Semua Gambar Berita Video Belanja Maps Sosial Media Files Science
Sekitar 16 hasil (3.93 detik)
Komunitas mastodon.social

tiktok18apps

Lihat kiriman asli pada platform media sosial terkait.

Komunitas mastodon.social

buytiktoklikes

Lihat kiriman asli pada platform media sosial terkait.

Komunitas mastodon.social

mp3tiktok

Lihat kiriman asli pada platform media sosial terkait.

Komunitas v0dev.social

m1ch4el

Hello I am WavetecRR(Olaf)

Komunitas mastodon.social

tiktok_don

Lihat kiriman asli pada platform media sosial terkait.

Komunitas hexbear.net

Legislation targeting transgender children in Washington represents attack on all workers

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/59479 The LGBTQIA+ Commission of the American Party of Labor– “Let’s Go Washington” founder Brian Heywood speaks at a rally. (Aspen Ford/Washington State Standard) In an effort to develop a generation of poorly educated and socially isolated workers, the most reactionary wing of the American ruling class has been engaged in a well-documented crusade against both the rights of transgender students and the already underfunded public school system as a whole. A state-level front in this ongoing war has been opened by the “Let’s Go Washington” coalition formed by right-wing billionaire hedge fund manager Brian Heywood. A longstanding financial supporter of the Trump regime, Heywood and “Let’s Go Washington” have introduced a number of legislative campaigns in favor of typical capitalist and reactionary interests. These range from limiting property taxes, securing state funding for home schooling (which, if enacted, would essentially amount to defunding public education), and strengthening legal protection of “parental rights.” It is at the intersection of several of these campaigns that Heywood’s committee has introduced two initiatives into the Washington House of Representatives. The two initiatives in question are IL26-001, “Restoring Parents’ Rights,” and IL26-638, “Protecting Girls’ Sports.” IL26-001 is a reactionary attack disguised as a defense of parental rights. The measure would allow parents access to their children’s medical and mental health records from their schools. At first glance this may seem like a reasonable measure, but it conceals the true aim which is to enable parents to police the private discussions between LGBTQIA+ youth and their counselors. This represents a clear violation of students’ rights to the privacy and safety which so many of these vulnerable children rely on. In fact, studies show that many adolescents experiencing mental health crises are also dealing with abuse, neglect, hostility, or other serious problems at home. The privacy afforded to students in counseling settings exists for a reason: it provides a lifeline for young people who cannot safely turn to their families for support. IL26-001 would tear away those protections, placing not only queer youth, but all vulnerable students like victims of child abuse, under greater surveillance, making it more difficult for them to access the help they need. Far from protecting children, it would leave many with nowhere safe to turn. This initiative is the latest in a long line of attacks made by Heywood against changes made to the so-called “Parental Bill of Rights” in order to make it compatible with state laws protecting the privacy of children. The other bill championed by Heywood, IL26-638 would mandate physical examinations of children’s genitals to document their sex assigned at birth if they wish to play in interscholastic sports. It would prohibit schools and nonprofit organizations from allowing transgender girls from playing in girls’ sports. Any institution or individual found in violation of this law would be subject to penalties deemed by the applicable school board to be “proportional to the offense,” leaving enforcement intentionally vague. While often touted as upholding fairness or “biological reality,” laws banning transgender girls from girls’ sports are based on scientifically unsound claims. A metanalysis published in Feb. 2026 found that transgender women using feminizing hormone replacement therapy (HRT) had comparable fitness to cisgender women, and that available evidence “does not support theories of inherent athletic advantages for transgender women over cisgender.” What is well supported by the available data is the fact that gender-affirming care greatly improves the health and well-being of transgender and nonbinary children. It is also documented that the increase in state-level legislation targeting transgender rights has been associated with an increase in suicide attempts among youths. If there is no scientific basis for sports bans targeting transgender girls, then we are left with the reality that they are part of a larger campaign to present reactionary positions as “common sense” measures. This becomes abundantly clear when the Washington ballot initiatives are viewed alongside legislation introduced in other states. Despite overwhelming popular support, landmark legislation in Colorado that enshrines protection of transgender rights, popularly known as the Kelly Loving Act, came under fire from reactionaries. A common theme shared with the messaging of “Let’s Go Washington” was the ever-present call for protecting “parental rights.” However, a far more insidious motivation was communicated by the right-wing extremist and Colorado State Representative Brandi Bradley, when she described her fellow bigots as the “tip of the spear” in introducing reactionary rhetoric into law. While ultimately unsuccessful, the campaign against the Kelly Loving Act resulted in considerable political gains for reactionary elements in Colorado. With the support of various fascist elements on Social Media like “Moms for Liberty” and “Libs of TikTok,” the struggle against the Kelly Loving Act has been used as fodder in a national effort to manufacture outrage against LGBTQIA+ people and garner support for other causes that harm populations of working people, including legislation targeting undocumented immigrants. It is also important to examine the role that strengthening so-called “parental rights” has played in this “tip of the spear” strategy. In 2023, at a rally entitled “Parents Matter,” Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin reduced this position to a simple slogan: “Children belong to parents, not to the state.” The reduction of the status of children to the property of their parents is alarming yet central to both the nuclear family and its role in reinforcing the coercive power of capitalism. In this regard it should be noted that a key element of the far-right Project 2025 is the weakening of laws protecting children from exploitative labor practices. It can no longer be denied that the recent proliferation of legislation targeting transgender youth has been a powerfully effective tool for the most reactionary wing of the American bourgeoisie. Through these initiatives, billionaires like Brian Heywood have distracted workers from our shared interests and instead attempted to foment culture wars and animosity towards some of the most vulnerable populations among young people, and even sowing division where there previously was none. Laws targeting access to life-saving gender-affirming care play a similar role as abortion bans and other attacks on healthcare. To the same extent, the fanatic crusade for “parental rights” is leading us down the path toward funding inadequate homeschooling programs and public-school austerity. It is no coincidence that the rapid spread of such hateful propaganda coincides with the rapid increase in costs of living and instability for the vast majority of American workers. The intended effect of such plans is to rear a new generation of less educated, more religious, and socially isolated workers fit for maximum exploitation by the bourgeoisie. It is critical that the working class not take this bait, and, more importantly, that we maintain a commitment to standing up for the rights of all oppressed people in their struggles for liberation. From The Red Phoenix via This RSS Feed.

Komunitas infosec.pub

It’s just become impossible to de-Google from Volkswagen, say GrapheneOS users

Carmaker Volkswagen is facing criticism from privacy-conscious drivers after GrapheneOS users reported being locked out of the company’s mobile app, leaving some unable to log in, sync vehicle data, or remotely control their cars. Reports began surfacing on the GrapheneOS forum and Reddit’s r/degoogle community, where users described suddenly losing access to Volkswagen’s app despite using fully updated devices. The issue appears to affect Volkswagen’s app ecosystem rather than a specific vehicle model, so owners that rely on VW Connect, We Connect, We Connect ID or related services could potentially be affected. Some posters pointed to the apparent contradiction that Volkswagen’s software continues to support older, end-of-life Android versions while rejecting GrapheneOS installations. One affected user, Aaron94, said Volkswagen’s app stopped working entirely after a logout. Despite enabling compatibility settings and trying multiple workarounds, they were unable to log back in. Another user, XavDub, reported similar problems. “First symptom, sync did not work anymore from the app, so I tried to logout to login again, but it’s since just impossible,” they wrote, adding that testing on a standard Google Pixel running stock Android worked normally. When XavDub contacted the German car maker, the company responded that GrapheneOS “is not an official Volkswagen offering” and advised them to contact their OS provider instead. The timing has raised eyebrows because Volkswagen recently changed the APIs used to access vehicle data. According to German tech title Heise, the change disrupted third-party tools used by owners for smart charging, solar energy integration, and home automation. … It’s shaping up to be a cruel summer for GrapheneOS users. Earlier this month reports emerged that age-verification provider Yoti, used by Sony, Facebook and TikTok, had allegedly flagged GrapheneOS users during verification processes, prompting widespread backlash in privacy communities.

Komunitas news.abolish.capital

Online Age Verification Law Could Kill Whistleblowing

The U.S. Capitol building on May 20, 2026 in Washington, D.C. Photo: Samuel Corum/Sipa USA via AP Images Democrats and Republicans in Congress have struck a deal on a bill they say will help keep children and teens safe online. The KIDS Act could pass on the House floor as soon as next week; if enacted, it would fundamentally change the way everyone — not just kids — accesses the internet. At stake is your ability to use many social media platforms without revealing your identity. That’s because the KIDS Act at least strongly incentivizes — and, for some services, outright requires — age verification. Many platforms will turn to age verification to avoid potential liability under the law. Companies like X, video-sharing services like Vimeo, and others with a history of users’ populating social feeds with edgy content may be required to verify users’ ages because they host a certain amount of content deemed “sexual material harmful to minors,” a term that the KIDS Act defines broadly. [ Related Congress Is Considering Abolishing Your Right to Be Anonymous Online](https://theintercept.com/2026/03/05/kosa-online-age-verification-free-speech-privacy/) That’s a big problem for people who need to be able to use the internet anonymously, since, as Taylor Lorenz has previously written about in The Intercept, “there’s no way to reliably verify someone’s age without verifying who they are.” Threats to online anonymity harm everyone, but one group is often overlooked: journalists and the sources who talk to them. Age verification requirements will help the Trump administration carry out its vendetta against the press by creating new avenues to identify journalists’ confidential sources. Age verification laws will create a new pool of data that the government can demand when it’s hunting for information about the people who may have spoken to the press. Trump’s administration has made no secret of the fact that it wants to destroy journalism that holds it to account, including by unmasking sources and punishing them. This week, for instance, news broke that the Department of Justice had unsuccessfully subpoenaed reporters from the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, likely as part of a leak investigation. But what if it could skip the journalists and simply demand that tech companies identify sources who may have spoken to reporters using their platforms? [ Related Washington Post Raid Is a Frightening Reminder: Turn Off Your Phone’s Biometrics Now](https://theintercept.com/2026/01/30/washington-post-hannah-natanson-fbi-biometrics-unlock-phone/) The risk isn’t hypothetical. The first Trump administration abused its authority to spy on journalists to figure out who they’re talking to, including online. The second Trump administration has already repeatedly attempted to unmask its critics online and raided a journalist’s home and seized the devices she used to communicate with her sources. In the face of these risks, using secure communication methods, like Signal or SecureDrop, can help. But some sources may still reach out to reporters through social media. As a result, age verification laws will create a new pool of data that the government can demand when it’s hunting for information about the people who may have spoken to the press. The most common methods of age verification rely on the collection of government IDs to verify a user’s date of birth with certainty. The KIDS Act says it won’t require platforms to collect government IDs, but at least some platforms will likely choose this route to comply with the law or offer it as a fallback approach when other methods inevitably fail. But online anonymity isn’t assured even if platforms use other ways to verify users’ ages. Even so-called “privacy-preserving” approaches risk exposing users’ identities and undermine anonymity. All of the methods ultimately require platforms to collect, process, and retain more data on all users, raising the risks for anonymous sources who use online platforms to contact reporters. [ Related A Redditor Criticized ICE. Trump Is Trying to Unmask Them by Dragging the Company to a Secret Grand Jury.](https://theintercept.com/2026/04/10/reddit-ice-protest-grand-jury/) Age verification laws will also make it difficult or impossible for journalists to use anonymous social media accounts to gather information, like sock puppet accounts used to infiltrate and report on online extremist groups, or to avoid surveillance by the very Big Tech companies they’re reporting on. Reporters outside the U.S. who publish anonymously on platforms like X or Facebook to avoid the wrath of autocratic regimes will also find those entry points vanish. Requiring platforms to collect less data, not more, is a better approach. Pools of incredibly sensitive identity data also creates an enticing “honey pot” of information that malicious actors could use to target, intimidate, and chill journalists from pursuing certain stories or sources from speaking to them. Already, many age verification providers have been breached, leaking users’ sensitive data and allowing others to link online activity to users’ offline identity. Age verification companies may also grant access or sell the data they collect to others, like payment processors, creating another avenue for data breaches. Many Democratic lawmakers recognize that journalism is under threat from the Trump administration. Rep. Frank Pallone, the ranking member of the House committee that reached the deal on the KIDS Act, has rightfully blasted the Federal Communications Commission for abusing its power to destroy press freedom and free speech, for instance. So why would he and other Democrats now support legislation that serves the same anti-press agenda? Proponents of the KIDS ACT, and similar bills in the Senate, say these laws are necessary to protect children. But the truth is that age verification requirements are bad for everyone, including children. Why should we trust platforms with even more personal information, including from kids, when so many companies already use that data to target ads or share materials with law enforcement agencies that users believed was private? [ Related Google Fulfilled ICE Subpoena Demanding Student Journalist’s Bank and Credit Card Numbers](https://theintercept.com/2026/02/10/google-ice-subpoena-student-journalist/) That’s not to say that platforms shouldn’t be required to do more to actually protect children online — they should. But comprehensive privacy legislation that protects everyone and requires platforms to collect less data, not more, is a better approach. Mandating age verification, in contrast, effectively hands Big Tech and the government a skeleton key to the identities of every whistleblower, dissident, and investigative reporter who uses online platforms, not to mention everyone else, including children. This kind of surveillance on steroids that surrenders our right to speak, report, and read the news anonymously won’t make anyone safer. The post Online Age Verification Law Could Kill Whistleblowing appeared first on The Intercept. From The Intercept via This RSS Feed.

Komunitas news.abolish.capital

‘We Have to Say What AI Can Do, Who’s Responsible When It Messes Up’: CounterSpin interview with Dean Baker on the AI bubble

Janine Jackson interviewed CEPR’s Dean Baker about the AI stock market bubble for the June 19, 2026, episode of CounterSpin*. This is a lightly edited transcript.* https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin260619Baker.mp3 Motley Fool (7/5/25) Janine Jackson: There’s a lazy host thing where you’re introducing someone who wrote about, say, “freedom,” and you say, “I looked up ‘freedom’ in the dictionary.” But I did go ahead and ask the internet what the stock market is, and I was told that it “operates like a giant, virtual auction house that connects everyday investors who want to sell with investors who want to buy.” A market bubble, I learned, is a “rapid rise in the price of stocks or other assets that is not justified by fundamentals and is followed by a sharp fall in prices once investor enthusiasm wanes.” Well, some of us don’t feel comfortable talking about a market that “trades” things like chits, when those things impact human beings having food or shelter or breathable air. But it is a system that we need to understand on its own terms, even as we keep trying to translate them to human needs. All of these questions are at the surface when we talk about AI and the current market infatuation with it. What exactly is happening? What does it have to do with your life? Does it make sense, even in market-talk? CEPR (6/15/26) Here to shed some light on this is Dean Baker. He’s co-founder and senior economist at the [Center for Economic and Policy Research](http://is/ https://cepr.net/). He’s author of, among other titles, Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer. His newest project is called the AI Bubble Monitor, and he joins us now to talk about the what and the why of that. Welcome back to CounterSpin, Dean Baker. Dean Baker: Hi, Janine. Thanks a lot for having me on. JJ: On AI and the infrastructure around it, it’s the matter-of-factness that kills me: “This is happening, get with it or die mad.” But economic systems are political systems, and choices. We shouldn’t have to just silently accept that certain people are deciding what industry should survive, based not on what people need, but on what some folks say should happen. So before we get into the specifics, I’d ask you to orient us a little bit here. AI and data centers: A large part of people’s concern is just that it’s come at us so fast and furious. Even if we aren’t economists, we’re not wrong to be concerned about this forced-inevitability vibe, are we? It just doesn’t sound like building a better mousetrap. Science (10/28/25) DB: I think for the most part, it’s probably fair to say a lot of the people involved in AI don’t know what they’re doing. And I’m saying that in all seriousness. So we get all these stories about AI models that—you’ve probably heard the term—they “hallucinate.” They make things up. And, again, I shouldn’t assign human characteristics for that; they’re not people. But the point is that they’re ill-designed models. It’s very problematic to say we’re going to turn things over to AI, and it’s going to do this, it’s going to do that. Because, again, a lot of times, the people designing the systems don’t know what they’re doing. And that should be very troublesome. So we’re getting their spin like, “Oh, we have to move ahead with AI.” And I’m not particularly opposed to moving ahead with AI, but the idea that it has its own dynamic…that, you know, the AI is going to do it for us, or something. We’re going to decide what we want to—and I’ll come back to who “we” is in a second—but we’re going to have to decide what we want AI to do. And the “we,” as it is now, it’s probably largely Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg and Sam Altman. But as a political matter, we need to regulate it. We have to say what it can do, who’s responsible for when it messes up—and I’ll guarantee you it will mess up. Wired (6/13/26) There was a case in Germany where they said Google‘s strictly liable for mistakes from its AI. If its AI gives you wrong answers, and that causes people to do things that mess up, Google‘s responsible. I think that’s a great ruling. It should be very clear. That’s wonderful. Anthropic, whoever, whichever big AI company, they designed the model, doesn’t work right? Well, great. You pay the cost, Anthropic. You pay the cost, Google. But these are rules that we have to put in place, and we’ve kind of gone the other way. So I was just reading that, I believe it was in Mississippi, that the Trump administration is saying, “Oh yeah, environmental regulation’s great, but we have AI. So that doesn’t apply here, because it’s national security.” And I understand Trump doesn’t care much about the law, but you don’t throw your laws in the garbage because “AI”; that literally is just nonsense. New York Times (6/10/26) JJ: Right. Well, let’s get into some particulars here. “Riding High After IPO, SpaceX Will Buy AI Startup for $60 Billion.” This is all the New York Times: “Elon Musk’s newly listed rocket maker has become one of the world’s most valuable companies.” Also, it “could turn 4,400 employees into millionaires”; also, “Want to invest in SpaceX? Here’s what to know.” I got all of this from the New York Times. It seems like there’s a lot of confetti flying around the SpaceX IPO. How grounded is that, and how meaningful is that in this conversation? DB: SpaceX, the market capitalization, this is just incredible. I think we’re up to $2.7, $2.8 trillion. I just looked at the market today, somewhere around there. It’s going up a lot. This is an incredible amount of money, $2.7 trillion, it’s almost 10% of GDP, and it’s just incredible. CEPR (5/23/26) And the other side of that: When we talk about stocks, you usually look at the price of the stock relative to corporate earnings, and 20:1, that ratio would be high, but reasonable. So if you tell me a normal company, its stock price is $100, and its annual earnings after taxes are $5, eh, makes sense, without looking more carefully at what the company’s doing, what its progress is, whatever. OK, we have $2.7 trillion. So you go, well, let’s see, 20 times annual earnings. So annual earnings must be somewhere in the neighborhood of $130 billion a year. Uh, no, it loses money. It’s never made money. SpaceX has never made money. So people are placing a bet on this company turning around from losing money to being incredibly profitable. I just backed out some numbers, because it’s not going to turn around tomorrow. You go 10 years out, you would have to have profits that are equal to about 20% of all US after-tax corporate profits. No company has ever come close to that. New Republic (3/17/26) So, OK, why would someone think that? You go, well, Elon Musk. Well, Elon Musk lies all the time. He said 20 million dead people are getting Social Security. Total fantasy. Some number of dead people get Social Security, probably a thousand, 2,000, 3,000; not everyone who dies gets removed from the rolls. They’re actually pretty good about that, but they’re sure not 20 million, nothing close to 20 million. He lies all the time. He was running DOGE; he was going to save $2 trillion from the federal budget. He didn’t save anything. So, I mean, I could go on. The guy literally lies all the time. He’s a neo-Nazi. We all saw his Nazi salute at the Republican Convention. He writes this. I mean, I’m not looking for things to trash him on. He says it. He says there are too many Black people, and brown people, the great replacement. So this is who the guy is. You go, OK, well, what about his businesses? Well, his businesses haven’t done so well. Tesla’s worth a lot of money. If you look at its stock, its profits are very low, and most of its profits actually come from selling carbon credits, which is a green transition policy that his friend Donald Trump wants to get rid of. He’s invested big in something he calls the Boring Company, that was supposed to have high-speed transit between major cities. It goes nowhere. It’s been a total bomb. I could go on. He does not have a great track record in business. He lies all the time. So people are betting $2.7 trillion on him turning around this massive money-loser into some enormous money-maker, and that’s very hard to see. Could happen, things happen, but it’s very hard to see that. New York Times (6/12/26) JJ: It’s very hard to see. And I want to stick with this just for a second, because I very much appreciate the way that you connect issues. We have, for example, the Congressional Budget Office and other folks saying, “Hey, this is going to happen. Economic growth is going to be sky high,” based on this kind of thinking. And at the same time, out of the other side of their mouths, folks like Jason Furman, economic advisor under Clinton and Obama, are saying, “Social Security is facing disaster,” and these things don’t add up. They add up politically, but they don’t add up economically. Talk about that connection there. DB: Yeah. Well, to be fair, Congressional Budget Office, they actually don’t say that. JJ: Ok. DB: They project very modest growth over the next decade, somewhere around 2% a year. And if you carry that through, it’s really pretty much impossible to see these stocks—we’re talking about SpaceX, but you have Nvidia, you have Alphabet, we’re going to see initial public offerings, I don’t know the exact time, very soon, from Anthropic, the big AI company, OpenAI. It’s basically impossible to see how those stock prices can make sense. You’d have to have way more rapid growth than what they’re assuming. And the point I was making that you’re referring to, on Jason Furman and Social Security: If we have that rapid growth, in other words, if these bubble prices make sense, and I don’t mean exactly, but if it’s somewhere in the ballpark, if it’s $2.7 trillion, if it’s anywhere close to making sense, and the price of the other big AI companies, if those are anywhere close to making sense, we’re going to see way more growth than what the Congressional Budget Office, what the Social Security trustees, what’s being projected for these programs. And if we actually get those growths, the idea that we should be at all worried about paying Social Security benefits is close to crazy. Now, I would argue we’d be close to crazy to be worried about it anyhow, because we can afford paying Social Security benefits. I’ve gone on about that at great length, probably on your show other times, but certainly, if we have anything like the growth that would be implied by these incredible stock valuations, then Social Security is such a non-problem that it’s not worth taking a minute to even talk about paying for it. New York Times (6/11/26) JJ: And that’s why I appreciate you’re putting those things together, because I think news media often, they’re on different pages of the paper. And I guess I would say, also, like you’re talking about Musk saying he was going to cut trillions of dollars of waste from the government, when that was just categorically absurd, and isn’t that a place for reporting, to just say, “Whatever you want to think about him, those numbers are absurd”? DB: Yeah. And I think they have calmed down a lot. I mean, there have been some decent articles. I’m not going to say there’s been no reporting. But basically, Musk is saying utter nonsense, and it’s kind of like if we found someone on the street drunk, and they started rattling off, “Elvis Presley is still alive,” and God knows what else. And they just reported that: “Well, so and so says that Elvis Presley is still alive. Maybe he is. I don’t know.” They’re of that nature. And, again, actually, I had mentioned this in the piece, because I didn’t know Musk had said exactly this, but I was just playing around; why not Google it? So it turns out, even as Musk is saying, “Oh yes, AI is going to be all this wonderful stuff, and we’ll have incredibly rapid growth and affluence.” He just said, earlier this year, “There’s a thousand percent chance the US government will go bankrupt.” How could those two go together? If we’re going to have this incredible growth, then there’s no plausible—I mean, it’s not plausible to say the government’s going to go bankrupt anyhow, for reasons I could go into, but it certainly isn’t going to go bankrupt if we’re going to have this incredible growth that Musk is telling us about, with his great AI companies. JJ: It’s so confusing, and I think as a reader, as just a regular person, you think, “I must not understand this. ” Once I’m already at a thousand percent, I’m like, “Wait, I was in fifth grade. I don’t know how we get to a thousand percent.” But one thing I did want to say is so much of it is about futures, is about the betting aspect of the stock market. And it’s not about a company making money now because it’s providing a service that people want now. It’s the idea that in the future this is going to work out. And then the same people who say, “I’m investing in this company because it’s going to do something,” they then are the ones who get to set the terms and the terrain of whether that actually happens. And I think that’s why a lot of people feel like it’s kind of just a scheme that doesn’t include them, and that doesn’t have a foot in real life. Dean Baker (image: BillMoyers.com): “These are all based on future bets that are, at best, very, very shaky, if not altogether absurd. But in the present, it gives them enormous power.” DB: Yeah, well, these are all based on future bets that are, at best, very, very shaky, if not altogether absurd. But in the present, it gives them enormous power. I mean, it’s unbelievable. Here’s Elon Musk. His net worth is certainly well over a trillion now. I mean, people are making a big deal he’s at a trillion, but it might be $1.2, $1.3, something like that. It gives them enormous power. You mentioned him buying up another company for $60 billion. Where are they getting the $60 billion? Well, from SpaceX. And there’s actually precedent for this. So again, people might think, well, Musk is incredibly rich. Someone, I’m stealing this line from someone, “If you’re so rich, how come you’re not smart?” And I think that applies perfectly for Elon Musk, but there’s precedent. We had the stock bubble in the ’90s, we had the housing bubble in the ’00s, and yet a lot of really rich people, who were supposed to be smart, I have no idea how smart or stupid they were, but they invested in really, really stupid things. So mortgages, going back to the housing bubble, I remember arguing with economists, and they were saying, “Oh, it was old-fashioned to think we needed collateral on loans, and we had to make sure that people could pay them back. Well, now we have all this new technology.” Well, guess what, you did need that. In the prior decade, with the tech bubble, one of the amazing stories—people could look it up, because they might think I’m saying utter nonsense—Time Warner was one of the biggest, might have been the biggest, media company in the world; it basically sold itself for nothing. It sold itself for AOL stock, and AOL stock plummeted the next year. So it had been worth a lot of money; the next year, it was worth almost nothing. So here you had the biggest media company in the world, or one of the biggest, if it wasn’t absolutely the biggest, and they gave away all their stock to a company that was pretty much worthless a year later. So you have ostensibly smart people that are very wealthy, and they do really stupid things. I think that’s likely the story of what we’re seeing with this AI bubble. They get a lot of people—again, I don’t do intelligence testing, but ostensibly, they’re supposed to be smart, and looks like they’re doing some really dumb things. CEPR (5/18/26) JJ: And then we know that when elephants fight, it’s the grass that gets trampled, right? So, yes, this is rich people betting against one another, and maybe something won’t pan out, and that’s an “oopsie” for them, but it can mean something much more for a lot of other people. What do we understand can happen? And I know you’re not trying to predict a time of a bubble bursting; it’s not a prediction. But what does history tell us can happen when bubbles like this do, in fact, burst? DB: Well, it’s almost always a very bad story. So we had the tech bubble bursting in 2000. We got a recession that was pretty bad, from the standpoint of the labor market. We had no job creation from 2001 to 2005. We hadn’t seen that since the Great Depression—which also, I should say, was started by a bubble bursting, a stock bubble bursting. And the worst bubble, at least certainly in my lifetime, or recent memory, was the housing bubble collapse in 2008, 2009, 2010, which caused massive unemployment, and millions of people lost their homes. So that’s a pretty bad story. So we can say, and I’m happy to see Elon Musk lose much of his wealth, which would happen, but he’s still going to be incredibly rich. If he loses 90% of his wealth, he’s going to have more money than any of us will ever see, but you’re going to see a lot of people pay a really big price for that. To be clear, I think it’d be great if the bubble would burst tomorrow, the sooner the better, but it’s not going to be a pretty story. JJ: And let’s come back to journalism just for a minute, because the things that you’ve just said to me, I’m not saying I’m not seeing any critical reporting or thoughtful reporting, certainly I am, but I’m seeing a lot of, “Hey, this is happening. How can I get in on it?” Or just, “Isn’t it OK that these people are in charge of everything?” And I just wonder, what would actual critical reporting include, day to day, that would help us understand this better? DB: I think certainly trying to put the pieces together, as we just did, talking about, well, if these prices make sense, then we’re going to have way more rapid growth. And that’s just a fact. I mean, that’s not my personal opinion. You can’t tell a story where Elon Musk’s wealth, his market capitalization of SpaceX and the other companies, make sense, and the growth projections we’re looking at from the Congressional Budget Office make sense. Those are contradictory. So I think it’d be helpful if, when they talk about one, they talk about the other, saying, these prices, unless we see way more rapid growth than is being projected for budget purposes and other purposes, they don’t make sense. And vice versa, say that, oh, Jason Furman—Jason’s not a bad guy—he was out there in the New York Times, [saying] we should worry about Social Security and our children. Well, if the AI stories are right, we don’t have to worry at all. Again, I don’t think we should worry about it, even if they weren’t right, but if they are right, it’s just Looney Tunes stuff. It’s like we’re worried we don’t have enough water when we’re in the middle of Lake Michigan. So just putting the pieces together, that should be a standard part of reporting, just to remind people, put the context in there. And, again, it doesn’t take a long time. They’re really not disputable points, so I’m not saying something about Jason here; I know him, he’s not a stupid guy. He’d go, “Yeah, of course that’s true.” I suspect he would agree that AI, these prices don’t make sense, but he would agree, if they made sense, then we’re going to see way more rapid growth. Those go together. So putting that into the stories, putting the context in there, so people can understand, because, again, this is something I harped on, you guys have harped on this, that you talk about these things, a typical person, even someone who’s more educated, and they spend time, they don’t know all these things. I mean, they might know them in some sense, but it’s not right in front of them. So they need to have it put there, when they’re reading about AI, or they’re reading about the budget, see how these things relate to each other. AI Bubble Monitor (6/22/26) JJ: Well, OK. The AI Bubble Monitor, your new project, I want to say the real-timeness of it, because maybe less so than with the dot-com bubble or the housing bubble, but we do know that pundits and folks are going to say, “No one saw it coming. We didn’t know what was happening. We all thought….” So for me, a big part of the meaning of your new project is just that it is existing in real time. DB: Yeah, that’s the idea. We want to get the information out there, and I’m trying to put down real information, if people think that it still makes sense. Again, I’m not going to put in anything that I’m not pretty confident is true, I’m getting it all from reliable sources or, again, I’m not making them up, they’re from the industry, from government data. And, again, if you want to say, “Oh yeah, Elon Musk’s SpaceX, OK, it’s getting 20% of after-tax corporate profits,” Again, I can’t say it’s impossible. I wouldn’t put my money on that, but that’s what you’re doing if you’re buying up SpaceX. JJ: It could happen, yep. But the idea is that you’re watching it in real time, and asking questions in real time, so no one can say these questions weren’t asked, or nobody was thinking about it. DB: Yes, exactly. JJ: Finally, when we talked last time, probably when we talk every time, we say that we want journalists to separate people and systems. It’s not enough to say Elon Musk is weird, or Trump is weird, without naming the structures that they are able to use to enact their ideas. Otherwise, how do we know what needs to change besides the president, right? So there are structures and systems that we should also be asking questions about. NextShark (1/26/26) DB: Yeah. And you guys are obviously right in the middle of this. And I think the media, and particularly when we talk about Elon Musk, it’s very much that, because the guy owns X, I don’t know where that stands. It had been, I think, the largest social media site; I’m sure it’s no longer true, I know the users are down. But we create a media infrastructure that has an enormous impact on what politics looks like, and what issues get called attention to, and how those are covered. And that was never great. I mean, we both have been in this game a long time. It was never great. So I’m not going to say we had the good old days, 30 years ago, 40 years ago, but it’s gotten a lot worse. And when you have Larry Ellison as a Trumper who—I guess it’s his kid, actually, David Ellison, that owns CBS, and now they’re looking to take over Warner Brothers, which would give them control of CNN. These are really big issues, because this matters in terms of how people see the world, because they need information and those are sources of information for an awful lot of people, and people need to be aware of who owns the media, and how that affects basically everything, but certainly politics. JJ: We’ve been speaking with economist Dean Baker. His new project, AI Bubble Monitor, can be found on the website of the Center for Economic and Policy Research; that’s CEPR.net. Thank you so much, Dean Baker, for joining us this week on CounterSpin. DB: Thanks, Janine. I really appreciate being on. From FAIR via This RSS Feed.

Komunitas sh.itjust.works

Olivia Rodrigo's All-Female Festival Snubbed by 'Cigarettes After Sex' Drummer Over "Forced Promo" Drama

When Olivia Rodrigo announced Daisy Chain Fields, her long-awaited all-female music festival, the music world had one overwhelming response: it was about time. What nobody anticipated was that the conversation would be hijacked by a drummer from an all-male indie band, publicly announcing his band’s absence from a lineup they weren’t eligible to perform in the first place. Jacob Tomsky, 47, drummer of Cigarettes After Sex, has since deleted the comment. The people on the internet, however, still want to say their piece. Under a TikTok video of that very interview, Tomsky, 47, dropped a since-deleted comment: ‘We won’t be there lol tf’. When a baffled user asked him to explain, he replied: ‘I mean, it feels like some forced promo for a festival, right? I’m just saying our band won’t be performing there.’

Komunitas news.abolish.capital

Jason Tiatia: Your identity is your strength

Jason Tiatia, author of Sāmoan Made Simple, is a former NZ Sevens Rugby player who later played professional rugby in Italy and France. (Photo: Shiloh Amituanai) Jason Tiatia’s mum was right when she told him that speaking Sāmoan would bring him blessings one day — and the proof of that isn’t only in his first book, Sāmoan Made Simple*.* It’s also in his appreciation of how language can strengthen identity and belonging and deepen connections — and, as he found during his years of playing professional rugby in Italy and France, where he picked up some conversational Italian and French, it could also make life more interesting. Here’s his talanoa with Dale. Talofa lava e te rangatira! Gun sportsman and now a gun author! Good on you, brother. Can I start by asking your full name? And would you be kind enough to speak of the kōrero behind some of the ingoa you carry? My name is Jason Apelu Tiatia. Apelu is Sāmoan for Abel, and it’s my grandpa’s name. Tiatia is a matai or chiefly title from Lalomanu in Aleipata, Sāmoa — my dad’s side. Mum thought I needed a Pālagi name when they first arrived in New Zealand, so that’s where Jason comes from. I don’t like Jason. I prefer Jase, and that’s what my mates call me. You mentioned your mum and dad came over, so I’m assuming you’re New Zealand-born. Let’s acknowledge your mum and dad, please, and all the villages that you refer to when you stand to deliver your pepeha. My dad is Lavata‘i Tiatia, and he’s from the villages of Lalomanu and Ulutogia in Aleipata, which is on the main island of Upolu. He also represents Sa‘anapu and Safata, which are my grandparents’ villages. And then my mum, Sara, is from Nofoali‘i in A‘ana, not too far from the airport. They travelled to Auckland in the late 1960s or early 1970s, and then migrated here to Christchurch, where I was born and bred. I grew up on the east side of the city. Our street had maybe 10 Sāmoan families living in it, and we loved being Pacific in the east. So, Christchurch-born, but Sāmoan-hard. I married my high school sweetheart, Tate. She’s Ngāti Kahungunu. It’s interesting that you ended up in Ōtautahi. How and why did the whānau move there? It was all mahi. Dad came down to Christchurch first. He got an apprenticeship with the railways, then became a bus driver, and that’s when Mum came down from Auckland. They built a house with a couple of friends. We lived in Aranui for a long time. And then, after I came back home from playing rugby overseas, we started a new life with them. They live with us now in Burwood, so we’re still in the east. So the main reason was jobs, but also to get out of Auckland, which was a bit challenging at the time, especially with the Dawn Raids. They were looking for new opportunities and people, so they migrated to the south, even though it was colder. And I’m so thankful that they did, because we have a strong foundation here. Back then, the phone book had only one Tiatia in it, and that was us. And now there are so many Tiatias here. We love that more and more of our families are living in the South Island, and especially Ōtautahi. Jason and Tate (Ngāti Kahungunu) on their wedding day in Ōtautahi Christchurch, in 2006. (Photo supplied) I’ve had many rich kōrero over the years about the sacrifices that our parents and grandparents made to create better opportunities for those who follow in their footsteps. And I suppose your success on the rugby field and the education career you’ve pursued — this is what they dreamed of. The fact that they built their house with their own hands is pretty special. It says a lot about the character of those who came from the islands to try a new way in a foreign land, āe? Absolutely. Our parents had this strong work ethic, often working two or three jobs just to pay the bills and feed the family. I still remember eating plain white bread with no butter. It was a really simple life, but we were happy. I’m an only child, which is pretty rare for a Sāmoan family, but Mum couldn’t have any more kids after me. She keeps saying she got it right the first time, which is pretty cool. Even though she really wanted a daughter. She took me everywhere and exposed me to the community. I had a really great upbringing. That’s the thing about that generation. They instilled in us values that we want to pass on to our own kids and whoever we come into contact with. The main thing for that generation was service, and making sacrifices so their kids would be better off than them. I expect my kids to be way better than me in this world where you’ve got to navigate and move quickly and be agile. Can we talk about reo at home for you, because we know that for a lot of urban-raised Pasifika people, it was commonplace to speak the reo in the whare but not at school. How did the language transfer and transition occur in your house? When Mum and Dad got married here at the PIC church in Christchurch, the minister said: “When you have your kids, make sure you speak the Sāmoan language in your family.” That stayed with Mum the whole time, and if I started speaking English at home, she’d tell me to speak Sāmoan. I would plead with her: “But Mum, they call me fresh at school and a fob, and I really want to socialise in English.” And she’d say: “Well, you can do that later. But in this home, it’s fa’a-Sāmoa.” You hate it at the time as a kid, but when you grow up, you realise: “Oh, there’s a big picture here.” Your identity is your strength. And I’ve seen it firsthand in sport, where I’ve been able to connect with others or translate for friends. I remember at school, I translated something for another Sāmoan boy. He had no English, so he appreciated that, because he just didn’t feel connected to the school. And I was thinking: “Far out, I’ve done something special.” Mum and Dad really instilled in me the Sāmoan way, the fa’a-Sāmoa, and going to the EFKS Sāmoan church really helped, too. The youth groups and the customs were strong in those spaces. But today it’s a little more challenging, of course, with so many other options. That’s why I loved the fact that my parents chose to speak Sāmoan at home. You’ve gotta take your hat off to them. They had no English, but they could still get jobs, build a house, get a car, and navigate the school system. I think that’s amazing. Jason was in the NZ Rugby Sevens team for five years. He’s pictured here in 2004, before he left to play for clubs in Italy and France. (Photo supplied) In the 1970s, people looked down their noses at the new arrivals from the Pacific. It was pretty cruel, to be honest. And even though you were born in Ōtautahi, I suppose you couldn’t escape that bias. Did you cop some of that as a young fellow? Oh, absolutely. You may not realise it as a kid, but then you reflect back on some of the things that were happening to us as Pasifika people. It was normal to make sure your eyes were down, and you were extra cautious about how you behaved. Even using the English language was risky. If you said something that was different, you’d be ridiculed or bullied. But for me, I’m a happy-go-lucky guy. I’d just walk away and laugh about it and focus on something else. Some of my family or friends would confront it face-to-face, and maybe even hand-to-hand. But the real challenge was educating other people that this wasn’t right. Back then, it was also pretty challenging in the workplace. My dad had to change his first name to Fred. I asked him once: “Who’s this guy, Fred Tiatia, who gets all this mail, Dad?” “Oh, that’s me, son.” “Why are you calling yourself Fred?” “Because it’s easier.” I was like, okay, maybe that’s just the way of the world that you have to change your name so you can get by. But I knew it wasn’t right. Now we’re so proud that our kids have the longest names, full of meaning. We have ways to represent ourselves now — stories, ancestral connections, and all those things. Slowly, slowly, there’s some space for people to be a bit more open-minded. Tell us how you became involved in sports education. I was looking at what to do after school, and sport was number one. So I studied to be a fitness instructor and personal trainer, and I continued that through correspondence while I was overseas in Italy and France. When I came back, I was looking at becoming a teacher, or at least a tutor at tertiary level. I got a diploma in adult teaching, and then a bachelor’s in sports and coaching management at Otago Polytechnic. That’s where I learned to teach. Jason graduated in 2019 with a Bachelor of Applied Management (Sports Management) from Otago Polytechnic. (Photo supplied) Aranui had a strong Māori population, too. I suppose you couldn’t escape the issues of Māori language revitalisation, either. It was different for you because you had this strong sense of identity fostered at home, but you can see the need for language revitalisation in an urban environment, particularly as tangata whenua try to regain lost ground. What parallels do you see in the approaches that you’re taking to share aspects of the reo Hāmoa (Sāmoa) with what’s happening in the Māori revitalisation space? I’m very fortunate. Aranui High School had a whānau class at the time. They had a Sāmoan class as well. So it wasn’t something that was hard for me to understand. When you’re playing overseas, if you’re playing in France, you’re expected to speak French. In Italy, Italian. When I came back to Aotearoa, I realised I needed to start speaking te reo. My wife is Ngāti Kahungunu-hard, so she was always saying: “Hey, this is our land. Make sure you speak the language.” As Pacific people, we have to cultivate our own identity, but also respect the people of the land. We also have that connection with Māori because, once upon a time, we walked alongside each other. I’ve learned so much from te reo and the Māori worldview, and that’s helped me to grow in my own language. We’ve encouraged our kids to use both languages, and they’re now trilingual. I’m so proud that they can jump from one to the other. They’re able to use concepts from both cultures and come up with their own solutions for what suits them as young people. People have tried so many times to separate Māori from Pacific people, but we know now more than ever that we’re stronger together. And that’s my passion, to make sure my kids are prepared for both worlds. An ‘ava (kava) ceremony in 2025. Daughter Amaleila is the taupou in the front doing the palu ‘ava, and son Amasio is to her right at the back. (Supplied) Let’s celebrate your sporting endeavours, too. You were a NZ Rugby Sevens player before you played in Italy and France, and would have been exposed to other cultures during that time. But it might have compromised your ability to use your mother tongue. How did you maintain your reo for the years that you were away travelling? Use it or lose it, as the saying goes. Really good question. I think when you’re young, and you’re focused on your career and enjoying life, you don’t really think about it. It’s only when you come back to the community, or you speak to your parents or go to church, that you realise: “Oh my gosh, I actually can’t remember that word,” or “I’m not sure what the right practice is here.” Like you said, if you don’t use it, you lose it. I was trying to learn French for the first six months I was in France, because if you didn’t speak it, you were pretty much stuck in a smaller community of English speakers, and you hung out with the same people. But we were there to experience the whole culture, the language, the food, how they think and breathe, and how they build relationships. And if you had the language, man, you could see that was a big connector. You could have deep and meaningful conversations. I still remember a time when Radio Sāmoa called me and my cousin while we were in Italy. We were playing for the same team, in a place called Parma, where they make prosciutto ham and parmesan cheese and beautiful wines. And they rang us and asked us what we were eating and doing, and if there was any Sāmoan food. It was all in Sāmoan, and my cousin froze because he could understand the language but couldn’t respond. That’s when I realised we needed to be speaking Sāmoan more, because that’s our real identity. And actually, there were heaps of Sāmoan players overseas, so we could speak Sāmoan among ourselves and use some of the banter words and jokes and storytelling — and that was an important part of keeping the language alive. I was in Europe for about four years. Two years playing in Parma and two years in Grenoble, in France. I loved my time there, but now it’s all about getting back to our communities here. I take my hat off to you with your authorship and other kaupapa that you’ve been involved in. I work a lot with Scotty Morrison, and I can’t help but note the similarity of approach with your book and Māori Made Easy. Is this your first book, Jase? Correct. I’d been teaching the language at Christchurch Polytechnic (now called ARA Institute of Canterbury) and in the community, and then I got a phone call from Penguin. They asked if I’d be keen to make the Sāmoan version of Māori Made Easy. And I was like: “Are you sure you’ve got the right guy? Because there are a lot of Sāmoan teachers out there who could do this.” But they said I’d been recommended, so I’m like: “Okay. I’m a yes man, so let’s have a go at it.” The first two people I called were Scotty and Stacey. And they said: “Look, have a go. Honestly, just do your best. Make sure you get the right people around you to moderate, to edit, to look after your work.” They’ve been my mentors behind the scenes. They’ve always said to people who are learning te reo: “Engari te ngaringari,” which means “something is better than nothing”. What you produce will get better and better as you go, and hopefully, the next version, or whoever takes on this pathway, will carry that on. I’ve always sought to teach the language in a way that’s uplifting. Our Sāmoan people can be very critical and proud. We don’t compromise our culture or language. But the evolution of our Sāmoan language needs to be there, too. And this is where I come in. Whatever I know, what’s new, what’s hot, and what’s needed for our community, that’s what I share. I remember going to a Pacific conference, and there was a Sāmoan orator there. And I thought: “I’m going to ask this guy to be my mentor or coach.” We were at a social event, and I went up to him and said: “Talofa. Mālō le soifua, afioga. O fea toa le faga?” Which means: “Sir, where are you from in Sāmoa?” And he said in Sāmoan: “If I told you, you wouldn’t even know, would you?” And I was thinking: “What just happened here?” I walked away from that conversation like I was five years old again. Coming back to Christchurch, I asked some other Sāmoan experts: “Why do people do that? Is it a Sāmoan thing?” My mentor here in Christchurch basically said: “Look, there are people who think they’re gatekeepers. They hold on to the knowledge because they’re afraid it will be taken from them. They’re just protecting themselves.” Those are people you don’t want to be mentored by. You want people who want to give confidence to others. That’s the type of mentor I want to be. And I hope Sāmoan Made Simple will help build confidence in our young people, rather than them feeling whakamā or carrying that trauma of not having a go, because they have every right to be Sāmoan in any way possible. “I hope ‘Sāmoan Made Simple’ will help build confidence in our young people, rather than them feeling whakamā or carrying that trauma of not having a go, because they have every right to be Sāmoan in any way possible.” The book, published by Penguin Books, was launched in May. (Photo supplied) So many of us have these mixed relationships now — Tongan, Māori, Sāmoan — and I’m very conscious that some of the kupu that exist in the Sāmoan language and Tongan language could be very helpful as a way to acknowledge the old people in the room in their own tongue. So, you know, you might not be seeking intense fluency, just a basic understanding of some of the touchstones for respect and manners, which would be useful for all of us. So, I’m hoping it’s not just young Sāmoans who will be picking up your book, but people of many cultures who are conscious of the environment we find ourselves in, where there are people from Sāmoa and the wider Pacific here. That’s right. I mean, we know our young Pacific population is vast. They’re young, they’re brown, and they’re proud. We’re successful in our own right, whether it’s in politics, sports, music, or the arts, and I think the language will stay alive if we keep using it. I went to a pōwhiri in Taranaki, and one of the rangatira spoke Sāmoan. My eyes and ears lit up, as he used these proverbs and salutations in the correct way to formally greet a Sāmoan orator. And then he broke out in te reo, and I was thinking: “Wow, this is powerful stuff.” And from then on, I’ve used te reo in many ways, whether it’s in a pōwhiri or in a mihi whakatau. It’s a way of showing the connection between our people, but also it shows a lot about the person. It’s not just ticking the box. It’s part of “le vā fealoa‘i”, which is our relationship. A lot of non-Pacific people are keen to learn the Sāmoan language because it’s the third most-spoken language in Auckland, and it’s a growing language here in Aotearoa. We can see the beauty of that when they use the language here, especially when they come into Sāmoan spaces and communities. Tongans, man, they do it, too. Their language is really strong, and they’re proud of it. And if you can use their language, you’re gonna make so many more friends and stronger connections with the community. So, yes, those things are in the book, about when to use certain language. There are lots of activities in the book, and there are also online resources that readers can use for audio pronunciation. There are so many cool things that people are putting out there on TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube, too, to support the language. What do the fans think of Jase the author, instead of Jase the stepping swerver? The feedback so far has been really positive. I’m also prepared for the not-so-good feedback. Like I said, we’re very critical in our community, but at the same time, I’m focusing on the people who really want to learn the language. I’ve spoken to a couple of professors, and one in particular, Dr Dion Enari, who’s done some research on Pacific people in sport. I wasn’t sure how the book would be received, and he said: “Look, those who criticise, you’re a threat to them, but also those who criticise, the book isn’t made for them.” I take my hat off to people like Dion, who’s outspoken and has the expertise to support his views. Not only for encouraging someone like me who’s going on this new journey as an author, but also generally encouraging others to go outside the box, because there’s more than one way to be Sāmoan or Pacific or Māori. I think that’s what our ancestors would say to us. You know, don’t just be the typical thing, but go out and exceed expectations and keep navigating that space. The Tiatia ‘āiga. Front: Son Amasio with Jason’s parents, Sara and Lavata‘i Tiatia. Back: Jason and Tate with daughters Amaleila and Amanika. (Photo supplied) It’s been a pleasure talking with you, Jase, and I look forward to more contributions, because next there might be Sāmoan Made Not So Simple. Is there anything else you want to add, bro? Just a few acknowledgments. I said at my book launch that although I’ve got my name on the book, it’s more of a “we” thing than a “me” thing. So I want to thank all my community who’ve backed me, particularly in Christchurch. Especially Lepule Leuma Gali, who helped me edit the Sāmoan parts and gave me some tips and suggestions. And FAGASA, the Sāmoan Educators Teachers Association, for their work and support. And, of course, my family. My aunties and uncles, and especially my parents, who’ve always had faith in what I do. And my wife, Tate, and our kids — Amaleila (19), Amasio (17), and Amanika (13), who also helped put this book together. Their voices are on the audio parts. So it’s one of those legacy things. (This interview has been edited for length and clarity.) E-Tangata, 2026 The post Jason Tiatia: Your identity is your strength appeared first on E-Tangata. From E-Tangata via This RSS Feed.

Komunitas lemmy.zip

How come people are stupid nowadays? Especially on social media

I’ve been noticing a wild pattern lately, I couldn’t tell if it’s either a ragebait or not but every single one of them seems quite confident with their wrong answer… Well most of the time they’re likely schrodinger asshole. Some people in most social media (whether it’s tiktok, instagram or youtube) always say the most stupidest thing in a comment section, and most of the time they spread misinformation and believed those misinformation without doing any proper research which made me concerned. One time someone argued with me that intel management engine on 2008-2010 chipset has a “crazy spyware backdoor” and I explained to them that most 2008-2010 chipset lack network stacking in order to be a proper backdoor and since those older chipset lack network stacking physically and needed vPro edition of the chip for network stacking. I did some research more on why they believed that information and I found a popular tiktok video that went across my feed a few months ago which contained misinformation and did not clarify the vPro part. Someone even admitted in my comment section that they’re doing research on the tiktok search bar… tiktok search engine isn’t even reliable for researching! I seriously think I should take a break from social media, because how come these type of people even exist without any instinct of researching properly? Have you encountered people like this too? Please tell me I’m not the only one whose encountering these type of people.

Komunitas infosec.pub

It’s just become impossible to de-Google from Volkswagen, say GrapheneOS users

Carmaker Volkswagen is facing criticism from privacy-conscious drivers after GrapheneOS users reported being locked out of the company’s mobile app, leaving some unable to log in, sync vehicle data, or remotely control their cars. Reports began surfacing on the GrapheneOS forum and Reddit’s r/degoogle community, where users described suddenly losing access to Volkswagen’s app despite using fully updated devices. The issue appears to affect Volkswagen’s app ecosystem rather than a specific vehicle model, so owners that rely on VW Connect, We Connect, We Connect ID or related services could potentially be affected. Some posters pointed to the apparent contradiction that Volkswagen’s software continues to support older, end-of-life Android versions while rejecting GrapheneOS installations. One affected user, Aaron94, said Volkswagen’s app stopped working entirely after a logout. Despite enabling compatibility settings and trying multiple workarounds, they were unable to log back in. Another user, XavDub, reported similar problems. “First symptom, sync did not work anymore from the app, so I tried to logout to login again, but it’s since just impossible,” they wrote, adding that testing on a standard Google Pixel running stock Android worked normally. When XavDub contacted the German car maker, the company responded that GrapheneOS “is not an official Volkswagen offering” and advised them to contact their OS provider instead. The timing has raised eyebrows because Volkswagen recently changed the APIs used to access vehicle data. According to German tech title Heise, the change disrupted third-party tools used by owners for smart charging, solar energy integration, and home automation. … It’s shaping up to be a cruel summer for GrapheneOS users. Earlier this month reports emerged that age-verification provider Yoti, used by Sony, Facebook and TikTok, had allegedly flagged GrapheneOS users during verification processes, prompting widespread backlash in privacy communities.