize?IRAN THREATENS TO SEVER 7 CRITICAL UNDERSEA INTERNET CABLES Iran’s IRGC reportedly threatens to target seven major undersea internet cables in the Strait of Hormuz if war with the U.S. and Israel escalates. Such attacks could severely disrupt regional internet connectivity, banking, telecommunications and international data traffic.
| AI governing the AI world |
 |
| Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios. Stock: Getty Images |
| Slowly but surely, the leading AI companies are creating a national self-governing structure to oversee their technology and its societal impact, Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen write in a “Behind the Curtain” column. With the federal government largely hands-off, Anthropic, OpenAI and others are self-regulating their technology and now setting up their own plans to redistribute their wealth. Why it matters: Not since the age of the robber barons have America’s industrial titans wielded such sweeping power to shape society — and decide how their private fortunes should serve the public good. In the modern era, Washington has largely exercised those powers through regulation, taxation and public spending  The big picture: President Trump has no interest in new regulations. Instead, he has blessed a basic framework for the AI companies to regulate themselves — and potentially each other — outside of formal government monitoring.Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, Elon Musk’s XSI, Meta and Nvidia are working on different versions of this. To be clear, this is all voluntary and rests on the public trusting companies the size of industrialized nations to responsibly police themselves. These companies are in a frantic race to create human-surpassing superintelligence. All are pressing ahead, even as their leaders — particularly at Anthropic — warn of potentially catastrophic risks and profound economic disruption. At the same time, some AI leaders are promising to direct a portion of their vast wealth to benefit those outside their companies. Zoom in: At least three competing visions are emerging for sharing the spoils of the AI boom, each with a different answer to who should control the wealth. Anthropic: The company. On the eve of its blockbuster IPO, Anthropic pledged 5% of its shares to a new public benefit fund that could grow into one of the largest philanthropic institutions in history. At a hypothetical $2 trillion valuation, its stake would be worth $100 billion — more than the Gates Foundation’s current endowment. Including earlier founder and employee pledges, roughly 20% of Anthropic’s shares are earmarked for the public good. Musk: The people. Musk responded to Anthropic’s announcement by urging the company to give shares “directly to the public.” Yesterday, Musk pledged to give every American child a share of SpaceX next year — a staggering $10.5 billion giveaway at current prices. Musk called it the “first of many,” though he offered no details on how the unprecedented distribution would work. OpenAI: The government. CEO Sam Altman has floated giving the U.S. government a 5% stake in OpenAI through a sovereign wealth fund — potentially handing Washington a multibillion-dollar interest in one of the world’s most powerful AI companies. Altman envisions an Alaska-style fund that could distribute the industry’s investment returns directly to Americans, though the plan remains preliminary and would likely require congressional approval  Reality check: The numbers are staggering. So are the assumptions about future wealth, billionaire follow-through and the public’s willingness to trust its benefactors.Bill Gates and Warren Buffett launched the Giving Pledge in 2010, a voluntary promise by billionaires — including Musk — to give away most of their fortunes. Gates built a philanthropic empire, only to become a lightning rod for conspiracy theories. Anthropic’s ambitions depend on extraordinary growth projections — its own employees envision 17% GDP growth in 2030 — while Musk has a history of making spectacular promises that fail to materialize. Anthropic’s roots in effective altruism, a philosophy deeply distrusted by the Trump administration and its allies, also raise a more fundamental question: Who gets to define the public good? Between the lines: No industry requirements or consensus exist on how best to redistribute their expected wealth. But Trump Accounts — which allow families, businesses and individuals to invest in tax-advantaged funds for children — are emerging as a favorite vehicle for free-market AI leaders. Billionaire investor Brad Gerstner, a driving force behind the program, is championing a vision of broad-based ownership in which ordinary Americans share directly in the economic upside of the AI revolution. SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell and her husband have already pledged roughly $320 million in company shares to 2 million children through Trump Accounts — a potential blueprint for distributing an even larger slice of Musk’s fortune  What to watch: The Trump administration hasn’t fully relinquished its regulatory authority, potentially complicating the emerging experiment in AI self-governance.After Anthropic disclosed that its AI had submitted a false homicide tip to Philadelphia police and improperly interacted with government websites, the White House declared that AI companies must report security incidents and remedy any harm. “This notification and remediation process is not optional,” Trump’s Super Intelligence Force warned — a striking assertion of federal authority just weeks after the president blessed a voluntary system of industry oversight. Share this column … Zachary Basu and Bradley Olson contributed reporting. |
  |
OCT20
Choose another dateOK
October
| 29 | 30 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 1 | 2 |
1947
Getty Images
Published: November 24, 2009 Last Updated: May 27, 2025
On October 20, 1947, the notorious Red Scare kicks into high gear in Washington, as a Congressional committee begins investigating communist influence in one of the world’s richest and most glamorous communities: Hollywood.
After World War II, the Cold War began to heat up between the world’s two superpowers—the United States and the communist-controlled Soviet Union. In Washington, conservative watchdogs worked to out communists in government before setting their sights on alleged “Reds” in the famously liberal movie industry. In an investigation that began in October 1947, the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) grilled a number of prominent witnesses, asking bluntly “Are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?” Whether out of patriotism or fear, some witnesses—including director Elia Kazan, actors Gary Cooper and Robert Taylor and studio honchos Walt Disney and Jack Warner—gave the committee names of colleagues they suspected of being communists.
Historian Yohuru Williams discusses key facts about the Hollywood Ten, a group of film directors, screenwriters and producers blacklisted for Communist affiliations in 1947.
1:41m watch
A small group known as the “Hollywood Ten” resisted, complaining that the hearings were illegal and violated their First Amendment rights. They were all convicted of obstructing the investigation and served jail terms. Pressured by Congress, the Hollywood establishment started a blacklist policy, banning the work of about 325 screenwriters, actors and directors who had not been cleared by the committee. Those blacklisted included composer Aaron Copland, writers Dashiell Hammett, Lillian Hellman and Dorothy Parker, playwright Arthur Miller and actor and filmmaker Orson Welles.
Some of the blacklisted writers used pseudonyms to continue working, while others wrote scripts that were credited to other writer friends. Starting in the early 1960s, after the downfall of Senator Joseph McCarthy, the most public face of anti-communism, the ban began to lift slowly. In 1997, the Writers’ Guild of America unanimously voted to change the writing credits of 23 films made during the blacklist period, reversing—but not erasing—some of the damage done during the Red Scare.
Timeline
Also on This Day in History
Discover more of the major events, famous births, notable deaths and everything else history-making that happened on October 20th
