LEO KEARSE
https://youtu.be/jG1X-Ay25n0

VIDEO EXCERPTS: Muhammad Hijab, the man with the most Muslim name in the world. He is an outspoken Muslim. Would he describe himself as an Islamist? I'm not sure. But let's take a look at what he's been saying...

Our numbers are massive. There are 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are more Muslims in Europe than there are in some Muslim majority countries. If all the Muslims in Europe were one country, it would be one of the biggest Muslim countries in the world.

That's the truth. It would be a big country. We're a big people. So that means we need to start acting like the Muslim community have to become the consequence.

Make them think, okay, if we mess around with this community, what's going to happen? We have to start acting as if we have the upper hand, because we do.

As the Quran says, the word of Allah is Most High. The reason why the early generations were so successful in spreading Islam across the world, is because they had this immense amount of courage backed by reliance on Allah.

[...] Frankly, the one who's willing to commit suicide has the initiative. So, the one who's willing to die, has the upper hand. If his is what he says in public on camera in front of hundreds of people, imagine what's getting said in private...

Mohammed Hijab says "We have the upper hand" ... https://youtu.be/jG1X-Ay25n0
https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/jG1X-Ay25n0

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/...t-century/

EXCERPTS: You can calculate the probability of a set of outcomes, but quantum physics gives us no way to determine what the outcome of any one particular quantum system will actually be, no matter how much you know about it. This fact about the Universe has spawned much outrage among physicists and philosophers alike since it was first noticed, which in turn has led to many proposed scenarios to attempt to resolve the feeling of discomfort that we feel when we encounter and ponder these properties.

[...] At the core of the argument is whether quantum states are “ontic” or “epistemic” in nature. These aren’t common terms that people use (even most physicists rarely use them), with the difference being as follows.

• For ontic quantum states, those states would correspond directly to states of reality, with no room for additional knowledge about reality existing in some hidden, but unknown to humans, set of information-carrying variables.
  
• Meanwhile, for epistemic quantum states, those states may correspond only to probabilistic states of knowledge about reality, but those states are allowed to be incomplete, where additional knowledge could exist in some type of hidden, information carrying variables.

With this background in mind, we come to the Pusey-Barrett-Randolph (PBR) theorem, put forth in a paper in 2012.

[...] What’s remarkable about this theorem is that it relies solely on three base assumptions made by the authors [...] If any of these assumptions are violated or invalidated, then there’s still wiggle room to argue that the quantum state is not a real object, or that quantum systems don’t have any physical properties at all.

However, if all three of these assumptions are accepted, then the epistemic interpretation of reality is ruled out, leaving us with no alternative but to accept the “weirdness” of quantum mechanics as inherent to, and fundamental to, the nature of reality. That truly is profound, and why the PBR theorem stands tall as the most important development in quantum foundations of the 21st century so far! (MORE - missig details)

Did we just see a black hole explode? Physicists think so & it could explain (almost) everything
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1115179

INTRO: In 2023, a subatomic particle called a neutrino crashed into Earth with such a high amount of energy that it should have been impossible. In fact, there are no known sources anywhere in the universe capable of producing such energy—100,000 times more than the highest-energy particle ever produced by the Large Hadron Collider, the world’s most powerful particle accelerator. However, a team of physicists at the University of Massachusetts Amherst recently hypothesized that something like this could happen when a special kind of black hole, called a “quasi-extremal primordial black hole,” explodes.

In new research published by Physical Review Letters, the team not only accounts for the otherwise impossible neutrino but shows that the elementary particle could reveal the fundamental nature of the universe.

Black holes exist, and we have a good understanding of their life cycle: an old, large star runs out of fuel, implodes in a massively powerful supernova and leaves behind an area of spacetime with such intense gravity that nothing, not even light, can escape. These black holes are incredibly heavy and are essentially stable.

But, as physicist Stephen Hawking pointed out in 1970, another kind of black hole—a primordial black hole (PBH), could be created not by the collapse of a star, but from the universe’s primordial conditions shortly after the Big Bang. PBHs exist only in theory so far, and, like standard black holes, are so massively dense that almost nothing can escape them—which is what makes them “black.” However, despite their density, PBHs could be much lighter than the black holes we have so far observed. Furthermore, Hawking showed that PBHs could slowly emit particles via what is now known as “Hawking radiation” if they got hot enough.

“The lighter a black hole is, the hotter it should be and the more particles it will emit,” says Andrea Thamm, co-author of the new research and assistant professor of physics at UMass Amherst. “As PBHs evaporate, they become ever lighter, and so hotter, emitting even more radiation in a runaway process until explosion. It’s that Hawking radiation that our telescopes can detect.”

If such an explosion were to be observed, it would give us a definitive catalog of all the subatomic particles in existence, including the ones we have observed, such as electrons, quarks and Higgs bosons, the ones that we have only hypothesized, like dark matter particles, as well as everything else that is, so far, entirely unknown to science. The UMass Amherst team has previously shown that such explosions could happen with surprising frequency—every decade or so—and if we were to pay attention, our current cosmos-observing instruments could register these explosions... (MORE - details, no ads)

Seems more like what this meta-analysis reveals is that there is insufficient research for concluding anything reliably, but the authors want to interpret that uncertainty in a positive direction for trans athletes, because ethical agenda signal-waving in that direction helps get a paper accepted slash published, as well as potentially more mass attention.
- - - - - - - - - - - -

Physical fitness of transgender and cisgender women is comparable, current evidence suggests
https://bjsm.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/...025-110239

PRESS RELEASE: Transgender women might have more muscle mass than cisgender women 1 to 3 years after hormone therapy, but their physical fitness is comparable, finds a pooled data analysis of the available evidence, published online in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

While the current body of evidence is of variable quality, and doesn’t look at the potential for any advantage at the elite athlete level, it doesn’t back up prevailing theories about the inherent athletic advantage of transgender women, conclude the researchers.

Whether transgender women should be allowed to compete in female sports, and under what conditions, remains hotly contested, explain the researchers. Policies advocating blanket bans on transgender women’s participation in female sports often cite residual advantages from previous testosterone exposure, they add.

While previously published studies suggest that hormone therapy may alter body composition in transgender people, the evidence on their functional performance and physical advantage is mixed, they point out.

In pursuit of clarification, the researchers scoured research databases for studies comparing the body composition or physical fitness of transgender people before and after hormone therapy with that of cisgender people. In all, 52 studies involving 6485 people (2943 transgender women, 2309 transgender men, 568 cisgender women and 665 cisgender men; age range 14 to 41) were eligible for review.

The studies varied in design and methodology. Some 45 focused on adults; 7 involved teenagers. Only 16 included any form of physical activity assessment, and most didn’t compare transgender athletes with cisgender athletes. And only 7 adjusted for potentially influential factors, including body composition, hormone levels, and nutrient intake.

In all, 22 studies were prospective; 9 were retrospective; 17 were cross-sectional (observational studies): 3 were randomised controlled trials; and 1 was a quasi-experimental study.

Pooled data analysis of the findings from 46 of the studies showed that transgender women’s body composition differs from that of both cisgender men and cisgender women. Transgender women have significantly greater amounts of body fat than cisgender men but levels comparable to those of cisgender women.

And while transgender women had more lean mass, a proxy for muscle, there were no observable differences in upper or lower body strength, or in a key measure of cardiorespiratory fitness—maximal oxygen consumption (VO₂ max)—between them and cisgender women. Transgender women’s upper and lower body strength and their VO₂ max were also all much lower than they were in cisgender men.

While hormone therapy was associated with higher amounts of body fat and lower amounts of muscle and less upper body strength 1–3 years after the start of treatment in transgender women, transgender men had less fat, more muscle, and greater strength after hormone therapy.

The researchers acknowledge various limitations to their findings, including short study length and an absence of information on elite athletes. Few studies assessed specific outcomes or the impact of puberty suppression.

And reporting on, and adjustment for, potentially influential factors, such as training history, diet, baseline fitness, physical activity and body composition or previous hormone therapy, were inconsistent. Few studies included a broad spectrum of ages, types of sport, and competitive levels.

Nevertheless, the findings prompt the researchers to conclude: “The convergence of transgender women’s functional performance with cisgender women, particularly in strength and aerobic capacity, challenges assumptions about inherent athletic advantages derived solely from [gender affirming hormone therapy] or residual lean mass differences.”

They add: “Although the current data do not justify blanket bans, critical gaps in literature were found, notably the under-representation of transgender athletes who may retain more ‘muscle memory’.

“Ideally, to resolve speculation, future long-term, longitudinal studies should prioritise performance-specific metrics in transgender athletes. However, one should be aware of the scarce number of transgender athletes, particularly in the elite sport, which complicates the feasibility of conducting powered studies involving high-performance transgender athletes within specific sport disciplines.”

And they emphasise: “Considering this context of imperfect evidence and despite the methodological challenges, continued research into physiological as well as psychosocial trajectories among transgender athletes with diverse demographics and clinical characteristics remains essential for developing equitable frameworks that balance justice, inclusion and scientific rigour.”

https://arstechnica.com/health/2026/02/n...ew-mexico/

INTRO: A newborn baby has died in New Mexico from a Listeria infection that state health officials say was likely contracted from raw (unpasteurized) milk that the baby’s mother drank during pregnancy.

In a news release Tuesday, officials warned people not to consume any raw dairy, highlighting that it can be teeming with a variety of pathogens. Those germs are especially dangerous to pregnant women, as well as young children, the elderly, and people with weakened immune systems.

“Raw milk can contain numerous disease-causing germs, including Listeria, which is bacteria that can cause miscarriage, stillbirth, preterm birth, or fatal infection in newborns, even if the mother is only mildly ill,” the New Mexico Department of Health said in the press release.

The health department noted that it could not definitively link the baby’s death to the raw milk the mother drank. But raw milk is notorious for transmitting Listeria monocytogenes bacterium. The Food and Drug Administration has a “Food Safety for Moms-to-Be” webpage about Listeria, in which it poses the question and answer: “How could I get listeriosis? You can get listeriosis by eating raw, unpasteurized milk and unpasteurized milk products… .” (MORE - details)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In the deeper past, though, people had no choice but to drink unprocessed milk. And as a result, the population did largely seem to develop an immunity to the ecosystem living in it (compared to today, at least). In this area there are still people that sell and consume raw milk, without reported incidents. But such involves families that have been maintaining that practice for generations. When it comes to urban dwellers who already have diminished immune systems via their germ phobias -- of aggressively protecting their children from even playing in grass due to contact with dirt -- it's different story. There's no choice but to protect them, since their insulated lifestyles have diminished them (exaggeratedly) to a half-step short of being people who live in bubbles or spacesuits.

https://theness.com/neurologicablog/forg...more-15154

EXCERPTS: Engaging on social media to discuss pseudoscience can be exhausting, and make one weep for humanity. [...] one very common narrative that I have seen amounts to denying history, often replacing it with a different story entirely. At the extreme the narrative is – “everything you think you know about history if wrong.” Often this is framed as – “every you have been told about history is a lie.” Why are so many people, especially young people, apparently susceptible to this narrative?

[...] Another factor driving this phenomenon is pseudoexperts, who also can use social media to get their message out. Among them are people like Graham Hancock, who presents himself as an expert in ancient history but actually is just a crank. He has plenty of factoids in his head, but has no formal training in archaeology and is the epitome of a crank – usually a smart person but with outlandish ideas and never checks his ideas with actual experts, so they slowly drift off into fantasy land. The chief feature of such cranks is a lack of proper humility, even overwhelming hubris. They casually believe that they are smarter that the world’s experts in a field, and based on nothing but their smarts can dismiss decades or even centuries of scholarship.

Followers of Hancock believe that the pyramids and other ancient artifacts were not built by the Egyptians but an older and more advanced civilization. There is zero evidence for this, however – no artifacts, no archaeological sites, no writings, no references in other texts, nothing. How does Hancock deal with this utter lack of evidence? He claims that an asteroid strike 12,000 years ago completely wiped out all evidence of their existence. How convenient. There are, of course, problems with this claim. First, the asteroid strike at the end of the last glacial period was in North America, not Africa. Second, even an asteroid strike would not scrub all evidence of an advanced civilization. He must think this civilization lived in North America, perhaps in a single city right where the asteroid struck. But they also traveled to Egypt, built the pyramids, and then came home, without leaving a single tool behind. Even a single iron or steel tool would be something, but he has nothing.

Of course, there is also a logical problem, arguing from a lack of evidence. This emerges from the logical fallacy of special pleading – making up a specific (and usually implausible) explanation to explain away inconvenient evidence or lack thereof... (MORE - details)

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/out-with-evs..._permalink

INTRO: Green pundits can still be heard insisting China has seized a strategic high ground in solar. But the conviction is noticeably leaking from their voices. Solar panels are useful; they seem less and less strategic by the hour. China’s makers will have to keep cutting prices to find customers in a world of expanding energy options.

Those expanding energy options are the real story.

A nonsensical ideologized worldview has collapsed, the so-called energy transition. If battery electric is the future of transportation and robotics, as many say, so what? Fossil fuels will continue to find customers and myriad applications. Emissions will continue.

The fantasy about electric cars being the Christ of consumer products, our savior, has gone to the ideological landfill in the sky. A carbon tax remains the sensible approach to moderating CO2, if anyone is asking. They aren’t. And yet the Trump administration may be about to open a backdoor to let Chinese EVs enter the U.S. tariff-free. Another strategic industry we’re about to lose? No. Americans will only suffer inferior cars and inferior carmakers if we shield our domestic market from competition.

If you’re confused about what constitutes world-changing energy and transportation engineering, maybe it’s time to look elsewhere: human spaceflight.

The key is rocket reusability, pioneered by Elon Musk, which has given rise to a $12-billion-a-year revenue-generating business in Starlink, soon to be joined by Jeff Bezos’ version of space-based internet access through his company Blue Origin.

With SpaceX’s forthcoming Starship, launch costs per kilogram are expected to fall to 1% of the costs under the space shuttle. New paying space ventures are in view. Microgravity manufacturing will allow purer and more-uniform crystals, alloys and drug compounds. Helium mining on the moon is possible. Large amounts of data for AI might be processed more cheaply in orbit thanks to solar energy and ease of cooling. Mr. Musk on Monday announced he will merge SpaceX with his AI company in pursuit of exactly this opportunity.

Two things might threaten this boom. One is debris proliferation in low Earth orbit if there’s an accident. SpaceX will soon make its first attempt at refueling a rocket in space. For once, move fast and break things isn’t the order of the day.

The other is the palsied hand of government. Private space flight has been going so well, it’s hardly been a subject in this column since a 2004 effort to prod congressional action on a safe harbor from the lawsuit industry. Now that moment has returned. The Senate is considering a bill to codify a Trump executive order streamlining licensing rules and procedures. Guess who opposes the order? The state of California, possibly out of animus for Mr. Musk.

I’ve made my forecast clear. The U.S. won’t deal with its looming debt problem except with ad hockery—inflation, spending cuts, tax hikes, de facto claw-backs of government benefits via waiting lists and declining service quality.

But the coming debt convulsion can end badly or very, very badly depending on one thing: whether we protect a 15-generation North American legacy of personal enterprise and rule of law. For now, the U.S. remains outside the norm of our major global antagonists. Our politics isn’t solely reduced to figuring out who has created something of value, like SpaceX, so it can be shaken down, stolen or harnessed for aggressive statist ends.

Less encouragingly, President Trump vents a noticeably corruption-tinged urge to extract favors from firms that benefit from his decisions. And Democrats proclaim a strange new enthusiasm for socialism, never mind that we already have a lot of socialism. It’s the source of our runaway debt.

Why not more socialism? For one thing, in our newly Hobbesian international environment, not keeping pace in the race for wealth and technology means falling prey to those who do. Ask yourself which countries are likely to prevail: Those that afford their industries relatively free access to a global division of labor? Or those that follow the lure of industrial policy and protectionism?

Mr. Trump does have a decision to make, and it isn’t an easy one... (MORE - details)

https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-b...tivity-nde

INTRO: The last words Steve Jobs, the legendary Apple founder, spoke were simple: "Oh wow, oh wow, oh wow."

Their mystery is enticing – what did Jobs, the digital prophet who brought us the smartphone, see as he neared death? We’ll never know. But stories of near-death experiences (NDEs) tantalise the living, and something unique seems to be happening inside our brains as we sense death approaching.

Despite NDE testimonies, the moments surrounding death largely remain a mystery to us, especially when it comes to the actual experience of dying. But scientists have recently begun to explore what happens in the final moment of life by gathering data on brain activity from patients who are dying.

Using electroencephalogram (EEG) recordings, researchers are able to watch how patterns of brain activity change in the moments leading up to death. The results are preliminary so far, but they show distinctive bursts of coordinated neural activity, indicating that something significant is indeed happening as our brains intuit that death may be near.

Better understanding this activity could not only demystify the dying process – offering comfort to those who have lost loved ones or are nearing death themselves – but might also help explain some of the puzzles of consciousness as well... (MORE - details)