Do you remember the milk mustache? via Nostalgia Daily


Speaking on CNBC's Squawk Box, Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz criticized his GOP colleague, Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, for being "too liberal" after she criticized their fellow Republicans over wages and healthcare amid the ongoing government shutdown.
Cruz specifically cited Greene’s criticism of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and noted that, back in July, she became the first Republican in Congress to describe the crisis in Gaza as a “genocide.”
Cruz also continued to pin the blame for the shutdown on Democrats despite the GOP's refusal to negotiate on Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies and other matters.
He said:
"My advice is don't spend much time on what Marjorie is saying. What I’ve found is that whenever an elected official decides that they are going to turn on Israel and hate Israel, you will very quickly see every other policy out of their mouth become very, very liberal."
"And so, suddenly, Marjorie is for massive government spending and taxes and open borders and amnesty. Okay, fine, that is not where the American people are. Where the American people are is real simple: We're on day 29 of the stupidest shutdown."
"This is the Schumer shutdown and it's the stupidest shutdown because it is a shutdown for literally no reason."
You can hear what Cruz said in the video below.
Many have called him out.
Cruz's comments came just days after Greene stressed that she doesn't believe the shutdown—which has surpassed the one-month mark—"is going to help Republicans in the midterms" despite their blame games over healthcare in particular.
Pointing to the cost-of-living crisis, Greene also said that "inflation's crushed people in the last four and a half years and costs have not come down," noting that her own electricity bill has gone up.
Greene, a mother of three adult children, also said that the current generation is "barely making it and they're very hopeless for their future."
Speaking at the WSJ Innovater Awards, Billie Eilish called on billionaires to "give all your money away" and asked them, "why are you a billionaire?" as she was honored Wednesday for her contributions to the music industry.
Among the billionaires in attendance was Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who accompanied his wife, Priscilla Chan, recognized for her philanthropic work.
She said:
“We’re in a time right now where the world feels really dark, and people need empathy and help more than ever—especially in our country. If you have money, it’d be great to use it for good—maybe give some to people who need it."
“Love you all, but there’s a few people in here that have a lot more money than me. If you are a billionaire, why are you a billionaire? No hate, but give your money away, shorties."
You can hear what she said in the video below.
According to People magazine, which covered the event, Zuckerberg did not join the audience in applauding Eilish’s remarks.
The Facebook cofounder’s net worth is estimated at $226 billion, per Forbes. By contrast, Eilish—who has won nine Grammy Awards—has an estimated net worth of $50 million and continues to live with her parents in their modest two-bedroom, one-bathroom home in Los Angeles.
Her words definitely struck a chord.
Putting her money where her mouth is, Eilish donated a significant amount of her own money.
During the event, it was announced that Eilish had made an $11.5 million donation that will go toward her Changemaker Program, which supports organizations combating world hunger and environmental challenges. The news was announced by late-night host Stephen Colbert, the event's host.
Meanwhile, Eilish continues to address food insecurity and climate change through her ongoing Hit Me Hard and Soft Tour, named for her third album, which received critical acclaim and has broken numerous records.
Eilish is known to offer plant-based food options at venues where she performs, uses biodegradable confetti, sells merchandise made from recycled cotton, and encourages fans to bring reusable water bottles and use public transportation to her shows.
President Donald Trump was widely mocked after he published a Truth Social post in which he quoted Energy Secretary Chris Wright, who claimed this year's Nobel Prize in physics is by an extension a win for the Trump administration.
The Nobel Foundation awarded this year's physics prize to John Clarke (UC Berkeley), Michel H. Devoret (Yale and UC Santa Barbara), and John M. Martinis (UC Santa Barbara and Qolab) for “the discovery of macroscopic quantum mechanical tunneling and energy quantization in an electric circuit."
In response to the news, Wright claimed that:
“Quantum computing, along with AI and Fusion, are the three signature Trump science efforts. Trump 47 racks up his first Nobel Prize!!”
Trump then shared this quote to his followers, basking in this praise.

Trump's post betrayed his latest attempt at Nobel glory—he's been obsessed with getting the Peace Prize.
A few weeks ago, the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the prize to Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado “for her tireless work promoting democratic rights for the people of Venezuela and for her struggle to achieve a just and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy.”
The White House accused the committee of political bias because Trump was not recognized after his administration’s role in brokering a Gaza ceasefire deal earlier in the week. Israel has since violated the terms of the deal.
However, Trump was barely eligible for the prize to begin with. Nominations for this year’s award closed on January 31, 2025, just days after Trump began his second term in office.
Now he's trying to take some credit for something he didn't have anything to do with whatsoever.
Clark, Devoret, and Martinis earned the prize for a breakthrough they achieved while working together at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in 1984 and 1985, decades before Trump’s first presidency began in 2017. The same lab recently laid off between 15 and 20 percent of its research staff following federal research funding cuts made under Trump.
Trump's post was even more shallow than anything he's ever shared related to the Peace Prize—and he was swiftly called out.
Someone might win a special Nobel Prize one day for investigating the depths of Trump's narcissism.
In 2009, Waymo introduced its first fleet of driverless cars, sleek pods equipped with sensors, AI, and a “Sense, Solve, Go” system designed to navigate roads autonomously without human input. According to the company, its robotaxis now experience 91 percent fewer crashes and 91 percent fewer serious injuries than human drivers over the same distances.
But even as Waymo brags about its spotless stats, co-CEO Tekedra Mawakana is already bracing for the inevitable: the first fatality caused by one of its cars, and she thinks society will accept it.
During TechCrunch’s Disrupt summit last week, Mawakana said plainly:
“We really worry as a company about those days. You know, we don’t say ‘whether.’ We say ‘when.’ And we plan for them.”
Ah yes, the classic Silicon Valley pep talk: innovate, disrupt, and maybe kill someone along the way.
The comment was startlingly blunt, but the logic is tough to dispute: if Waymo’s cars are truly safer than human drivers, then statistically, fewer people die overall. Squint a little, take a shot of tequila, and suddenly the moral math looks almost reasonable, body count and all.
When asked if the public is ready to face a Waymo-caused death, Mawakana replied:
“I think that society will. I think the challenge for us is making sure that society has a high enough bar on safety that companies are held to.”
Ah, yes, nothing like a little moral outsourcing to get the public on board.
See the moment Mawakana says the quiet part out loud below:
Still, self-driving cars live in a regulatory gray zone, and no one seems entirely sure how to handle an AI-caused death. Are we ready to forgive a computer for something we’d never forgive a person for?
Waymo’s record looks squeaky clean compared to most competitors, but not spotless.
Between February and August 2025, its cars were involved in 45 reported crashes, according to government filings. Most were minor, and, as Understanding AI noted, “the large majority of these crashes were clearly not Waymo’s fault,” including 24 when the car wasn’t even moving and seven when it was rear-ended.
Still, a few hiccups stood out: three incidents where passengers opened doors into cyclists and scooters, and one car that literally lost a wheel mid-ride. Not ideal, but hey, at least no one’s getting autonomously ejected.
In The Atlantic, University of South Carolina law professor Bryant Walker Smith—an expert on autonomous-vehicle regulation—put it bluntly:
“I like to tell people that if Waymo worked as well as ChatGPT, they’d be dead.”
Good to know the new gold standard for AI is “didn’t kill you.”
But Mawakana has been clear that transparency is key, urging all autonomous-car companies to publish crash data, something Waymo proudly does on its online “safety hub.” That’s a not-so-subtle dig at Tesla and Cruise, whose records are, well, less brag-worthy.
Tesla’s Autopilot has been linked to fatal crashes and multiple lawsuits, while GM’s Cruise imploded last year after one of its robotaxis dragged a pedestrian 20 feet down a San Francisco street then tried to hide the video from regulators. Nothing says “trust our technology” like obstructing justice.
Waymo, in contrast, has taken a slow-and-steady approach, pausing testing whenever things go sideways. Mawakana told TechCrunch the company “pulls back and retests all the time,” even halting operations when vehicles block emergency responders.
And Mawakana didn’t mince words:
“We need to make sure that the performance is backing what we’re saying we’re doing.”
Reasonable enough—though Waymo still won’t disclose how often its “remote operators” have to step in when the system falters. So maybe “driverless” is doing some heavy lifting there.
And Mawakana’s viral quote hit the internet faster than a recall notice:
Then came Atlanta. Earlier this month, one of Waymo’s robotaxis was caught on video illegally passing a stopped school bus as children were getting off—an offense that usually earns human drivers a $1,000 fine and possibly jail time.
Georgia State Representative Clint Crowe told KGW8 he was stunned:
“I’m a big fan of new technologies and emerging technologies, and I think driverless cars are going to become more prevalent. But we’ve got to think about how they’re going to comply with the law.”
Crowe co-sponsored Addy’s Law, named after 8-year-old Addy Pierce, who was killed crossing to her bus stop in 2024. The law increased penalties for passing stopped school buses—penalties that, Crowe insists, should also apply to autonomous vehicles.
In response, Waymo issued the standard crisis-mode statement:
“The trust and safety of the communities we serve is our top priority. We continuously refine our system’s performance to navigate complex scenarios and are looking into this further.”
Ah, yes, the corporate equivalent of “thoughts and prayers,” now available in self-driving form.
But no one was injured, and the incident perfectly illustrated Mawakana’s point: perfection isn’t possible, and trust isn’t earned through spreadsheets and press releases.
You can watch Mawakana’s full interview below:
- YouTube TechCrunch
So yes—the driverless future has arrived. Fasten your seatbelts, everybody. The car might not need one, but you definitely still do.
Americans are fascinated by hearing people from other countries "drop" their accents and emulate an American one.
For example, it's always interesting to see a British or Australian actor in a movie where they're portraying an American character, but while they might veil their natural accent, they sometimes emulate an American accent from a different part of the country than what would make sense for their character.
While being interviewed by Hasan Minhaj, Prince Harry was asked if he could do an American accent, and he asked:
"Which part of America?"
This was such a refreshing question, because when people from fellow countries imitate American accents, they commonly lean into either a deeply southern accent or what is commonly referred to as "Valley Girl" only found in a very niche corner of California.
Minhaj sort of dodged the clarification question and instead offered several sentences for Prince Harry to repeat in an accent he felt was fitting.
Minhaj said:
"This is the most American sentence I could think of: I ordered breadsticks with ranch dressing at Applebee's."
Minhaj then coached Prince Harry on how to deliver the hard "a" sounds in "ranch" and "Applebee's."
Prince Harry then repeated the sentence in a fairly convincing Midwestern-ish accent.
Minhaj then told Prince Harry to express love for cybertrucks, which took Prince Harry's personality to an entirely different place.
"Hey, do you like my Cybertruck?"
The audience was thoroughly entertained, and when they struggled to quiet down, Prince Harry called them out:
"Come on, y'all!"
You can watch the video here:
@hasanminhaj yee-haw 🤠
Some gave immediate brownie points to Prince Harry for clarifying which part of America.





Others agreed and shared their favorite moments from the video.





Some were really blown away by how much Prince Harry's demeanor changed with the accent switch.





A few decided that this was the only kind of news they needed going forward.





Maybe his accent wasn't perfect, but because Prince Harry was mindful of different regions and accents across America, and willing to have fun while trying it out, there's no question that he could develop a range of accents with a little practice! While this might not have been his goal for something to learn in a day, honestly, why not?!