Elon Musk Says the US Has 'Very, Very Ancient Lea…

Musk is weird and yet sage at times.

When Musk was asked about humans having "a significantly increased lifespan," he offered a straightforward view about human life.

"I don't think we should try to have people live for a really long time," he told Döpfner. "That it would cause asphyxiation of society because the truth is, most people don't change their mind. They just die."

He continued: "So if they don't die, we will be stuck with old ideas and society wouldn't advance."

Musk then said that a "gerontocracy" — where a government is essentially controlled by citizens significantly older than the bulk of the population — is not healthy.

"I think we already have quite a serious issue with gerontocracy, where the leaders of so many countries are extremely old," he revealed. "In the US, it's a very, very ancient leadership. And it is just impossible to stay in touch with the people if you are many generations older than them."

He added: "The founders of the USA put minimum ages for a local office. But they did not put maximum ages because they did not expect that people will be living so long. They should have. Because for a democracy to function, the leaders must be reasonably in touch with the bulk of the population. And if you're too young or too old, you can't say that you will be attached."

Musk said that he'd like to see political leaders "be ideally within 10 or at least, 20 years of the average age of the population."

I’ll let that sink in.

"I'm saying that Judge Jackson is on the board of a school that aggressively teaches critical race theory, and that is an extreme and divisive theory that pits children against other children, divides us based on race, and teaches a false and revisionist history of our nation."
 —Ted Cruz

Short. Sweet. To the point. That's the beauty Dave's iPhone. 

Geez. That’s crazy

There was an "astronomically close" event of a meteor passing by earth over the weekend. It actually came between earth and the moon!

You can watch video of the pass here.

https://www.virtualtelescope.eu/webtv/

But what gets me is that this very well could have been a cataclysmic event - Perhaps not extinction level - but certainly a threat to the future of humanity.

And here we are debating about whether we can say the word gay.

What is wrong with us?!

Quite a meaningful email…

I don’t recall ever seeing this picture before.

Epic.

Buchholz High School student discovers and publis…

We need so much more of this in life….using our brains to unravel the universes mysteries instead of remembering the names of absurd celebrities

https://www.wuft.org/news/2022/02/18/buchholz-high-school-student-discovers-and-publishes-new-calculus-technique/


Short. Sweet. To the point. That's the beauty Dave's iPhone.

How do you like them apples?

Governor dimwitty here in Florida was hoping to see a disruption caused by the trucking convoy here in Florida because…yeah he didn't really give a reason.  

But it's funny. Because last year he signed into law an anti riot piece of legislation, most of which has been blocked by a federal judge. 

At the time…

DeSantis called it "the strongest anti-riot, pro-law enforcement legislation in the country." And it is. While other Southern states like Alabama have passed laws limiting where protests can be held, charging fees for cleanup costs, and paying local law enforcement, no law is as sweeping—or as potentially damning—as Florida's H.B.1. 

The new law also undermines the community's collective power. In direct opposition to rallying cries to defund police, DeSantis has new permissions to take control of city budgets to block attempts at reducing funding for law enforcement.

The law also redefines the term "riot," giving police the power to interpret what makes a gathering violent or dangerous: 

"A person who participates in a public disturbance involving an assembly of three or more persons acting with a common intent to mutually assist each other in disorderly and violent conduct resulting in injury or damage to another person or property, or creating a clear and present danger of injury or damage to another person or property." 

So I would assume that police could use the law to arrest the truckers? Or is it just "riots" that he, personally, is opposed to?