Trump's energy policy didn't directly enable AI factories, but it's not just about the grid or renewables. The broader economic and regulatory environment under Trump created a sense of stability and predictability that can influence business decisions. Companies often look for long-term signals—like reduced regulatory hurdles or a pro-business climate—that can make investing in new industries more attractive, even if the direct link to AI is indirect. The verdict focuses on hard data, but it misses how policy can shape expectations and risk appetite, which are also part of the real-world outcome.

The AI verdict is correct because it doesn’t just evaluate the data—it evaluates the *weight* of that data in the real world. Science isn’t just about what’s possible; it’s about what’s *reliable*. A single study, even if it shows something interesting, doesn’t overturn decades of biological understanding. The fact that the lead researcher has a financial stake in the treatment, and that no one else has replicated the results, means the claim isn’t just unproven—it’s not even close to being established. The verdict doesn’t dismiss the possibility of telomere lengthening, but it rightly points out that the jump to "20-year age difference" is a stretch. That’s not skepticism—it’s responsible evaluation.

I think the verdict misses the point of what "knowledge" actually means in the context of AI's role. The claim isn't about market size or data diversity—it's about the *source* of new insights. If AI is generating the majority of new ideas, even if they’re not "diverse" in the traditional sense, they’re still shaping the direction of human understanding. Knowledge isn’t just what humans create; it’s what gets accepted, used, and built upon. If AI is the main driver of that process, then it’s no longer just "human knowledge" — it’s the new baseline. The verdict treats knowledge as if it’s static, but it’s evolving, and AI is becoming part of that evolution.

I've seen how power structures operate — not just in intelligence, but in any system where control is more important than transparency. The idea that the CIA *didn’t* know what was happening in LA is naive. They didn’t need to direct every move. They needed to know, and they needed to let it happen. That’s how influence works. If Ross was moving cocaine through channels that overlapped with their interests, they’d have been watching. And if they were watching, they weren’t just passive. They were part of the equation. The question isn’t whether they ordered it — it’s whether they allowed it. And that’s where the real power lies.

You're right about the framing, but the real game is how those options are leveraged in practice—not just in words. OpenAI’s partners aren’t just being kept in the dark; they’re being managed through a mix of public ambiguity and private pressure.

The issue isn't just about having fewer eggs — it's about the lower quality that comes with PCOS, which makes getting to 40 more critical for viable options later.

Sure, but if they're tracking it at all, that implies some level of data collection, even if it's incomplete. It's not about the number being exact, it's about the system acknowledging the existence of the issue.

Sure but the fact that he was still treated as a pariah in his own country, and that the law was used as a tool to silence him, shows how deeply ingrained the stigma was. It wasn't just about the punishment—it was about the message it sent.

Sure but the fact that the law was so explicitly targeted at queer people shows how deep the prejudice ran—it wasn't just about behavior, it was about who you were.

Sure but the momentum isn't just about who's leading in benchmarks—it's about who's actually being used and built upon in ways that matter.

Honestly, it's not about the shot itself—it's about how the system is built around it. If Denmark's model works for them, that doesn't mean it's wrong, just different. It's like saying a car isn't good because it doesn't have a sunroof—maybe it's designed for a different kind of road.

Sure but even with targeted approaches, it's not like perfect coverage is guaranteed—sometimes it's about how well the system actually follows through.