“It would be better to have a mayor who, if only on Oct. 7, can say: Jewish Lives Matter. Israeli Lives Matter. Full stop,” our columnist Bret Stephens writes. “The lectures about Gaza can come some other day.”

If A.I. programs “cannot be trusted to work within the law, the companies should not release them,” the editorial board writes. “If the programs break the law, the companies should face the consequences.”

“No matter one’s belief in the efficacy or moral basis for execution, to livestream the death of a human being — particularly by firing squad — is unspeakably repugnant,” Tim Kent writes in a letter to The Times.

Navi Pillay, the former chair of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. "Our conclusion is stark: Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza," she wrote in 2025.

While Iran and China might well see their economic leverage wane over time through their currencies, “the dollar could endure. That is, if the United States doesn’t undermine its own advantage,” Michael Froman writes.

“Blaming screens is a convenient way to avoid harder, deeper issues: inadequate mental health care and a system that chronically underfunds treatment,” Jonathan Slater writes.

“There are many technologies that, when you look at physical strength, are superhuman. That doesn’t mean we put them in charge. And we can apply that same approach to A.I.,” the computer science professor Arvind Narayanan argues on “The Ezra Klein Show.”

Gina Hinojosa, the Democrat running for Texas governor, believes that the opportunity for her party “lies not with moderate, affluent Republicans put off by Trump’s norm-smashing vulgarity, but with disappointed MAGA populists,” our columnist Michelle Goldberg writes.

None of the candidates to replace Benjamin Netanyahu as Israel’s prime minister have shown readiness to make major changes, Shira Efron writes. “Maintaining the status quo raises the possibility that Israel itself, not just the settlements, could soon face sanctions.”

“Trump has always been fond of ‘damn’ and ‘hell,’ which were part of his populist shtick from the outset,” John McWhorter writes about the president’s use of language. “So we would have predicted that he would progress to more piquant profanity.”

“Bully for philosophers getting health insurance and a 401(k), but they should enjoy all of it while they can because soon A.I. will be producing its own Plato, and we won’t have the slightest idea what it is talking about,” Michael Keating writes in a letter to The Times.

“The Constitution requires the census to count everyone in America, but Mr. Trump clearly wants to decide who counts,” Justin Gest writes.

The available evidence around the death of an anti-plague laboratory worker in Siberia “does not point to a global plague emergency,” Gigi Kwik Gronvall writes. “But this tragic death should prompt Americans to question whether we have the capacity to recognize and contain the next disease threat.”

How is TikTok shaping our attention spans? On “Interesting Times,” James Marriott, the author of “The New Dark Ages,” argues that we’re entering an era of postliteracy.

Something about the Cornell rape investigation “has triggered widespread revulsion,” Christine Emba writes. “There are discussions to be had about agency, responsibility and justice. But we don’t have the shared language to talk about what, exactly, went wrong.”

“Many district court judges feel like the Supreme Court does not have their backs when they rule against the Trump administration,” Emily Bazelon tells David French in their conversation about the opening of the Supreme Court term.

“Everybody is either frustrated, unhappy or angry.” In a city as complex as Los Angeles, who should run it — and how?

“Technology has created an intrusive eye that never blinks — a stealthy weapon for dictators keen to stifle speech and thought,” Megan Stack writes from Kampala, Uganda.