Our Moon is still guarding its secrets decades after the last of the Apollo missions lifted off the lunar surface. Lunar scientists still puzzle over just when and how a giant Earth impactor formed our Moon, completely altering our early Earth in the process.
Bill Maher is tired of heaing about stuff like the Overton window, MKUltra, the “shadow docket” of the Supreme Court, looksmaxxing, “heuristic,” “cognitive offloading” and other examples of what he calls “pedantic bullshit.” (But he really hates the Overton Window. His curmudgeonly diatribe segues into a Dr. Seuss-like poem. He winds up arguing that his brain having been filled with useless knowledge—like the names of all the Kardashians and the characters in “Friends”—is “violence.” Indeed!
The guests you see are Financial Times editor Gillian Tett and NYT op-ed columnist Bret Stephens.
Io is a world of extremes. It is by far the most volcanically active world in our solar system. Being continually squeezed in the never-ending tug-of-war between Jupiter and its larger satellites will do that to a moon. As a result, Io has over 400 “paterae” - volcanic depressions that spew lava up onto its surface. And, according to a new paper available in pre-print on arXiv and utilizing data from Juno’s Jupiter InfraRed Auroral Mapper (JIRAM) tool, we have been massively underestimating the power output of those paterae for decades.
I haven’t looked at Natasha Hausdorff‘s videos in a while, but you’ll remember her as a British lawyer, an expert in international law, and a “pro bono legal director of the advocacy group, UK Lawyers for Israel.” Here is her reaction to the latest anti-Jewish violence and anti-Israel protests in England, both of which have become regular events. Here she goes up against Owen Jones, left-wing “British newspaper columnist, commentator, journalist, author and political activist,” whose Wikipedia entry shows a photo of him wearing a Palestinian flag shirt. The channel is LBC, or Leading British Conversation.
The question is whether the pro-Palestinian marches in the UK should be banned because because they fall outside the boundaries of free speech. Hausdorff says they are violations because they constitute “hate speech” that incites violence against Jews, while Jones says that they’re not only legal, but a necessary outlet for opinions that Israel is committing genocide against Gaza. (He claims that Israel has killed 100,000 Gazans, which is surely untrue.) Jones is a big proponent of the “genocide canard”, and while I am not sure whether the marches violate British speech law, I agree with her that Israel has not committed genocide against Gazans. Anybody who knows what genocide is and how the IDF operates knows that’s a lie. But of course Jones has nothing bad to say against Hamas.
In response to Jones, Hausdorff can’t come up with anything that the Israeli government has done to justify the accusations of genocide (she doesn’t mention the West Bank, but may have done so somewhere in her talks or writing). But she correctly notes that the accusations of genocide aren’t being raised against the noncombatant deaths produced by the U.S. in WWII—and in that case, as in virtually all other wars, the ratio of noncombatant deaths to combatant deaths is much higher than seen in Gaza.
Jones cites several academics and “genocide scholars” who back the “g-word” as what Israel is doing in Gaza He adds that one can find identifiable Jews participating in the marches on the Palestinian side. He places the blame for hunger and destruction on Gaza squarely on the doorstep of Israel, while Hausdorff says that in contrast, it’s the fault of Hamas, which has embedded itself among civilians. Hausdorff argues that accusations of things like “starvation” are untrue, and also claims that the protests are a product of the “Hamas propaganda machine, ” which I think is an unwise accusation even though it is to some degree true: some of the figures and accusations bandied about by the protestors and by Jones and his experts come from Hamas.
Jones seems to argue largely from authority, citing none other than the Lancet and The Economist for the casualty figures, which must have come from Hamas. Hausdorff says that she’d be willing to debate the cited pro-Palestinian “genocide scholars” any time, but so far they’ve refused to do so.
Here are the notes added to the YouTube site by the UK Lawyers for Israel. I’m not whether if Hausdorff was interrupted in an unwarranted matter: you be the judge.
This recording includes comments on whether restrictions should now be placed on anti-Israel marches in London and other British cities, as well as strongly disputed allegations regarding casualty figures in Gaza, war crimes and genocide.
Unfortunately, Natasha Hausdorff was repeatedly interrupted by the interviewer when she tried to set out the inaccuracy of these allegations. It seems that many interviewers cannot stand to hear the expression of any view that supports Israel – as soon as a person interviewed starts to deploy facts contradicting the false propaganda the interviewer interrupts to prevent the truth being told.
For details of Gaza casualties according to the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry down to 10 November 2025, see this thread by Gabriel Epstein: https://x.com/GabrielEpsteinX/status/…. This shows that even according to this information (which may itself be distorted by Hamas propaganda):
1. A much higher % of males of fighting age died than of females of the same ages, indicating that Israeli military action targeted combatants and was not indiscriminate.
2. A much higher % of male teenagers died than of female teenagers, indicating that a significant number teenagers, who are classified as children, were killed because they were combatants.
3. The claim initiated by Hamas and disgracefully maintained by the BBC, that 70% of those killed were women and children, is false.
The claim stated by Owen Jones, that the IDF has admitted that 83% of those killed were civilians, is completely bogus, as Chief Magistrate Goldspring found in paragraph 81a of this recent ruling: https://www.uklfi.com/wp-content/uplo…
The details provided by the Gaza Health Ministry do not identify how they died. They probably include around 10,000 who died of natural causes: see Salo Aizenberg https://x.com/Aizenberg55/status/2021…. Thousands more may well have been killed by Palestinian fire – rockets falling short, explosive devices, and crossfire. They certainly include 471 allegedly killed in the explosion outside Al Ahli hospital caused by a Palestinian rocket that fell short: see https://www.uklfi.com/false-al-ahli-c…. Well over a thousand other Palestinian rockets also fell short; each of them may have killed dozens of people.
Finally, here’s a related email I got yesterday from the editors of a small publication in the Pacific Northwest that has clearly fallen for some of the Big Lies. I am accused of being a histrionic Zionist, a proponent of settler colonialism—and pro-genocide (they call it “modern Holocaust denial”) as well. Their arguments are largely the same as those of Jones, even citing casualty figures taken from medical journals. They also try to tell me how to write this website. Finally, they seem unaware of my criticisms of religious Judaism, made on this site as well as in Faith Versus Fact, so they haven’t done their homework. But they don’t really care if I’ve also criticized Jewish superstition: their point is that I am pro-Israel, which they see as immoral.
At any rate, they can take a hike. Their email will not change how I “write my blog”. The email is indented:
Reading your blog, we were appreciative of the fact that you seemed to promote science and counter narratives from the religious establishments. However, your inability to separate your own Zionist histrionics from what should have been strictly an antitheistic, science-focused platform ruins the experience for anyone who isn’t A) a genocide apologist, B) deeply insecure about their ethnic identity to the point that they associate it with a 20th century settler-colonialist project, or C), both. Does your criticism of religion only extend to Christianity and Islam, or do you take on the Jewish religious establishment too? The most tangible and powerful form of that, of course, being the state of Israel, which reputed medical journals estimate has killed close to 100,000 civilians just since 10/23. Atheism today needs smart, conscientious voices to lead, not modern Holocaust deniers. We won’t change your views with this email, but maybe we can change the way you write your blog to not repel people (a hopefully increasing majority) who are appalled by the Zionist crimes of ethnic cleansing and mass displacement.I came across a few news items that I could possibly write about today and couldn’t decide which to cover, so I will write about all of them, since they all relate to renewable energy. The first is a new study comparing direct air capture (DAC) to installing new wind and solar. This is a direct comparison between these two options, to see which provides the most bang for the buck.
DAC involves taking CO2 directly out of the atmosphere in order to mitigate carbon release through burning fossil fuels. If this technology were sufficiently efficient it could be hugely useful in reducing future climate change. This is the only approach that can potentially have a negative carbon footprint, actually reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Other technologies simply reduce the amount released. This negative carbon factor is highly attractive since it could theoretically zero out our carbon release and even take us back in time to an atmosphere with less CO2. Right now, it should be noted, we are not only continuing to release massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, the amount continues to increase. In 2025 the world emitted 38.1 billion tonnes, of carbon, a 1.1% increase over 2024.
But there are problems with DAC – it is currently not very efficient and is not scalable enough to have enough of an impact. Also, the efficiency of DAC depends heavily on how you power it – if you connect it to the grid and there is some fossil fuel energy on that grid, you may actually increase CO2 rather than decreasing it. Ideally DAC would be powered entirely by low carbon energy sources. This is why critics of DAC argue that it simply makes no sense to deploy this technology before we have decarbonized the energy sector, which we should do first.
In the current study they ask a critical question – if we directly compare DAC to deploying wind and solar, which provides the greater reduction in energy pollution per dollar spent. They also considered both the environmental and health impacts. They further considered three scenarios – current DAC technology, significant advances in DAC technology, and a massive breakthrough in technology. They also did their analysis for the entire US and for different regions. What they found was that deploying renewable energy was more cost effective for every region of the country under the current technology and significant advances scenarios. In the massive breakthrough scenario the results were mixed by regions, with a slight net advantage country-wide to DAC.
In my opinion this just adds to the conclusion that we should first decarbonize the grid with a combination of low carbon energy sources, including maximizing wind and solar while maintaining or even expanding our nuclear infrastructure, and only then invest in significant DAC. We can continue to research DAC in the meantime, and then deploy only when it gets significantly more efficient, in order to offset industries that are difficult to decarbonize.
There are a couple of solar power updates worth discussing as well. The first is that we are getting very close to commercializing tandem silicon and perovskite solar cells. Silicon is the current standard, with most commercial panels at 22-23% efficiency, with high-end panels at about 26%. This is pushing up against the theoretical limit for silicon (32%), and many experts think we will not get much closer to this theoretical limit because of some unavoidable sources of energy loss. This is where perovskite comes in – this is widely considered to be the next material to replace silicon in high efficiency solar cells. But even better, silicon and perovskite absorb light at different frequencies, so when you combine them in tandem you get even higher efficiencies. The current record is produce by LONGi (a Chinese solar panel company), with a commercial tandem panel with verified 34.6% efficiency. They plan to make these panels available in 2027-2028. Also, the theoretical upper limit of efficiency of this tandem design is 43%.
However, perovskite still has a longevity problem. For these tandem panels the silicon component lasts 20-25 years with minimal efficiency loss. The perovskite, however, only lasts 10-12 years. This is insufficient for residential use, but still useful for grid-scale projects. With large projects it is cost effective to pay for the higher end panels, and replacing them with even better panels in 10 years is not a bad investment anyway. But home owners don’t want to do this. However, there is a great deal of research into extending the lifespan of perovskite panels (for example). Another Chinese company, GLC, has announced a tandem solar cell with a 25 year warranty, and with an efficiency of 26%. We are quickly heading for panels with both efficiencies in the mid 30s and a lifespan of 25 years.
The availability of relatively cheap and highly efficient solar panels has also given rise to a new industry – plug-in solar (also called balcony solar). These are stand-alone panels you simply plug into a regular outlet, which can both accept and deliver energy. That’s really it. You have to mount it somewhere, but most people do not put it on their roof but rather on a stand or attached to their balcony or similar structure. This is useful for renters, apartments, mobile homes, remote locations like cabins, or even to supplement existing rooftop installations. In general you will recoup the cost of the panel in reduced energy bills in seven years, while the panel itself should last for 30 years. These are already very popular in Germany where they have been used for a decade without any safety issues.
Utilities companies in the US have been trying to slow their adoption, arguing that they present safety issues. For example, if they are sending current to the grid they could endanger utility workers. However, this is likely a diversionary tactic to slow the adoption of a competing technology. Units are already designed not to send energy to the grid when there is a power outage. The safety record in Germany is pretty solid evidence that they can be used safely. For most users plug-in solar would not power their entire home, but would shave money off their energy bill and reduce their carbon footprint.
The great thing about plug-in solar is that there are no issues with grid stability since most users will be simply reducing their baseload demand, not producing excess energy that has to go to the grid. But because they can be widely distributed, these small reductions in grid energy demand can be significant. This could be a useful supplement to grid-scale and rooftop solar. And of course they can be especially useful when paired with home battery backup, or even just an EV.
With recent events in the Mideast, including national average gas prices at $4.45 per gallon and electricity costs up 7.4% over last year, it seems like a good time to push for energy technologies that are not reliant on a vulnerable infrastructure partly in unstable parts of the world. These events also highlight that we can never achieve true energy independence simply by producing more oil, as oil prices are set as a global commodity. Solar, however, can be true energy independence, harvested right where it is used. Of course, this raises an entirely different discussion about maintaining domestic renewable energy technology and raw material supply chains. This is why invested in the technology of tomorrow rather than doubling down on fossil fuels is so critical.
The post Some Renewable Energy Updates first appeared on NeuroLogica Blog.
On April 30, 2026, David Copperfield took his final bow at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, closing a residency that lasted more than 25 years. Longer than many entire entertainment careers, it was an extraordinary run. For audiences, it marked the end of a show. For magicians, it marked the close of a defining era.
As a professional magician, I’ve spent years studying the craft, performing, and thinking about how wonder is created and how human perception operates. Like many in my field—and millions of others—I grew up watching Copperfield’s television specials.
The Copperfield Theater at MGM Grand, Las Vegas.Most people still recognize Copperfield’s name, even if they can’t name a particular illusion. When he rose to prominence in the late 1970s and 1980s, stage magic was no longer central to popular entertainment. Copperfield changed that almost single-handedly, placing large-scale illusions alongside blockbuster films, arena concerts, and major sporting events.
Over more than four decades, he sold tens of millions of tickets worldwide—more than 7 million at the MGM Grand alone—and became one of the highest-grossing solo entertainers in history, with career ticket sales reportedly exceeding $4 billion (more than The Rolling Stones!). He earned 21 Emmy Awards for his television specials—as many as The Sopranos—and accumulated multiple Guinness World Records.
Promo poster for Copperfield’s 1996 show Dreams & Nightmares co-created with Francis Ford Coppola.But what stands out is not just the numbers. It is the consistency with which he delivered complex, high-precision performances night after night, often multiple times per day. In the final eight weeks (56 days) of his MGM Grand residency alone, he performed an astonishing 120 shows. That level of scale and reliability reshaped what audiences expect from a magic show. The bar was raised, and it stayed there, elevating the entire field.
The television specials were cinematic events that reached tens of millions. Perhaps none captured the public imagination like the 1983 disappearance of the Statue of Liberty. In front of a live audience seated on Liberty Island, with an estimated 50 million viewers watching on television, Copperfield made a national icon appear to vanish. The illusion became an instant cultural phenomenon, prompting people around the world—many for the first time in their lives—to exercise skepticism and critical thinking, asking: “How did he do it?”
David Copperfield with Penn and Teller at the Hollywood Walk of Fame ceremony honoring Copperfield with a star. Photo courtesy of David Copperfield.What made the illusion groundbreaking was not only the audacity of “vanishing” the Statue of Liberty. It was the way Copperfield blended spectacle, storytelling, and technical precision, elevating magic to the status of a major cultural event. This contrasted powerfully with earlier high-profile magicians such as Harry Houdini, whose 1918 vanishing of an elephant was a theatrical sensation in its day but remained confined to the stage.
Copperfield brought illusions to a television audience of millions while also delivering them live, night after night, with remarkable reliability. The specials invited skepticism—viewers naturally wondered about camera tricks—yet the live performances answered that doubt directly. In theaters and arenas, there were no cuts and no retakes: just a performer and an audience sharing the same space, often with volunteers participating. That made the experience more powerful than that of any performer who relies on camera tricks, and the resulting lessons in skepticism and questioning the limits of perception all the more impactful.
He made it clear that you were being fooled—and that knowledge did not diminish the experience. If anything, it enhanced it.Copperfield’s cultural influence extends far beyond performance. He founded the International Museum and Library of the Conjuring Arts, a private museum available to researchers that houses one of the most extensive archives in magic, including rare books, original props, and artifacts from Harry Houdini and many others.
In 2021, he brought parts of that collection to a wider audience with David Copperfield’s History of Magic, co-authored with Richard Wiseman and David Britland. The book (reviewed in Skeptic Vol. 27 No. 2 featuring exclusive, unpublished photographs) profiles 28 groundbreaking magicians across centuries, from 16th-century conjurers to modern innovators. Readers receive a guided tour through artifacts such as Houdini’s straitjackets and Water Torture Cell, along with a 16th-century manual on sleight of hand. The book beautifully connects grounded explanations of the craft’s evolution to what audiences experience in actual performances.
Harry Houdini’s straitjacket at the International Museum and Library of the Conjuring Arts. Photo courtesy of David Copperfield.This work helps keep magic connected to its past and rooted in reality. Without that connection, magic can become a series of disconnected tricks and empty stage patter rather than a technically intricate art form with deep roots, ongoing innovation, and a unique ability to test the boundaries of human perception.
That is exactly where Copperfield excelled. He helped define what audiences expect from large-scale illusion: strong production values, clear narrative, emotional engagement, and technical reliability. He never presented himself as supernatural. Compared with many other figures who rose to prominence around the same time, such as Uri Geller, Copperfield made it clear that you were being fooled—and that knowledge did not diminish the experience. If anything, it enhanced it. You knew it was an illusion, yet for a moment you still wondered, “What if?”
The close of the MGM Grand residency marks the end of a long chapter in an illustrious career. Copperfield proved that magic could be romantic, theatrical, and emotionally resonant without relying on supernatural claims or pseudoscientific nonsense. In doing so, he became one of the most emulated illusionists in history and helped elevate the cultural standing of the entire art form.
Recently, I've noticed articles from outlets aligned with MAHA calling for the elimination of the FDA. It's all recycled "health freedom" revisionist history and ahistorical nonsense.
The post MAHA vs. the FDA: Dredging up old anti-regulation revisionist history first appeared on Science-Based Medicine.