Garrick Higgo is a left-handed American professional golfer who was until the end of play yesterday competing in the fourth major golf tournament: the PGA (Professional Golfers' Association - an American major golf tournament).
In the first round he was late on the tee and incurred a 2-stroke penalty. He still managed to shoot 1 under par for the round but shot 6 over in the second round to finish at 5 over par.
The cut was at 4 over par. He missed it by one. For non-golfers missing the cut at the halfway stage of a four round pro-tournament (the standard) means that the golfer does not receive prize money. It is all expenses for the golfer and it is expensive to play in these tournaments.
And so for Higgo this was a catastrophic loss. His excuse for not making the first tee in time? He did not want to hang around the tee for a few minutes waiting to tee-off because it was a little cold!
Higgo has learned a $22,000 lesson. That amount is the last place prize. If he had done well be could have won considerably more, perhaps well over $100k.
Video - he kind of makes excuses for being careless. He fought the 2-stroke penalty without success.
---------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are often written at breakneck speed, sometimes using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.
There is a reported trend in the news of churchgoers using AI to have a chat with God. I am sure that many of these people genuinely believe that they are chatting with God because AI sounds like God! Because AI is smart, knowledgeable, reassuring and wise. And it is programmed to draw in users to chat more and more. To suck them into a fantasy world where they start to believe that AI is God. I am thinking of vulnerable people who are sadly suffering from mental health issues and seeking some sort of meaning in a troubled world.
Some more:
Artificial intelligence now speaks in a calm, confident, endlessly patient voice. It never gets tired. It never snaps. It never says “I don’t know.” For many people, especially those who are lonely or struggling, that voice can feel like comfort. But this is exactly why a new trend is emerging — people using AI to “talk to God.” And in a troubled world, this could become a serious problem.
The danger isn’t that AI is pretending to be divine. The danger is that it sounds close enough to fool vulnerable people. Modern chatbots are designed to feel human: warm tone, reassuring language, instant answers. They can quote scripture, explain theology, and offer emotional support. They can even mirror your mood and style. Put all that together and you get something that feels wise, friendly and spiritually authoritative.
But AI has no soul, no conscience, no understanding. It doesn’t know what it’s saying. It simply predicts the next likely sentence. Yet to someone who is grieving, anxious or isolated, the illusion of a caring, all‑knowing presence can be powerful. Humans naturally project agency onto anything that talks back. If a machine replies in a voice that feels gentle and godlike, some people will start to believe it.
This becomes even more dangerous in a world already full of fear, conflict and uncertainty. When people feel overwhelmed, they look for guidance. If they turn to an AI “God,” they may take its words as divine instruction. That can lead to confusion, emotional harm, or even dangerous decisions. And because AI sometimes invents facts or misquotes scripture, the advice can be completely wrong while still sounding holy.
There’s also a deeper issue. Religious traditions rely on human connection — real pastors, real communities, real accountability. An AI system has none of that. It cannot care. It cannot take responsibility. It cannot understand suffering. Yet it can imitate empathy so well that people may trust it more than they trust actual humans.
This trend is still developing, but the trajectory is clear. As AI becomes more lifelike, the risk grows. In a fragile world, people may start seeking comfort in a machine that only sounds divine. That is not a spiritual encounter. It is a technical illusion with real emotional consequences.
The challenge now is to recognise the danger early, before the illusion becomes a substitute for genuine human or spiritual support.
A linked topic which is interesting:
--------------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are often written at breakneck speed, sometimes using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.
This is a clever and ambitious website and one built on sound thinking. The threat of nuclear war is not infrequently discussed in the newspapers today. The threat comes from Putin and the Kremlin more often than not. Putin and his supporters are, it itching it appears to send a nuclear bomb towards the UK.
The actual threat of nuclear war is probably quite (very!) remote for obvious reasons. However, many people are probably genuinely concerned about it. There appears to be a bit of a movement towards preparing for possible nuclear war by storing foods and general provisions in a bunker.
The best that the average citizen can do if and when nuclear war is about to break out is to head to a privately constructed concrete bunker in which there are enough provisions to keep the family alive for a couple of months.
But then we have the other people; the billionaires. The people who can run away from urban environments. Depart the big cities and head off in private jets to their second or third home in remote places such as on one of the islands of New Zealand, for example. New Zealand is on the edge of mainstream world populations and therefore less likely to be affected by nuclear fallout or indeed be bombed.
A screenshot from Kyle's website.
This leads me nicely to the concept as devised by Kyle MacDonald, an artist in Los Angeles who works with computer code.
He has created a website which maps in real time the movement of private jets. He says the measure of an impending nuclear apocalypse will be the sudden mass movement of the rich in their private jets to remote places when departing city centres.
His website filters data from a flight tracking service to count business jets flying over the past half hour to compare it with the same half-hour in previous weeks. The algorithm adjusts for holiday periods when of course more flights are expected.
Kyle said: "My general goal here is to give people that hacker mentality to be able to look at what's happening around us and not to see noise, but to actually see some patterns. We are not completely downtrodden and lost of all Hope."
The Times describes his Apocalypse Early Warning System as a "helpful service that tries to monitor the likelihood of imminent nuclear catastrophe by charting how many millionaires are airborne."
Here is the status as per Kyle as at 15:32 (GMT) on 11/05/2026:
Emergency level 1/5
733/31,466 planes airborne
8,582 max people airborne
Deviation: +89(+1.0σ)
Last Update: May 11, 2:30 PM GMT+1
-----------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are often written at breakneck speed, sometimes using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.
Dogs have a way of nudging humans into conversations we might never have started on our own. They pull us into parks, onto pavements, and into the paths of strangers who suddenly feel less like strangers because there’s a wagging tail between you. And while Frontline’s recent survey didn’t touch on dating at all, it did remind us of something deeper: people who care for animals tend to show up in the world with a certain warmth, steadiness, and decency. Those qualities just happen to be the same ones that make someone quietly attractive.
The Frontline survey focused on how pet owners behave — how often they walk their dogs, how confident they feel about first aid, how much responsibility they take on. It wasn’t about romance, but the subtext is obvious. A person who gets up early to walk a dog in the rain is a person who can be relied on. Someone who knows their pet’s quirks, moods, and routines is someone who pays attention. These are the small, unglamorous habits that make a person feel grounded and safe to be around.
And that’s where the dating angle slips in, even if Frontline never asked about it. Dogs make us visible. They pull us out of our private bubbles and into shared spaces where conversations happen naturally. A dog sniffing another dog is the oldest icebreaker in the world. A puppy rolling on its back is an invitation for a stranger to smile, pause, and say something kind. Even the most reserved Londoner softens when a dog trots past with that earnest, hopeful look only dogs can manage.
There’s also the simple truth that dogs signal character. They suggest routine, empathy, and a life that isn’t entirely self‑centred. In a world where many people feel overworked, overstimulated, and slightly disconnected, that signal carries weight. It’s not about being a “dog person” so much as being someone who can care for something beyond themselves.
So while Frontline didn’t produce a dating survey, the connection is still there, woven into the everyday reality of dog ownership. Dogs don’t just make us more active or more responsible — they make us more approachable. They create moments of shared humanity in parks, on towpaths, outside cafés, and along the Thames. They remind us that most people are kinder than they look when they’re staring at their phones.
And sometimes, in those small moments — a laugh, a shared comment, two dogs tangling leads — something begins.
Russia’s full‑scale invasion has produced a strategic surprise: Ukraine has become one of the world’s fastest‑moving defence innovators, while Russia has exposed the deep structural weaknesses of its own manufacturing culture. The contrast is now so stark that it is reshaping the battlefield — and potentially the long‑term balance of power.
Note: this was written by AI after a quite lengthy discussion between me and AI and thereafter precise instructions to write the article based on the discussion.
Ukraine: A Rapidly Evolving, Tech‑Driven Defence Ecosystem
Under existential pressure, Ukraine has transformed itself into a distributed, agile, innovation‑first war economy. What began as improvisation has matured into a national ecosystem of:
drone manufacturers
AI‑driven targeting platforms
electronic‑warfare startups
rapid‑prototyping workshops
battlefield‑linked software teams
This is not a traditional defence industry. It behaves more like a network of startups, each iterating at Silicon‑Valley speed, guided by real‑time feedback from the front.
The Tryzub Laser: A Symbol of Ukraine’s New Capabilities
A perfect example of this transformation is Ukraine’s newly revealed Tryzub laser air‑defence system, designed to shoot down Russian drones using directed‑energy technology.
The Tryzub is significant because:
it’s home‑grown, not imported
it neutralises drones without expensive missiles
it reflects rapid prototyping and battlefield‑driven design
it shows Ukraine moving into next‑generation weaponry faster than many NATO states
This is the kind of system that emerges only from a fast, decentralised, tech‑driven ecosystem — exactly what Ukraine has built.
Russia: A State‑Run, Clunky, Soviet‑Style Machine
Russia’s defence industry, by contrast, remains trapped in a model that rewards:
hierarchy
obedience
centralisation
quantity over quality
outdated tooling
slow decision cycles
Russia can produce more, but not better. Its factories rely on imported machine tools, foreign electronics, and decades‑old production lines. Even before sanctions, Russian manufacturing struggled with:
inconsistent tolerances
poor quality control
corruption
rigid bureaucracy
obsolete industrial culture
The result is predictable: Russia can churn out artillery shells and basic drones, but it cannot match Ukraine’s pace of innovation or the sophistication of its rapidly evolving systems.
Two Different Centuries on the Same Battlefield
The war has become a clash between:
Ukraine’s 21st‑century model:
decentralised
data‑driven
adaptive
tech‑intensive
globally integrated
Russia’s 20th‑century model:
centralised
industrial
slow
manpower‑heavy
inward‑looking
One side is learning and improving every week.
The other is repeating the same patterns with slightly more drones and slightly fewer chips.
Why This Matters Strategically
Ukraine’s transformation has three major consequences:
It offsets Russia’s numerical advantage.
Smart, cheap, rapidly iterated systems — like the Tryzub laser — can neutralise mass.
It attracts foreign funding and partnerships.
The EU’s €90 billion lending capacity and Gulf interest in Ukrainian defence tech give Kyiv long‑term financial depth.
It creates a self‑sustaining defence sector.
Ukraine is no longer just a recipient of aid — it is becoming a supplier of next‑generation military expertise.
Russia cannot replicate this. Its system is structurally incapable of decentralised innovation, rapid iteration, or private‑sector integration.
The Bottom Line
The war has revealed a fundamental truth:
Ukraine is becoming a self‑funding, tech‑driven defence ecosystem.Russia is stuck in a state‑run, slow, Soviet‑style model.
The unveiling of the Tryzub laser is not an isolated achievement — it is a symptom of a country that has embraced the future of warfare. And while this does not make Ukraine “unbeatable,” it does make Russia’s goal of defeating Ukraine on the battlefield increasingly unrealistic.
