Aggregator
Rick Moranis jokes he never ‘retired’ in rare Comic-Con appearance
Mamdani not only gloats about ‘taxing the rich,’ he lies as well
California woman accused of running fake animal rescue and leaving dogs to die in hot car freed without bail
Trump plays comedian-in-chief at rescheduled WHCA dinner: photos
Family of grandma killed in senseless stabbing outside mall reveal heartbreaking new details
Trump cracks jokes, honors heroes of White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner shooting at glitzy rescheduled gala
Mets squander early lead against Dodgers in latest punchless loss
Dodgers beat Mets behind Roki Sasaki gem, Kyle Tucker home run
Humanoid War Robot Gets Advanced AMD-Powered AI Brain
At the start of February, we began tracking startup Foundation Robotics after publicly available news reports and X posts suggested it could become one of the first US companies to deploy humanoid robots on the modern battlefield.
TIME later reported that the company's robots had been sent to Ukraine for testing and evaluation, raising the prospect that these war bots could soon reach the front lines in Eastern Europe.
Our February 2 report, "Watch: Russian Soldiers Surrender To Gun-Wielding Robot; Humanoid Warfare Nears," and our February 3 report, "AI's Next Frontier Is Physical As Humanoid Robots Begin March On Assembly Lines And Beyond," both preceded TIME's coverage of Foundation by a full month and showed how these robots were being positioned for testing in Ukraine.
In another signal that Foundation is preparing its war bots for battlefield deployment, Reuters reported that the startup partnered with Advanced Micro Devices to supply high-end AI processors for its second-generation Phantom MK-2 robot.
Foundation plans to open a factory in October capable of producing 5,000 robots per year, followed by a second facility with capacity for 50,000 units. Industrial robots will be leased for about $100,000 annually, while defense models designed for logistics and reconnaissance will be sold for $300,000 per unit.
Phantom MK-1 robot
Last month, we were also the first to publish video from a Las Vegas testing range showing the Phantom MK-1 operating a light mortar system.
Phantom MK-1 robot
Founded in 2024, Foundation said its first-generation Phantom MK-1 robots are already operating in the automotive supply chain and contributed to the production of more than 24,000 vehicles last year.
Beyond the factory floor, the key question is when these bots will reach the front lines. Our report earlier this month, citing a Ukrainian news outlet, revealed that Kiev is preparing to launch a grant competition for war bots, with Foundation appearing well positioned to secure funding.
Latest coverage on warfare robotics:
- Drone War Enters Terrifying New Phase As Russia Deploys 300-MPH Jet-Powered Shahed
- Watch: Aerial Drone Airlifts Kamikaze Ground Bot Into Battle As Warfare Automation Accelerates
- Anduril Unveils Tiltrotor Killer Drone Straight Out Of 'Terminator'
Major Wall Street desks are finding ways to profit from the asymmetric warfare boom:
- "Only The Beginning": How To Profit From The Asymmetric Warfare Boom
- This American Drone-Motor Company Is Positioned For "Massive Procurement Tailwind"
You're getting a front-row seat to what the 2030s battlefield will look like - a lot of automation - AI kill chains - just chaos.
Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 22:10Kids found in ‘zombie’ state after munching on mushroom-laced edibles at New Jersey summer camp
Azzi Fudd wins WNBA 3-point contest — and wants a Steph Curry rematch
Decline in film permits shows Hollywood needs more than tax credits to survive
Zack Wheeler says ‘it’s tough to narrow’ what has plagued Mets — but there’s reason for optimism
Smokey Skies Does Not Mean Global Warming
Authored by Anthony Watts via American Thinker,
Every summer seems to follow the same predictable media script.
Wildfires ignite somewhere in North America. Smoke drifts hundreds or even thousands of miles. Air quality alerts are issued. Television stations fill the screen with hazy skylines. Then, before investigators have even determined how the fires started, headlines begin linking the smoke to climate change.
This year has been no different. As smoke from Canadian wildfires spread across parts of the Midwest and Northeast, much of the news coverage quickly shifted from reporting on the fires to treating them as evidence of a worsening climate crisis. Yet one crucial fact was often left out: many of the fires responsible for the smoke were ignited by lightning, a natural cause that has existed for as long as forests have.
Lightning is not new. Smoke carried by prevailing winds is not new. What is new is the growing tendency to treat every smoky sky as proof of climate change.
That illogical leap simply isn't supported by the evidence.
One of the most striking graphics I've seen tells a story you probably haven't seen in the news. Using data from the European Commission's Global Wildfire Information System, it shows that 2026 has experienced the lowest cumulative burned area across the Americas in at least the past decade.
A second graphic, using the same global database, shows that every inhabited continent is running below its recent average for area burned this year, with Africa, the Americas, and Europe at record lows.
Those are remarkable statistics. They don't mean wildfires have disappeared or that smoke isn't a serious public health concern. They simply demonstrate that the broader wildfire picture is very different from the one often portrayed in daily news reports.
If global burned areas are unusually low, why are so many stories describing an escalating wildfire emergency and attributing it to climate change?
Part of the answer lies in how we consume news. Reporters naturally cover fires that are burning today, not forests that aren't burning. Dramatic images of smoke-filled cities attract attention. Maps showing below-average burned area rarely do. The result is a form of selection bias: the public constantly sees active disasters while receiving little context about longer-term trends. It's a variation of the old news adage, "If it bleeds it leads."
History provides even more perspective.
Another telling graph comes from fire research published by the Royal Society. Drawing on evidence from more than 800 fire-scar sites across western North America, it shows that large wildfires were substantially more common before 1900 than they are today. Fire activity declined with changes in land management, livestock grazing, settlement patterns, and organized fire suppression. In other words, today's forests are not burning at historically unprecedented levels.
The broader scientific literature reflects this. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in chapter 12 of their Sixth Assessment Report has concluded there is low confidence in observed global trends for fire weather and burned area. The IPCC also reports with high confidence that the global land area burned has declined in recent decades. That is a far more cautious assessment than many news reports suggest.
None of this means climate has no influence on wildfire behavior. Weather has always affected fire, and changing climate conditions may influence fire risk in some regions. But wildfire is driven by many interacting factors: ignition sources such as lightning, accidents, and even arson, wind, humidity, fuel accumulation, insect damage, forest management, decades of fire suppression, and simple bad luck. Reducing every wildfire to somehow being caused by climate change ignores most of what really determines how a fire starts and how it spreads. The smoke itself tells us even less.
Smoke is transported by normal atmospheric circulation. A relatively modest fire season can produce severe smoke episodes if winds carry the plume over densely populated areas. Conversely, enormous fires in remote regions may receive little attention if the smoke disperses harmlessly elsewhere. Smoke over Chicago, Milwaukee, or Buffalo tells us where the wind blew from. It does not tell us why the fire started, nor does it prove that climate change was the primary cause.
Good journalism should provide readers with both immediate news and historical context. Unfortunately, wildfire coverage increasingly follows a predictable formula: smoke appears, climate change is declared the culprit, and the broader evidence rarely enters the discussion.
The public deserves far better than reporting by following a script.
Wildfires are serious. Smoke poses real health risks. Those realities don't require exaggeration or selective reporting. Before every smoky summer is presented as another chapter in an inevitable climate catastrophe, readers deserve to know the full picture, including the parts that don't fit the prevailing narrative.
Because good science depends on evidence, good journalism should too.
Anthony Watts (awatts@heartland.org)) is a Senior Fellow for Environment and Climate at The Heartland Institute and has over 40 years of weather reporting experience in radio, television, and print.
Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 21:45