Meet The Dystopian Startups Making ‘Biological Computers’ From Human Cells
Picture a dystopian future where computers don’t just mimic human thinking – they’re powered by actual human brain cells. That future is taking shape in a Cambridge, England, lab, where a groundbreaking device called CL1 is blending biology and technology in ways that could transform how we compute. Developed by Australian startup Cortical Labs and U.K.-based bit.bio, this shoebox-sized machine houses 200,000 lab-grown brain cells wired to silicon circuits, creating a “biological computer” that’s already turning heads.
Unlike traditional computers, which guzzle energy, CL1 operates with the efficiency of a human brain. “Our brains process information using a fraction of the power that modern electronics need,” Hon Weng Chong, CEO of Cortical Labs, told FT. “This could open doors to smarter robots, stronger cybersecurity, and immersive virtual worlds.”
Oh, joy.
Low-energy computing has fueled a race to develop biological systems, with Cortical Labs leading alongside competitors like FinalSpark in Switzerland and Biological Black Box in the U.S.CL1’s brain cells, grown from human skin-derived stem cells, are carefully arranged in layers: one type sparks electrical activity, while another keeps it in check. “It’s like balancing a gas pedal and brakes,” Chong explains. This precision, says bit.bio’s Tony Oosterveen, gives CL1 an edge over rival approaches using less uniform “mini-brains.” The result is a platform for testing how brain cells handle information, with early experiments already yielding insights for neuroscience and drug development.
One of CL1’s quirkiest feats? Playing the classic video game Pong. Its predecessor, DishBrain, learned to move a virtual paddle by receiving electrical “rewards” for good moves and disruptive noise for mistakes. CL1 has taken this further, revealing how substances like alcohol impair performance or how epilepsy drugs, like carbamazepine, boost it. “We’re learning how to ‘program’ these cells,” Chong says, noting that his team is even teaching them to recognize numbers, like distinguishing a nine from a four.
“This is the first device that can consistently measure what neurons can do,” says Mark Kotter, a Cambridge professor and bit.bio founder. Karl Friston, a neuroscientist at University College London, sees it as a tool for groundbreaking experiments, while Johns Hopkins’ Thomas Hartung praises its use of games like Pong to benchmark biological computing.
Chong recognizes the ethical challenges that could emerge if biological computers and neuron cultures begin to show early signs of consciousness.
“[T]hese systems are sentient because they respond to stimuli and learn from them but they are not conscious. We will learn more about how the human brain works but we do not intend to create a brain in a vat.”
Greenland, despite possessing vast mineral reserves and past ambitions from the U.S. to acquire it for these resources, is not interested in becoming a major mining superpower.
The country’s minister for business and mineral resources emphasized a desire for only 5 to 10 active mines at any given time, prioritizing high environmental, social, and governance standards.
Concerns about the environmental impact and the uncertain economic return from mining activities, particularly with an unstable market for rare earths, contribute to Greenland’s cautious approach.
Early in Donald Trump’s presidency, he announced his ambitions to acquire Greenland. In March, Trump said, “We need Greenland for international safety and security. We need it. We have to have it.” As well as stating ambitions to counter Russia’s presence in the Arctic, taking control of Greenland would put vast quantities of rare earth minerals and rare earth elements in the possession of the United States. However, Denmark quickly shot down the idea of Trump’s acquisition, saying that Greenland was not for sale. Meanwhile, Trump’s announcement led several political figures in Greenland to suggest that Greenland should be independent, rather than under the ownership of Denmark or the U.S.
International powers have long eyed Greenland for its vast mineral potential. As several countries around the world strive to undergo a green transition, the demand for critical minerals is expected to grow dramatically in the coming years. Demand for critical energy transition minerals like lithium, cobalt, and copper could increase almost fourfold by 2030, according to United Nations estimates.
At present, China dominates the global mineral mining market. According to International Energy Agency (IEA) data, China contributes around 80 percent of the world’s natural graphite and 60 percent of mined magnet rare earths. In 2024, it produced more than 60 percent of the world’s lithium, 40 percent of refined copper, and 70 percent of refined cobalt. As the U.S. looks to reduce its reliance on China for energy, critical minerals, and other goods, President Trump sees Greenland as the potential solution.
Greenland holds vast mineral reserves, including rare earth metals, coal, graphite, uranium, copper, lead, and zinc. A 2023 Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland survey found that 25 of the 34 critical raw materials recognised by the European Commission are present in Greenland. In addition, as ice sheets melt due to climate change, Greenland’s previously hard-to-retrieve mineral reserves are expected to become more accessible.
Caroline Kennedy-Pipe, a professor of war studies and Arctic security specialist at the U.K.’s Loughborough University, explained, “The fight for infrastructure in the Arctic is incredibly important. Plus, because Greenland’s ice sheet is melting, and melting fast, those rare earth minerals will become cheaper to access. So, these are seen as long-term investments for America.”
To date, mining activity in Greenland has been limited, as investors have avoided financing mining operations due to the harsh conditions and environmental pushback from community groups. Developing the country’s mining industry would require significant funding, as well as support from local groups.
Around a decade ago, a team of geologists published a paper that warned of unrealistic expectations for Greenland’s mineral potential. It states, “Even if estimates of the quantity and quality of ore in a geological deposit are well documented… it is difficult to translate this into economic potential and even more difficult to predict a specific revenue for Greenlandic society.”
Minik Thorleif Rosing, one of the authors of the report, said that the situation remains relatively unchanged since the date of publication. “There is a misconception that Greenland will be like a new Saudi Arabia, only at the size of a small British town,” Rosing said. He blamed the uncertainty on global market conditions for rare earth metals. There has been significant pushback against mining operations, as many Greenlanders believe the cost of mining will far outweigh the benefit. It is unclear just how much of a return on investment Greenland would see from mining activities, as there is no stable market for rare earths, according to Rosing. However, many are more concerned about the environmental impact of mining in the Arctic.
In June, Naaja Nathanielsen, Greenland’s minister for business and mineral resources, said that while some mining operations are already underway in the country, there is little interest in Greenland becoming a major mining power. “For Greenland, we are not necessarily interested in becoming a really great mining country. We just really want 5 or 10 active mines at any given time,”said Nathanielsen. “We are a very small population, so for us, we don’t need the entire country to be covered in mines. We are happy with managing a few, and I think that is feasible,” she added.
Nathanielsen emphasised the “very high” environmental, social and governance (ESG) standards held by Greenland. She said, “I think the people of Greenland really support the mining industry, which is quite kind of rare when you look at other jurisdictions. But they do so because they have faith in us having a high environmental standard and taking care of local communities.” Nathanielsen went on to say that if the government compromises its environmental standards, it could lead Greenlanders to no longer support the mining industry, which could be highly detrimental for future projects.
Oceania recorded by far the highest cocaine use prevalence among 15- to 64-year-olds of any region in the world in 2023, according to the latest report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
In the Americas, 1.64 percent of the age group had taken it, with a more detailed breakdown showing that 1.92 percent had used cocaine in North America, versus 1.55 percent in South America and 0.94 percent in Central America.
The UNODC reports that 1.1 percent of Europeans had used cocaine in 2023, with prevalence far higher in Western and Central Europe (1.66 percent), compared to Eastern and South-Eastern Europe (0.28 percent).
In Africa and Asia, far lower shares of people are thought to have used the drug that year, at 0.38 percent and 0.11 percent, respectively.
The global average was 0.47 percent.
By absolute number, it is a different story.
On this metric, the Americas rank first with an estimated 11.41 million people having taken cocaine. It is followed by Europe with 5.97 million, Asia with 3.37 million, Africa with 3.22 million and Oceania with 880,000 people.
Between 2019 and 2023, there was a 68 percent increase in the amount of cocaine seized worldwide. Production of the drug also increased, jumping up nearly 34 percent between 2022 and 2023 to 3,708 tons.
According to the UNODC, global cocaine production “has hit an all-time high once again, accompanied by significant increases in cocaine seizures, cocaine users and – most tragically – cocaine-related deaths in many countries in recent years.”
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed last week that the US’ bombing of several nuclear sites in Iran won’t affect their bilateral dialogue, declaring that “These are independent processes.”
This is significant since many observers speculated that Trump duped Iran with diplomacy while supposedly plotting to attack it this entire time. If true, then it would follow that he might also be duping Russia too, albeit not in preparation of a direct US attack but in pursuit of some other nebulous goal.
Putin doesn’t adhere to that interpretation, however, which is also proven by him later talking about his “great respect” for Trump and praising his “sincere commitment” to peace in Ukraine.
Skeptics might speculate that he’s playing “5D chess” as part of some “master plan” to “psyche out” the US but that doesn’t make much sense.
There’s no point in continuing a dialogue if one of the parties is convinced that the other isn’t negotiating in good faith. That would be a total waste of time and resources.
Their polemics don’t equate to Putin supposedly suspecting Trump of foul play in the US’ talks with Iran, however, but they do show that Russia was very displeased with what he ended up doing even though it later expressed cautious optimism about the ceasefire that he claimed credit for brokering. All of this is consistent with Russian policy.
On that topic, Russia is also interested in a ceasefire with Ukraine, but only on its terms. These include Ukraine withdrawing from the entirety of the disputed regions, declaring that it’ll no longer pursue NATO membership, and Western countries cutting off arms shipments to it, among other demands. Russia believes that continued dialogue with the US can lead to Trump ultimately coercing Zelensky into these concessions, to which end Putin offered him a strategic resource-centric partnership as an incentive.
The idea is that the US could invest in Russia’s rare earth and Arctic energy industries, with the first providing the US with its sought-after minerals and the second leading to them jointly managing the global oil and natural gas markets, thus giving each of them stakes in the other’s success. This could then in turn help ensure that relations remain manageable even if another crisis unexpectedly erupts. With time, Russia and the US would then reshape the world order, but only if their détente remains on track.
Therein lies the importance of continued Russian-US dialogue, which Putin is committed to in spite of speculation that Trump duped Iran with diplomacy ahead of attacking it. From his perspective, Trump isn’t just saying the right things about the conflict (most of the time at least), but he more importantly hasn’t doubled down on military-intelligence aid to Ukraine. Simply put, it’s Trump’s actions (or lack thereof in this case) that impress Putin, not his words, which he’d be foolish to take at face value.
That said, there’s no guarantee that Putin can convince Trump to coerce Zelensky into his demanded concessions, and the potential failure of their talks could indeed lead to the US escalating its involvement in Ukraine and therefore worsening tensions with Russia. Even so, Putin won’t prematurely abandon diplomacy just because some speculate that the US never truly intended to reach a deal with Iran, the assessment of which he doesn’t share as confirmed by his own and Peskov’s recent statements.
Does President Trump have any legal basis for his foreign policy actions aside from his personal entitlement to absolute power? Presidents have been scorning congressional leashes on their foreign interventions since at least the Korean War. But Trump’s erratic behavior and fevered comments almost make President Richard Nixon look mild-mannered.
Democratic members of Congress and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) are pushing for a vote on a War Powers Act resolution to put a leash on Trump. But in the same way that President George W. Bush found lawyers that assured him the president was authorized to order torture, so Trump supporters are denying the validity of any law restricting the White House’s warring. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) declared on Tuesday: “Many respected constitutional experts argue that the War Powers Act is itself unconstitutional. I’m persuaded by that argument. They think it’s a violation of the Article 2 powers of the commander in chief.” Johnson is blocking any vote in the House of Representatives on that resolution.
Some Trump apologists are claiming that the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), enacted in response to the 9/11 attacks, provides all the legal justification that Trump needed. Since President George W. Bush listed Iran as part of the “axis of evil” in his 2002 State of the Union address, that entitles subsequent presidents to scourge Iran forever. There was no justification for putting Iran in that 2002 trifecta, but lack of evidence rarely impedes presidential prattle.
Besides, the AUMF seems as archaic nowadays as a balanced budget amendment. In the same way that congressmen can perpetuate deficit spending by promising decades hence to balance the budget, so the AUMF allows politicians to perpetually pummel any group or nation accused of wrongdoing.
Trump appears to be claiming unlimited power to intervene abroad. In February, Trump posted on Truth Social a saying attributed to Napoleon: “He who saves his country does not violate any law.” Sounding like he was entitled to rule the world, Trump proclaimed in February: “We’ll own Gaza.” Trump signaled support for forcibly expelling more than a million Palestinian refugees in order to create “a Riviera of the Middle East.” In 2023, he boasted to Jewish donors that “I gave you Golan Heights,” signaling his prerogative to dispose of Syrian territory and redraw national boundaries as he pleased.
Trump’s pattern of issuing sweeping demands is driving his response to the Israel–Iran clash. Trump demanded “unconditional surrender” from Iran, as if he were General Ulysses S. Grant in 1862 waiting outside a fort commanded by a dimwitted Confederate general. Trump decreed that Iran must completely end all its efforts to enrich uranium, regardless of prior international approval and the lack of evidence for an active weapons program. At one point, Trump ominously warned Tehran’s 10 million residents to “immediately evacuate”—though he didn’t specify any locale where they would be safe from Israeli bombing. Perhaps Trump’s most bizarre utterance was his Truth Social post Saturday night. After announcing that the U.S. had bombed three sites in Iran, Trump concluded, “NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE! Thank you for your attention to this matter.” On Wednesday morning at the NATO summit, Trump scoffed at Defense Intelligence Agency doubts on knocking out Iran’s program and compared his bombing attack with Hiroshima and Nagasaki that were “essentially the same thing that ended that war.” That comparison is not expected to boost Trump’s popularity in Japan.
Turn back the clock two decades, and defenders of a bellicose president insisted that George W. Bush was smarter than he sounded. But many Trump supporters seem to think 47 is omniscient. Trump’s posts on Truth Social are now presumed to be vastly more accurate than any U.S. government intelligence report. As Vice President J.D. Vance said on Sunday on Meet the Press, “Of course we trust our intelligence community, but we also trust our instincts.” But what if the strongest instinct is to gratify pro-Israel donors? Secretary of State Marco Rubio provided the lodestar for Trumpian foreign policy: “Forget about intelligence.” DOGE missed a great chance to save over $80 billion a year by abolishing the intelligence agencies that the White House is determined to scorn. (Meanwhile, both the Washington Post and New York Times reported that Trump actually made the final decision to bomb Iran after seeing Fox News hosts lauding Israeli successes attacking Tehran.)
Presumed presidential omniscience is razing constraints on the Oval Office. Trump’s lawyers are touting the same legal nitroglycerine that helped destroy George W. Bush’s presidency. The Trump administration is echoing Bush’s “unitary executive theory” to assert that the president effectively has untrammeled power over almost everything in the solar system. Bush issued more than a hundred signing statements announcing that he would disregard specific provisions in legislation, thanks to “the President’s constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information” from Congress and the American people. Bush used that invocation to justify scorning congressional prohibitions on torture. His administration presumed that “checks and balances” were archaic. But Bush’s legal power-grabs helped make him intensely unpopular by the end of his reign and opened the door for Barack Obama to win the presidency by masquerading as a civil-liberties savior.
Trump-style legal absolutism appears to be the mirror image of tolerance—if not also common sense. Trump’s National Park Service wants to delete any material at national parks that “inappropriately disparages Americans past or living,” so official history will become an even bigger fairy tale.
These legal doctrines are not a hypothetical threat to freedom. On March 25, masked ICE agents seizedRümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish graduate student, off the streets outside Boston. Öztürk was locked up for 45 days and her student visa covertly canceled because she coauthored an op-ed criticizing Tufts University for failing to divest from Israel in response to its actions in Gaza. Rubio vilified her as a “lunatic” and implied that the feds had ample evidence of her crimes and abuses. A leak to the Washington Post revealed that the feds had nothing on her—except that op-ed. Federal Judge William Sessions ordered Öztürk released because her arrest “potentially chills the speech of the millions and millions of people in this country who are not citizens.” Uh, judge… maybe that was the whole point.
No matter how many bombs Trump drops or how many freedoms he skewers, he will retain an iron core of MAGA supporters who view Trump’s own power as the best hope for America. The New York Timesnoted a similar pattern in 1973 at the start of Nixon’s second term: “Conservatives who have traditionally favored a strong Congress and a weakened Presidency are now advocating the reverse.” Nixon’s attempt to “fix” Washington by radically centralizing power in the White House did not survive the Watergate scandal.
On Monday, Trump proclaimed a ceasefire between Iran and Israel. On Tuesday morning, after ceasefire violations, Trump raged: “We have two countries that have been fighting so long that they don’t know what the f*ck their doing.” Millions of Americans reached the same conclusion about Trump’s own foreign policy. Unfortunately, citizens cannot rely on Congress, the Constitution, or federal law to curb Trump’s interventions at home or abroad.
Peter Thiel Warns: One-World Government A Greater Threat Than AI Or Climate Change
In a wide-ranging interview on the future and global existential risks, billionaire technology investor Peter Thiel raised alarms not only about familiar threats like nuclear war, climate change, and artificial intelligence but also about what he sees as a more insidious danger: the rise of a one-world totalitarian state. Speaking to the New York Times’ Ross Douthat, Thiel argued that the default political response to global crises—centralized, supranational governance—could plunge humanity into authoritarianism.
Thiel, co-founder of PayPal and Palantir, shared his worries using examples from dystopian sci-fi stories. “There’s a risk of nuclear war, environmental disaster, bioweapons, and certain types of risks with AI,” Thiel explained to Douthat, suggesting that the push for global governance as a solution to these threats could culminate in a “bad singularity” – a one-world state that stifles freedom under the guise of safety.
Thiel critiqued what he described as a reflexive call for centralized control in times of peril.
“The default political solution people have for all these existential risks is one-world governance,” Thiel observed, pointing to proposals for a strengthened United Nations to control nuclear arsenals or global compute governance to regulate AI development, including measures to “log every single keystroke” to prevent dangerous programming. Such solutions, the investor warned, risk creating a surveillance state that sacrifices individual liberty for security.
Drawing on historical and philosophical analogies, Thiel referenced a 1940s Federation of American Scientists film, One World or None, which argued that only global governance could prevent nuclear annihilation. Thiel juxtaposed this with a Christian theological framing: “Antichrist or Armageddon?” In both, the billionaire said he sees a binary choice between centralized control and catastrophic collapse. Yet, Thiel questioned the plausibility of a charismatic “Antichrist” figure seizing power through hypnotic rhetoric, as depicted in apocalyptic literature. Instead, he offered a modern twist: the path to global control lies in relentless fearmongering about existential risks.
“The way the Antichrist would take over the world is you talk about Armageddon nonstop,” Thiel explained. The billionaire contrasted this with earlier visions of scientific progress, like those of 17th- and 18th-century Baconian science, where the threat was an evil genius wielding technology. Presently, Thiel argued, the greater political resonance lies in halting scientific advancement altogether. “In our world, it’s far more likely to be Greta Thunberg than Dr. Strangelove,” he quipped, invoking the radical Swedish climate activist as a symbol of anti-progress sentiment.
On AI specifically, Thiel struck a balanced tone, tempering both utopian and apocalyptic predictions.
“One question we can frame is: Just how big a thing do I think AI is?” he asked himself. “My stupid answer is: It’s more than a nothing burger, and it’s less than the total transformation of our society.”
Thiel compared AI’s potential impact to the internet in the late 1990s, suggesting it could create “some great companies” and add “a few percentage points” to GDP, perhaps boosting growth by 1% annually for a decade or more. However, the billionaire expressed skepticism that AI alone could end economic stagnation, viewing it as a significant but not revolutionary force.
While Thiel expressed nuanced views on artificial intelligence, his venture capital firm, Founders Fund, is aggressively backing the technology. Namely, it recently led a $600 million investment in Crusoe, a vertically integrated AI infrastructure provider.
“The biggest risk with AI is that we don’t go big enough. Crusoe is here to liberate us from the island of limited ambition,” Thiel said at the time.
A new estimate from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that a COVID-19 variant that has been driving cases in China earlier this year is now the No. 1 strain in the United States.
A CDC estimate, updated on June 26, shows that between June 8 and June 21, the NB.1.8.1 variant now makes up 43 percent of COVID-19 cases in the United States and is ahead of the LP.8.1 variant.
Earlier this month, CDC data showed that NB.1.8.1 had 37 percent of cases and was No. 2 behind the LP.8.1 variant, which saw 38 percent of reported cases at the time. The new CDC estimate this week shows that LP.8.1 now makes up 31 percent of all cases.
The CDC says that wastewater levels show COVID-19 activity is “currently low” despite the NB.1.8.1 variant increase. Only Alaska is reporting “high” levels of the virus, while Hawaii, Nevada, Texas, Missouri, Mississippi, Florida, and Connecticut are seeing “moderate” levels, according to the CDC.
Last week, private data showed that states reporting the variant, which has been dubbed “Nimbus” in some media reports, include Arizona, California, Colorado, New Jersey, New York, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Ohio, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington state as of June 19.
Chinese doctors earlier this month predicted a peak of nationwide COVID-19 cases in July, as the latest data released by Chinese health authorities show that variant NB 1.8.1 is still the main pathogen causing the rapid increase in COVID-19 infections in China.
An internal university research report at China’s Peking University stated that NB.1.8.1 may become the next dominant global strain, with symptoms including a sharp sore throat, fever, runny nose, vomiting, and diarrhea, according to previous Epoch Times reporting.
A worldwide rise in cases late last month is primarily in the Eastern Mediterranean, Southeast Asia, and Western Pacific regions, the World Health Organization said on May 28. The new variant had reached nearly 11 percent of sequenced samples reported globally in mid-May.
The WHO said some Western Pacific countries have reported increases in COVID cases and hospitalizations, but there’s nothing so far to suggest that the disease associated with the new variant is more severe than other variants.
In a statement to The Epoch Times in late May, a CDC spokesperson said the agency “is aware of reported cases of COVID-19 NB.1.8.1 in China and is in regular contact with international partners.”
Prior reports from The Epoch Times, citing Chinese doctors and outside health experts, have said that patients are reporting a sharp sore that’s been dubbed the “razor blade throat” or “razor throat.” Some media outlets, including The Associated Press and international media reports from the UK and India, have used the “razor throat” moniker to describe the NB.1.8.1 variant.
Due to the Chinese Communist Party’s history of covering up information and publishing unreliable data, including underreporting COVID-19 infections and related deaths since 2020, information provided by local doctors and health workers can offer valuable information for understanding the situation on the ground in the totalitarian country.
WASHINGTON—The United States’ B-2 stealth bomber strike on Iran’s Fordow uranium enrichment facility was the culmination of more than 15 years of study and planning, according to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine.
Caine joined Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for a press briefing on June 26, in which the defense secretary said the June 21 bombing mission was a resounding success that set Iran’s nuclear development back by years.
Caine detailed the military planning that began in 2009 to design a purpose-built method to knock out the Fordow facility, which is buried hundreds of feet underground in a mountainous region of Iran.
A Briefing in a Vault
Caine shed new light on the role of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), an organization tasked with preparing bespoke solutions to destroy highly sensitive targets, including emerging weapons of mass destruction.
“DTRA does a lot of things for our nation, but DTRA is the world’s leading expert on deeply buried, underground targets,” Caine said.
“In 2009, a Defense Threat Reduction Agency officer was brought into a vault at an undisclosed location and briefed on something going on in Iran,” Caine said, declining to identify the DTRA officer by name.
This DTRA officer, and another unnamed member of the agency, were then tasked to work with the intelligence community to study the construction of the Fordow site.
“For more than 15 years, this officer and his teammate lived and breathed this single target: Fordow, a critical element of Iran’s covert nuclear weapons program,” Caine said.
The two DTRA employees spent years studying everything from the geology surrounding Fordow, to the construction materials and other equipment arriving at the facility, so they could model the site and devise a plan.
“They literally dreamed about this target at night when they slept,” Caine said.
In the course of their study of the Fordow facility, Caine said the pair of DTRA employees leading the project soon determined the U.S. military did not have a weapon that could adequately address the challenge the fortified Iranian nuclear facility presented.
“So, they began a journey to work with industry and other tacticians to develop the GBU-57,” Caine said.
The GBU-57, also known as the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) or bunker-buster, is a 30,000-pound bomb designed to burrow and explode deep underground.
Military planners then spent years testing the bomb, specifically for the Fordow facility.
“They tested it over and over again. … They accomplished hundreds of test shots, and dropped many full-scale weapons against extremely realistic targets for a single purpose: kill this target at the time and place of our nation’s choosing,” Caine said.
Each GBU-57 is “bespokely” designed for a specific target. He said each one dropped on the Fordow facility “had a unique desired impact angle, arrival, final heading, and fuse” corresponding to its role in the overall mission.
In addition to live-testing the GBU-57, Caine said the program to develop the heavy bunker-buster involved extensive and complex computing.
“In the beginning of its development, we had so many PhDs working on the MOP program, doing modeling and simulation, that we were quietly and in a secret way, the biggest users of supercomputer-hours within the United States of America,” he said.
Operation Midnight Hammer
The U.S. bomber strikes on Fordow were part of a larger mission, dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer, that also targeted Iran’s Natanz and Isfahan nuclear facilities.
B-2 Spirit stealth bombers tasked with striking the Fordow facility were specifically assigned to drop their GBU-57 bombs on a set of ventilation shafts running out of the underground facility. Ahead of the strikes on the Fordow facility, U.S. military planners observed last-minute changes to the site, including the placement of concrete caps on the ventilation shafts to further fortify the facility against an attack.
Caine said the first weapon dropped on Fordow was specifically designed to remove the concrete caps shielding Fordow’s ventilation shaft. From there, he said, weapons two, three, four, and five were designed to enter the shaft and burrow down into the underground complex at more than 1,000 feet per second, and explode.
MSM Claims MAHA “Threatens To Set Women Back Decades”
An increasing number of Americans are abandoning processed foods and taking control of their own food supply chain—planting backyard gardens and sourcing meat, eggs, dairy, and pantry staples directly from local markets and farms. The trend, which is gaining momentum under the “Make America Healthy Again” movement—and even noted by Goldman—reflects a broader push for food independence and a return to community-based sourcing.
Not everyone is on board with MAHA — especially not the feminist journalists at SELF (owned by the corporate media company Condé Nast), who recently penned an article that reads like a hit piece against MAHA.
Erica Sloan’s critique of MAHA is that food independence is unrealistic and burdensome for women in the modern progressive world.
In her article titled “How the MAHA Food Agenda Threatens to Set Women Back Decades,” Sloan writes…
But it’s what MAHA isn’t saying that’s most important: Stoking so much fear around these vital industries implies that Americans—more specifically, the mothers of America—need to find a different way to feed their families.
“Women do a disproportionate share of the kind of work that the MAHA movement is asking people to do, which is to grow their own food, to prepare all of their food from scratch, and to avoid processed food and even packaged foods,” Norah MacKendrick, PhD, associate professor of sociology at Rutgers University and author of Better Safe Than Sorry: How Consumers Navigate Exposure to Everyday Toxics, tells SELF. Even today, with approximately 60% of women working outside the home, women still spend about two hours more on housework daily and cook more than twice as many meals a week as men do. The implication that our current food system is inherently unsafe just stands to pile on the labor.
“In order for a family to eat a diet of mostly homegrown or even just homemade meals… that’s going to be a lot more work for women and mothers especially,” Dr. MacKendrick says. It’s an ideal that the MAHA moms have already embodied—and that would be not only unrealistic but unfair to expect from all American families.
Decades?
The angle that Sloan uses to bash MAHA via a quote from some woman in acemedia is entirely flawed, that’s because MAHA doesn’t force anyone to grow their own food or make everything from scratch—it simply raises awareness about the systemic failures of Big Food and Big Pharma and empowers families to reclaim control where possible. Some folks plant gardens, while others buy from local ranchers and farmers. The movement calls for informed choices and better public policy—not a return to the primitive 1800s—or is asking women to live like the modern-day Amish.
Heaven forbid women to cook from scratch for their families! More nonsense from the PR journalist …
MAHA’s villainization of food processing just adds the burden of cooking from scratch to women’s plates.
The journalist concluded the article with this: “Processed and ultraprocessed items are also functional necessities for many, and can spark joy. And again, some of them have positive nutritional value.”
Meanwhile…
At the end of the article, SELF advises readers to…
Why SELF is targeting MAHA remains a mystery, though the answer may lie in who their mega-corporate advertisers are.
“EVERYONE’S BEEN SHOT UP HERE”: Arsonists Set Wildfire In Northern Idaho, Open Fire On Firefighters, Police In Ambush
Live Coverage: Arsonist-Led Ambush on First Responders in Idaho
* * *
Update (2011ET):
Breaking from Fox News:
Two killed after suspect starts shooting at firefighters responding to a wildfire near Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. The suspect has not been caught.
BREAKING: Two killed after suspect starts shooting at firefighters responding to a wildfire near Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. The suspect has not been caught. pic.twitter.com/TO7TGRgpdl
Spoiler alert: it’s not the so-called “climate crisis” narrative pushed by far-left Democrats to justify a heist of the US Treasury through climate policies like the Inflation Reduction Act (Green New Deal). In some cases, it’s arson—sometimes even eco-terrorism.
Shocking news just broke that multiple firefighters and officers were shot in an ambush at the Canfield Mountain Natural Area in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho.
According to North Idoha News, at 1:50 pm local time, multiple firefighters and law enforcement officers were shot in what has been described as a “planned ambush” while responding to a wildfire on Canfield Mountain, believed to have been intentionally set to lure first responders.
“At least one Life Flight helicopter remains on standby, while all others have been released,” the local media outlet reported on Facebook, adding, “Multiple firefighters were shot, and at least one has been transported with life-threatening injuries, though officials confirm the individual was conscious and alert during transport.”
BREAKING
Kootenai County Sheriff’s Office in Northern Idaho reporting an active shooter incident.
Fire department says multiple firefighters shot and injured while responding to incident in Coeur d’Alene pic.twitter.com/xBmjJSAwYn
The law-enforcement presence in Coeur d’Alene is incredible right now. Again, we don’t have anything confirmed because the situation is incredibly chaotic and unfolding. This picture is from our photographer at the scene. pic.twitter.com/vCBtI38Hky
Coeur d’Alene, Idaho scanner audio from earlier: “There’s an active shooter zone! They’re shot down. BC3’s down, BC1’s down. Everybody’s shot up here. Law enforcement, Code 3 now up here! .. Get out of the way. Engine brush 551, do not come up here”.
