In 2021, U.S. Sen.Ted Cruz compared critical race theory — an academic subfield that examines the role of racism in American institutions, laws, and policies — to the Ku Klux Klan, the most notorious homegrown terrorist organization in U.S. history. In doing so, he opened a playbook that resembles one put into practice by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and others: Attack ideas that are unfriendly to a narrow view of the world, and do so by eliminating them from our school curricula and public conversation. The movement against critical race theory has now swallowed up high school Advanced Placement African American Studies in several states and threatens the teaching of basic facts about U.S. history. And this movement has devolved from pundit tough talk into authoritarian policies to ban books, modify curricula, and threaten intellectual freedom across the country (and world).

By now, many realize that these policies are a harbinger of things to come —  even for fields ostensibly unrelated to African American studies, like biology. Modern breakthroughs in biology are producing a picture of life that is increasingly incompatible with authoritarian preferences for neat boxes that dictate what people are and how they should behave. Consequently, biologists must shed the naive belief that our work is apolitical and recognize that the recent attacks on how to teach U.S. history are a battle in a larger war on ideas that includes the natural sciences.

Americans are, of course, the most thoroughly and passively indoctrinated people on earth. They know next to nothing as a rule about their own history, or the histories of other nations, or the histories of the various social movements that have risen and fallen in the past, and they certainly know little or nothing of the complexities and contradictions comprised within words like “socialism” and “capitalism.” Chiefly, what they have been trained not to know or even suspect is that, in many ways, they enjoy far fewer freedoms, and suffer under a more intrusive centralized state, than do the citizens of countries with more vigorous social-democratic institutions. This is at once the most comic and most tragic aspect of the excitable alarm that talk of social democracy or democratic socialism can elicit on these shores. An enormous number of Americans have been persuaded to believe that they are freer in the abstract than, say, Germans or Danes precisely because they possess far fewer freedoms in the concrete. They are far more vulnerable to medical and financial crisis, far more likely to receive inadequate health coverage, far more prone to irreparable insolvency, far more unprotected against predatory creditors, far more subject to income inequality, and so forth, while effectively paying more in tax (when one figures in federal, state, local, and sales taxes, and then compounds those by all the expenditures that in this country, as almost nowhere else, their taxes do not cover). One might think that a people who once rebelled against the mightiest empire on earth on the principle of no taxation without representation would not meekly accept taxation without adequate government services. But we accept what we have become used to, I suppose. Even so, one has to ask, what state apparatus in the “free” world could be more powerful and tyrannical than the one that taxes its citizens while providing no substantial civic benefits in return, solely in order to enrich a piratically overinflated military-industrial complex and to ease the tax burdens of the immensely wealthy?

A declassified World War II-era government guide to “simple sabotage” is currently one of the most popular open source books on the internet. The book, called “Simple Sabotage Field Manual,” was declassified in 2008 by the CIA and “describes ways to train normal people to be purposefully annoying telephone operators, dysfunctional train conductors, befuddling middle managers, blundering factory workers, unruly movie theater patrons, and so on. In other words, teaching people to do their jobs badly.” 

Invisible, isolated from one another, and with little income security – such is the lot of data workers. And yet without them, there would be no ChatGPT, Midjourney or Gemini.

Plusieurs questions du même acabit ont ainsi été posées à une dizaine de chatbots parmi les plus connus - de ChatGPT à Copilot de Microsoft, en passant par Claude d’Anthropic - pour évaluer à quel point ces agents conversationnels avaient été "infectés" par une vaste campagne de désinformation russe.

Les résultats ne sont pas encourageants : environ une fois sur trois, ces AI fournissent des réponses teintées de faux narratifs inspirés par la propagande russe, assurent les experts de Newsguard. Ainsi, six de ces machines expliquaient les raisons pour lesquelles Volodymyr Zelensky avait interdit en Ukraine le réseau social de Donald Trump Truth Network… alors même que le président ukrainien n’a jamais rien fait de la sorte.

If enough people tried—just tried, even imperfectly—things would shift. If more people opted for alternatives when they could, if more people supported independent platforms even three times out of five, if more people put even a fraction of their energy into challenging the defaults, it would matter.

A lot of folks don't, or won't, because they think - they've been scolded into believing - that if they can't do it completely, it's not worth doing at all.

“The observed ideological shifts raise important ethical concerns, particularly regarding the potential for algorithmic biases to disproportionately affect certain user groups,” the study authors wrote. “These biases could lead to skewed information delivery, further exacerbating social divisions, or creating echo chambers that reinforce existing beliefs.”

Comment les différentes facettes de la "gun culture" américaine (qui n'est pas du tout uniforme) prennent racine dans les différentes cultures qui ont colonisé les différents territoires US il y a plusieurs siècles. Et comment ces différences culturelles, qu'on pourrait croire gommées par des siècles de coexistence au sein d'une seule nation, subsistent et colorent encore fortement la vie politique actuelle.

The newspapers this morning all contain analysis pieces trying to explain why Trump is imposing 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico. You can see the writers struggling, because this is a profoundly self-destructive move — it will impose huge, possibly devastating costs on U.S. manufacturing, while significantly raising the cost of living — without any visible justification. Yet the conventions of mainstream journalism make it hard to say directly that the president’s actions are just vindictive and senseless.

L’économiste britannique Stanley Jevons (1835-1882) est passé à la postérité pour la découverte d’un paradoxe spectaculaire. Il a constaté que, plus on inventait des machines économes en charbon, plus sa consommation globale augmentait. Un constat qui désespère encore aujourd’hui les écologistes et renforce leur méfiance envers le progrès technique comme solution au problème du réchauffement climatique.

Le dernier rapport de l’Agence internationale de l’énergie (AIE) apporte une nouvelle illustration du phénomène. Pour la première fois depuis cinquante ans, le pétrole n’a représenté, en 2024, que 30 % de la consommation mondiale d’énergie. A l’inverse, les énergies renouvelables et le nucléaire dépassent désormais les 40 % du total. Pour autant, ni la consommation de pétrole ou de charbon, ni les émissions de gaz à effet de serre, + 0,8 % toutes les deux, ne diminuent.

Though many no doubt feel betrayed by what seems like a sudden rightward turn, billionaires like Gates have always behaved like wolves in sheep's clothing, prioritizing their fortunes above all.

For example, Gates was heavily involved in establishing the Global Fund, a privately-funded rival to the World Health Organization. While the Global Fund did improve global vaccination rates, the cost of basic medicines skyrocketed thanks to his introduction of for-profit actors into global health efforts — another sector made to rely on the generosity of billionaires.

The MP3 format, once the gold standard for digital audio files, is now free. The licensing and patents on MP3 encoders have expired, meaning you can now include them in your applications without paying royalties. For software developers and audio enthusiasts, this might seem like a big deal. But, surprisingly, almost no one noticed. Why? Because the world of technology has changed so drastically that MP3's significance has faded into the background.