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.
There is a huge argument among the British public about whether Israel's attack on Gaza can be categorised as genocide or whether that description is inflammatory and entirely wrong.
However, we now have an adjudication by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) which in effect clears the path for journalists to describe the IDF's attack and destruction of Gaza as genocide.
To be clear, The Times newspaper has a short article on this with the headline: "Press clear to call Gaza genocide". The first paragraph reads: "News organisations are entitled to describe Israel's military campaign in Gaza as genocide, the press watchdog has ruled."
What happened is this. Ipso rejected a complaint against a Scottish newspaper. That paper used the word "genocide" in a headline. Ipso said that they were not in a position to adjudicate on the actions of Israel and therefore they did not uphold the complaint.
Of course, Jewish campaigners are incensed and rejected this finding as "laughable".
Jewish campaigners would argue that the allegation of genocide is unproven and that using the word promoted anti-Semitism.
Of course, it would but I think you will find that it is agreed that Benjamin Netanyahu's administration has caused a surge in anti-Semitism in the UK because of the destruction of Gaza which I would suggest the majority of people saw as unjustified, cruel and an act of genocide. I will remain neutral on this but I lean towards the genocide argument.
Jewish campaigners would say that the only body entitled to make a finding of genocide would be the International Court of Justice. This has not happened.
At the time of the complaint, the International Court of Justice was in the process of considering allegations of genocide brought against Israel.
Accordingly, Ipso came to the conclusion that "Absent a legal ruling to this effect, the committee was not in a position to determine whether the article was inaccurate, misleading or distorted on this point."
A spokesperson for the Campaign against Anti-Semitism, in an interview with the Daily Telegraph said: "This decision is laughable. Do people still not understand that repeatedly asserting that the Jewish state has committed genocide - when no independent and competent judicial body has made such a determination - contributes to the environment of hostility towards Jewish people."
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.
The American administration’s handling of the Iran crisis has once again exposed a deeper problem: contradictory messaging at the very top, producing confusion among allies, adversaries, and even within Washington itself. The clearest example came in the stark contrast between Senator Marco Rubio’s recent declaration that Operation Epic Fury was “completed” and its objectives “met”, and President Trump’s subsequent warning that the United States would “bomb the hell out of Iran” if Tehran refused to come to an agreement.
Rubio’s statement was unambiguous. He presented Epic Fury as a finished, self‑contained military operation, one that had successfully degraded Iran’s defensive infrastructure and achieved the goals set out by the administration. His tone was that of closure: the operation was over, the mission accomplished, and the United States was transitioning to a defensive posture. This message was clearly intended to reassure markets, calm regional partners, and signal that Washington was not preparing for further escalation.
Yet within hours, President Trump delivered a message that pointed in the opposite direction. His threat to resume heavy bombing if Iran did not accept U.S. terms suggested that the crisis was far from resolved. Instead of reinforcing Rubio’s narrative of completion, Trump’s remarks reopened the possibility of renewed conflict. The contrast was so sharp that it effectively nullified the administration’s attempt to project stability.
This is not an isolated incident. The pattern of mixed signals has become a defining feature of the administration’s foreign‑policy communication. Officials attempt to present a controlled, strategic posture, while the President often adopts a far more confrontational tone. The result is a form of policy whiplash: allies are unsure which message reflects actual U.S. intentions, adversaries struggle to interpret the real red lines, and analysts are left trying to reconcile statements that simply do not align.
The deeper issue is not merely rhetorical inconsistency but the impression of disorder at the top. When one senior figure declares a major operation complete and another threatens to restart it, the administration appears divided, reactive, and strategically incoherent. In high‑stakes situations—especially involving Iran—such contradictions carry real risks. Misinterpretation can lead to miscalculation, and miscalculation can lead to escalation.
In short, the Rubio–Trump contrast is more than a communications glitch. It is a symptom of a broader structural problem: a leadership team that cannot consistently speak with one voice, even in moments of crisis.
This is another example of the chaotic administration managed by Trump. He is not a manager in any sense. Americans wanted a non-politician as president. Beware what you wish as they have brought a sense of chaos to America as Trump also creates a chaotic international scene.
--------------
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.
A 'good face' is one that is open and which projects decency and honesty. It is synonymous with what I would call 'adult innocence'. This is not naivety. Not all all. It is a sign of inner strength. Knox is a good person I'd say.
Amanda Knox appeared in the papers again this week — not for anything to do with her long legal ordeal in Italy, but because she’s performing stand‑up comedy at the Edinburgh Festival. It’s an unexpected career choice, but it reveals something important about her character. Knox has always had a face that people read as open, honest and fundamentally decent. What’s striking is that this impression has survived everything she has been through.
A “good face” isn’t about prettiness or symmetry. It’s about the absence of bitterness, the lack of emotional armour, and a kind of adult innocence that comes from strength rather than naivety. Knox’s expression has always carried that quality. Her eyes are unguarded, her brow relaxed, and her overall demeanour suggests someone who has not been twisted by trauma. Many people who endure far less end up looking permanently wary or compressed. She didn’t.
Her decision to turn her own story into comedy underlines that resilience. Stand‑up is one of the most exposing art forms. You stand alone, with no script to hide behind, and invite strangers to judge you in real time. Doing that with material drawn from the darkest years of your life requires emotional clarity, not denial. It shows that Knox has processed her past rather than being defined by it.
Comedy also allows her to reclaim the narrative. For years, the world projected onto her whatever it wanted to see: guilt, innocence, seduction, naivety, cunning, victimhood. On stage, she sets the frame. She decides the tone. She chooses the meaning. That’s not just bravery; it’s psychological sovereignty.
What makes Knox interesting today is that her face still reflects the qualities people sensed in her before the media storm: openness, steadiness, and a lack of hidden malice. It’s the look of someone who went through hell but didn’t let it corrode her. That combination — adult innocence plus emotional strength — is rare. And it explains why her return to public life feels less like reinvention and more like a continuation of who she always was.
This is not a good video but the opening image shows her 'good face'! 😎😃
--------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed 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.
Short post - just a spur of the moment thought based on yet more news that Emma Raducanu is missing a host of tennis tournaments - the whole of the clay court season? - because of ill-health. But is it really ill health - meaning physical ill health? I don't think that it is as straightforward as that. I could be wrong.
But a couple of years ago I predicted that Raducanu would drop out of pro tennis early as it is too demanding for her emotionally.
I believe that she suffers from anxiety brought about by the demands of professional tennis:
And I sense that her current lengthy absence from the game is partly due to anxiety and not entirely due to post viral illness as consistently stated in the news media. She is the most injury prone professional tennis player on the planet - male or female - it seems to me. This can't just be about physical injuries.
She seems to have an underlying desire to get off the court as the experience is too emotionally uncomfortable for her.
Her constant changing of coaches is also a symptom of anxiety. She is searching for a father figure to reassure her. A magic formula in support. She won't and can't find it as the solution comes from within.
I sense that her father has created this dependency.
Just a thought. On the fly. Bye bye.
------------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed 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.
Intro: the article below was written by AI under my precise instructions. Videos on YouTube paint a different picture to the one stated in the post. The situation is confused. Interestingly, a huge number of YouTube videos are only getting 1-20 views! Next to nothing. I wonder if YouTube is drowning in videos that are simply not interesting to the public. And/or AI created videos are swamping the website. I think AI will do a lot of harm to YouTube. Fake videos which are excellent in their production are what I am referring to.
---------------------
Recent research suggesting that cybercriminals are struggling to adopt artificial intelligence highlights a broader and increasingly important reality: mainstream AI systems are structurally designed to resist misuse, and this design unintentionally strengthens the position of law enforcement. While AI is not built as a policing tool, its safety architecture makes it far more difficult for criminals to exploit — and that has significant implications for crime prevention and public safety.
At the core of modern AI development is a simple principle: do not enable harm. Major AI providers embed extensive safeguards that prevent models from offering procedural guidance on illegal activities, bypassing security systems, exploiting vulnerabilities, or evading detection. These systems are trained to decline requests that could facilitate wrongdoing, even when the user’s intent is ambiguous. As a result, criminals cannot rely on AI for the kind of detailed, step‑by‑step instructions that would meaningfully enhance their operations.
This refusal behaviour is not accidental. It is the product of deliberate design choices, including filtered training data, reinforcement learning with human feedback, and rule‑based safety layers. These mechanisms ensure that when a user attempts to solicit harmful information, the AI either declines outright or redirects the conversation toward lawful, high‑level explanations. For criminals, this means AI cannot be used as a shortcut to expertise. For law enforcement, it means a powerful potential tool is effectively off the table for those who would misuse it.
Another challenge criminals face is the lack of precision and repeatability. Even when they attempt to disguise their intentions, AI systems avoid providing actionable detail in sensitive areas. Criminal activity often depends on reliable, consistent instructions. AI, by design, introduces uncertainty and vagueness in high‑risk contexts, making it unsuitable for planning or executing illegal operations. This unreliability further reduces AI’s value to criminals.
Moreover, mainstream AI platforms maintain logs, audit trails, and usage monitoring — not for policing, but for safety, quality control, and abuse prevention. Criminals are acutely aware that their interactions may be traceable. This pushes them away from regulated AI systems and toward unregulated, offline, or custom‑built models. Ironically, this migration itself can be informative: when criminals abandon mainstream tools, it reveals the types of capabilities they are seeking and the limitations they face.
The cumulative effect is that AI raises the barrier to entry for criminal activity. Opportunistic offenders who might once have benefited from easy access to technical knowledge now find themselves blocked. More sophisticated criminals must invest in specialised tools, custom models, or human expertise — all of which increase cost, risk, and visibility. In this way, AI functions much like improved locks, stronger authentication, or better surveillance systems: it doesn’t eliminate crime, but it makes it harder, slower, and more detectable.
While AI is not a law‑enforcement instrument, its safety‑first design means it naturally aligns with the goals of crime prevention. By refusing to assist with harmful activity and by limiting the operational value criminals can extract, AI becomes an indirect but meaningful ally in the effort to reduce and contain crime.
--------------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed 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.
At the end of the recent visit by King Charles III to the White House, President Trump told reporters that the USA needed more people like Charles as US citizens. Trump loves Charles's accent and his intelligent refinement. Charles was Oxbridge educated (Trinity College, Cambridge 1967-70 - see below) . He is not super-intelligent. Not at all. But he is industrious, very thoughtful and sensible. And sensitive to others. He has integrity (which occasionally lags as is the case for all humans).
Charles likes to gently take the piss out of Trump. He does it in a way which is entirely acceptable to Trump because it is refined. You can't criticise Trump or insult him. But Charles ribs Trump is a sophisticated way making it acceptable.
