I used to live in Ireland for many, many years, but I’m mostly German. I always have to laugh about German stereotypes in tv shows or movies, though. Two that immediately come to mind are Family Guy’s Road to Europe and Road to Germany. I enjoy that sort of humour, and I can take a lot of jokes regarding my heritage. But yes, that TNG episode was just daft and racist.
Lihat kiriman asli pada platform media sosial terkait.
You really wanna hear it? It’s shit.
Lihat kiriman asli pada platform media sosial terkait.
On 9/11 he boasted that he now owned the tallest building in lower Manhattan. And it wasn’t even something he’d built himself, he’d just purchased it.
Lihat kiriman asli pada platform media sosial terkait.
Ooo that’s a good one. If you changed the emdashes to periods or semicolons and did a little cleanup to the more stilted parts, I could see myself being convinced that’s human-made. I thiiiink I have a pretty good eye for recognizing LLM stuff. It’s REALLY obvious in review articles, and they’re insanely common now. They fill up the top slots of search engines. I was looking for an article describing features of a device recently and I clicked on a good looking top-link. If you blur your eyes and look at how the text is formatted, you could already taste that it was LLM-generated. That wouldn’t even be a problem for me if the information contained within was good… It was explaining things like how to get OUT of modes without stating how to get INTO those modes to begin with, and a lot of the “opinions” were worded like they were straight out of press releases. A page later in my search engine, I find an article with very similar information but within a few sentences, it’s extremely obvious a person with, like… passion? wrote it. I told my partner and, even being very literate and tech savvy, they guessed the wrong article as being LLM-generated. I’m not the best at detecting LLM writing, but I do feel some folks just have a better sense for it than others.
Lihat kiriman asli pada platform media sosial terkait.
Vandaag passeert er van noordwest naar zuidoost een zwak front met lichte (mot)regen. Daarvoor en daarachter schijnt de zon. Morgen zien we de zon, met in het binnenland ook stapelbewolking, en blijft het droog.
“The military authorities cannot escape history. They can only delay its verdict.” - Ken Saro-Wiwa
The problem in english is that “for” can have multiple meanings in this case. It can mean the product is just meant to be used on item X or it can mean it intended to make the product more like X. In this case, I’m confused because some people with curly hair hate it and want it straighter, so “for curly” hair might make it straightens or at least not make it curlier, while people with straight hair who DO want it curly would want a intentional product “for curly hair” to make their hair curly. Which is it?
The months after the October 7, 2023, attacks saw a wave of questionable mainstream news stories about alleged sexual assault in Hamas’s attacks that day on Israel. It would be years before the American press began to deal with sex crimes against Palestinians imprisoned by Israel as part of its brutal occupation. It’s a reckoning that is long overdue. Sexual violence by Israeli forces against Palestinians in detention is both a systematic and a decades-old practice — a well understood dynamic that is being put in the spotlight this week in a new report from the Palestinian Feminist Collective, a group of Palestinian and Arab feminist researchers and organizers. The extensive 188-page report, parts of which were shared with The Intercept in advance of publication, situates recent, high-profile news stories detailing the rape and sexual assault of Palestinians in Israeli detention as part of “a wider system of sexualized and gendered violence spanning detention, warfare, surveillance, reproductive destruction, family separation, domicide, and the desecration of Palestinian bodies” over decades.
cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/60878 Keir Starmer announced his defence investment plan (DIP) today and while the media is welcoming it with open arms (pun intended), the Stop the War (StW) Coalition has rightly called out the BS. The FT said the increase in defence spending of approximately £15 billion was recently raised by £1 billion in the wake of John Healey’s resignation as defence secretary this month. It has apparently been signed off by Starmer’s expected successor, Andy Burnham. Stop the War: ‘Never mind the cost of living crisis…’ Stop the War (StW) Coalition posted on X that generals and arms companies have been all over the media today welcoming increased defence spending in the DIP. Meanwhile, completely ignoring the current cost-of-living crisis in the UK. Generals and arms companies all over the media today welcoming increased defence spending in the DIP Never mind the cost-of-living crisis or the collapsing services he leaves behind, Starmer wants to be remembered as the man who ramped up spending on weapons https://t.co/W5TPeqMD83 — Stop the War Coalition (@STWuk) June 30, 2026 Those being platformed today are: Lord Dannatt, an ex-British Army general Richard Barrons, Former director of operations at the UK Armed Forces Ross Exley, vice president for defence strategy at Hadean Shefali Sharma, chief executive of Oxford Dynamics, an AI defence company Tom Redman, CEO of British-based drone supplier, Evolve Dynamics James Cartlidge, Shadow defence secretary Tim Willasey-Wilsey, a senior associate fellow at the RUSI and Ukrainian drone unit commander Neo Deborah Haynes, defence editor at Sky News, is reposting RUSI’s propaganda, a think tank that is a mouthpiece for the military-industrial complex. Drone bonanza The main beneficiary of Starmer’s DIP is expected to be drone companies. UK watchdog, Drone Wars, said that drone companies were awaiting a spending bonanza and called the DIP, a “Drone Investment Plan”. The “big number” in the DIP is the £5 billion earmarked for drones, according to Bloomberg. Meanwhile, LBC called it a “drone-building blitz”. According to the MoD, Dan Jarvis, the new defence secretary, has spent the last two weeks “refocusing” the defence investment plan to ensure it learns the lessons from wars in Ukraine and Iran, BBC reported. This includes how drones have been used to destroy high-value targets, with Jarvis saying the “character of warfare is rapidly changing”. The Stop the War Coalition had also posted yesterday that wages, green jobs and welfare should be priorities instead of drones, and aded: Security, defence and fantasy threats are now the main ways that the ruling class justifies attacks on welfare and social programmes. The media is pulling out all the stops to ensure a good payout for the arm companies and keep the ruling class happy, it seems. Featured image via BBC By The Canary From Canary via This RSS Feed.
Janine Jackson interviewed Freedom of the Press Foundation’s Seth Stern about the criminalization of dissent for the July 26, 2026, episode of CounterSpin*. This is a lightly edited transcript.* https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin260626Stern.mp3 Intercept (6/26/26) Janine Jackson: The official government press release is headlined “Leader of Antifa Cell Members in North Texas Sentenced to 100 Years in Prison for Terrorist Attack on ICE Facility.” That statement from the Office of Public Affairs states that eight North Texas Antifa cell operatives were sentenced for their roles in rioting, using weapons and explosives, providing material support to terrorists, obstruction and the attempted murder of an Alvarado police officer at the Prairieland Detention Center on July 4, 2025. If you aren’t questioning the Trump White House version of reality, in which vandals snuck into the Reflecting Pool with “very sharp knives and razors” because they hate freedom, you probably don’t care about the Prairieland case. But for all of the rest of us, this is a nightmare: historically, legally, morally. What is happening here, and how do people who think a country with aspirations for democracy, with the understanding that that critically involves protest and multiple voices, how do we respond to what has just happened in the case of activists who participated in a protest at Prairieland ICE Detention Center—or didn’t—and are now facing lives in prison? There was never a time to not pay attention, to not understand that an official enemy campaign was always going to come for anyone designated undesirable—laws, practices, long-held understandings be damned. But if ever there were a time of comfortable ignorance, it’s over. Here to help us see what’s happening in this case, and how to move forward, is Seth Stern. He’s the chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, and he joins us now by phone. Welcome to CounterSpin, Seth Stern. Seth Stern: Good to be here. Guardian (1/22/26) JJ: We can start with material facts about Prairieland. A group of people gathered outside an ICE detention center to protest the policy, the actions, of masked agents sweeping Black and brown people off the street and into camps, and then out of the country without due process, and to show audible support for those inside. And a man did shoot and wound a police officer. But we know this case is not ultimately about a noise protest, or even the wounding of a police officer, because if it were that, the sentences would look different, and we wouldn’t be hearing things like “assault on democracy,” or “conspiracy to conceal documents.” Can you just set us up a little with why you are so concerned about this? Because injustice is old, but this feels new. SS: It really does. What we’re seeing here is an attempt to criticize, not only an ideology, but a very loosely defined ideology. The administration’s theory is that because they attended the same protest as the shooter, and because they read some of the same literature as the shooter, might have shared political views with the shooter, you can from those facts alone infer a conspiracy, infer an organized—as the administration would call it—“terrorist attack.” In reality, none of these people—including the shooter, in all likelihood—came to the protest with any intention of a police officer being shot. Certainly the other six defendants who were at the protest besides the shooter had no idea that was going to occur. There was no evidence, and no allegation, even, that anyone had planned a shooting. When these people left their homes to go to a protest, they figured they would sleep in their own beds that night. At most, they might have contemplated the possibility of getting picked up for trespassing, or a noise disturbance, or the typical minor misdemeanors that people risk when they engage in protest activity. But there was no reason anyone would contemplate that they might be held criminally liable, their lives ruined, sentenced to decades behind bars, for merely attending a protest where someone else shot somebody. The prosecutors and judge made very clear that their purpose was to send a message to people sharing a similar ideology. The prosecutor said, “This is not any normal ideology. This is an ideology that endorses political violence,” presumably referring to anarchism, or whatever shared belief system these people supposedly had. Freedom of the Press Foundation (6/23/26) But almost everyone, in some circumstance or another, would endorse some form of political violence. Like, I’m the grandson of Holocaust survivors. I don’t really take issue with violence against Nazis. Does that mean that if I go to an anti-Nazi protest, and I have some anti-Nazi books, let’s say, on my bookshelf, that if someone else at the protest, who I’ve never met, commits an act of violence against a Nazi, that I’m then implicated in a conspiracy, and go to prison for decades based on what that person does? It sounds absurd, but it’s no more absurd than what happened at Prairieland. And I shouldn’t neglect to mention, one of the individuals who was convicted, and sentenced to 30 years, wasn’t even at the protest. He’s somebody who allegedly transported a box of pamphlets, because his wife was at the protest, and he believed, according to prosecutors, that the box of pamphlets might implicate his wife, might be used against her, so he was “concealing evidence.” Evidence of what? This wasn’t a how-to manual. Yeah, obviously, if his wife had been the one to shoot the police officer—which she wasn’t; nobody alleges she was—and he had a how-to manual on where to get a gun, how to get into this protest and how to shoot a cop, that would be a whole different case. We wouldn’t be having this conversation. But that’s not what was in the box. They were ‘zines. They said nothing about this protest, about the Prairieland Detention Facility, about shooting this police officer. They were written years ago; they’re political theory that’s available at bookstores nationwide. So when they say that he concealed evidence by moving these ‘zines, evidence of what? It’s evidence of an ideology. It’s evidence of somebody’s reading habits. There should be no universe where that can be considered concealment of evidence, because it’s not probative of anything. You can’t introduce somebody’s reading habits, or their library, their bookshelf, as evidence of a specific crime in court. And if you can, we’ve got a big problem, because people have hundreds of books; books can be interpreted any which way. I have plenty of books on my bookshelf that I’m sure someone could characterize as endorsing some form of violence or another. That doesn’t mean I agree with the books. I might; it depends. But that’s really a preposterous way to conduct criminal proceedings, is to thought-police people to this degree. FAIR.org (10/3/25) JJ: And yet here we are, because I think, for a lot of folks, it sounds just as weird as you’ve just laid out. First of all, it sounds like these rulings are not saying you can’t protest. They’re saying, “You can protest, just not against the administration. Just not with these particular ideas.” We all saw January 6, but if you don’t like it, then it’s going to be labeled terrorism. And I guess I’d want to pull you out on that, because we can say what folks did was not illegal, but if you keep changing the law to make things illegal, then the ground is shifting under our feet. And so what’s happening there, from a legal perspective? Are we just creating new categories, and now you can say yesterday you weren’t violating the law, but today you are, and so now you go under the jail? SS: Theoretically you can’t do that, because we’ve got a Constitution that trumps any executive order, or even statute. In this case, we’re talking about NSPM-7, and the Trump administration’s new counter-terrorism memorandum, which don’t change the law. They’re simply an expression of prosecutorial priorities, and they instruct prosecutors to go after Antifa, to go after far-left groups, people who they view as “anti-American,” whatever that means. People with “extreme gender ideologies”; no idea what that one means. I’ve never heard of any sort of trans “supremacy” movement that wants to lock up cisgender people. So presumably they’re just talking about people who believe that trans people should have rights, and now they’re on the same plane as terrorists, as ISIS, according to this administration. It’s all pretty absurd, but at the end of the day, we have a Constitution that prohibits people from being locked up for what they think, write or read, as long as they are not inciting imminent violence. So hopefully the appellate courts will reverse these convictions, but the law is only as good as the people who enforce it. So if the judiciary isn’t up to the task, if the judiciary is compromised, and lawmakers are unwilling to step in—and, of course, at the end of the day, the president has pardon and clemency power, but we know who’s president, so that’s not something you can rely on—then the law is not as good as the paper it’s written on. So that’s the situation we’re in. And if the appellate courts don’t correct this egregious error that the trial courts have committed, we’ll be in a really scary place. CounterSpin (5/26/23) Remember, in Georgia, they tried something very similar with the Stop Cop City protesters, very similar situation. They indicted 61 people who were part of the Stop Cop City movement, because a few of those individuals had allegedly committed criminal acts: arson, vandalizing police cars, whatnot. There was no indication that all 61 of those people had anything to do with those isolated criminal acts, but they were looped into a RICO conspiracy, solely because they, again, read the same ‘zines, shared the same ideologies, were part of the same movement, had the same alleged belief system. That case fell apart, as it should have, after putting all 60 of those people through a whole lot of headache and expense, but still, it ultimately fell apart. And it was easy to dismiss at the time as though, this is just some local prosecutor who had an awful idea and made a fool of himself. Now it’s the federal government doing it. And you mentioned January 6. These sentences here were far more severe than any sentences against anyone involved in January 6. That issue was raised with the judge, who said, “Well, this case was charged differently. This case was charged as terrorism.” So essentially incentivizing prosecutors, going forward, if they want to get headline-grabbing sentences and make themselves look effective, to overcharge, to continue charging defendants as terrorism, despite the lack of any evidence of them being terrorists, being affiliated with a terrorist group or having any terrorist intentions. So we should expect to see more of this. Hopefully other trial judges will do their jobs, and not leave it up to the appellate courts to clean up the mess. JJ: I think language is playing a role here. I have said repeatedly that when news media took “war on terror” out of quotes, we lost something. A brain wrinkle got smoothed, so now we can just say “terrorism.” “I don’t know actually what it is, but I know it’s the very worst thing in the world and I don’t need to ask any further questions.” And we’re now at that situation with Antifa; what the actual heck? Now Antifa is being legally identified as an organized thing? What is meaningful? What changes when you allow folks to say, “Hey, we made up a name for everybody who thinks a certain way, and now you’re a group and you’re conspiring terrorism?” Guardian (1/14/26) SS: I certainly agree, even before the Trump administration, the idea of terrorism had kind of lost its meaning, but I think one assumption that everybody, for the most part, had was that to be labeled a terrorist, you have to have engaged in or collaborated with others who engaged in violence, and that you had to have some foreknowledge of that violence. And to get to a point where people are being convicted of terrorism for merely going to a protest, where the prosecution didn’t even bother trying to prove that they had any intention to commit an act of violence, that they had any foreknowledge that one of them might pick up a gun and shoot at a cop, is really quite alarming, because terrorism becomes less of an action and more of an ideology that people like Donald Trump can define as synonymous with dissent. Anyone whose beliefs are inconvenient to him, or that interferes with his agenda, becomes a terrorist. “Anti-Trump” and “anti-American” become interchangeable in the views of the administration and judges, apparently, who are sympathetic to them. So it’s quite scary to have this kind of power to abuse the word “terrorism,” particularly in a domestic context. In the international context, we’ve long had the problem of prosecutors and judges and politicians characterizing things as national security threats with no basis to do so, going back to the Pentagon Papers, where the truth about the Vietnam War was almost censored because the administration at the time called it a national security threat for the American people to know the truth. Fortunately, the judiciary back then rejected that. Reporters are threatened with prosecution under, for example, the Espionage Act, because their reporting supposedly poses a national security threat when, in fact, it merely is inconvenient to those in power. We see that, for example, in the case involving Hannah Natanson, the Washington Post reporter whose home newsroom was raided. That’s long been an issue in the context of national security in matters of war, international issues. But now you’ve got any local dissident, any activist, any person in any of the 50 states who opposes the president’s agenda, being treated the same way, being treated as a national security threat. The line between First Amendment–protected dissent and terrorism is just entirely blurred by this administration. And, again, the judges have the power to set it straight. Whether they will or not is to be determined. CounterSpin (7/14/17) JJ: I will say I spoke with Mara Verheyden-Hilliard in 2017 about arrests after the first Trump inauguration, where police were saying, if you were somewhere near an act of property damage—I think it was a car being set on fire—if you were near it, it’s the same as you committing it. If you were wearing black, well, forget about it; you are obviously part of it. At the time, a Washington Post poll was saying that one out of every three DC residents were saying they’d taken part in a protest against Trump since his first inauguration. And that was half of the district’s white residents, half of people making more than $100,000 a year and a fifth of respondents over the age of 65. So what I want to say, and what I think you’re wanting to say also, is you’re not safe from this. The idea that you’re not going to do anything wrong is not going to protect you in this case. We’re seeing the straight-up criminalizing of resistance per se. And so I guess I’d ask you, what can we do? What can we be doing in the face of this? FAIR.org (1/30/26) SS: That is important to remember, because it is easy for people to look at this and say: “Well, I am not an anarchist. I don’t read these zines. I don’t go to these kinds of protests. My protests are permitted. I’m not at risk.” But I’ve mentioned Des Sanchez, who was convicted solely for transporting a box of zines. Think about the Don Lemon and Georgia Fort cases. They were arrested, of course, while covering a protest at a church in Minneapolis, against immigration enforcement there. I don’t think anyone would characterize Don Lemon as a far-left anarchist type. You can like him or not like him, but that’s not something that he is. But the Trump administration sought a warrant that would have allowed it to gather from YouTube a list of subscribers to both Lemon and Fort’s YouTube channels. Now, that warrant was fortunately rejected by a judge, but think about it. What possible evidence could a subscriber to Lemon and Fort’s YouTube channels have that would assist the Trump administration in prosecuting its frivolous case against those journalists? All they saw was what was publicly broadcast. The prosecution already has that. This is clearly an attempt by the Trump administration to gather information about who is in possession, who is accessing news, that it does not like. So just as Des Sanchez was prosecuted for his box of zines, those who watch Don Lemon and Georgia Fort’s show may have faced danger or risk down the road. Why else would prosecutors want their information? It has nothing to do with their case. So it’s certainly a mistake to believe that this is a problem that is limited to “Antifa,” or people on the political fringes. Stephen Miller has said the entire Democratic Party is a terrorist organization. Donald Trump has called the press “enemies of the people,” has called his critics “the enemy within.” He is not only talking about anarchists when he says that. Seth Stern: “When there’s enough resistance, the administration will back down, or shift its priorities. People do have the power to do that.” As far as what we can do, I would encourage people to make their voices heard. Of course, we’re not in a position where Congress is likely to act, and we don’t have control, directly, over what any judge does. But we have platforms. We have local newspapers, we have social media, we have the ability to write letters to the editor, op-eds, posts, videos, create noise, create a chorus of dissent. We’ve seen repeatedly, for example, with ICE in Minneapolis, that when there’s enough resistance, the administration will back down, or shift its priorities. People do have the power to do that. This isn’t a situation where there is some corporation that can be boycotted, where there is a direct lever to pull to stop the administration from criminalizing dissent. But if there is enough uproar, and if we make that uproar to some extent bipartisan, there can be sufficient pressure to, if not stop them, cause them to be a bit more cautious, and to dial it down. We need to continue making noise about this, continue talking about it on radio shows, continue talking about it on social media and on newspaper pages. And we need to communicate clearly to people with different political ideologies that, hey, one day the shoe is going to be on the other foot. And once you give the government, once you give prosecutors the power to criminalize dissent in these ways, it’s a matter of time before the political tides turn, and that same power is used against you. Whereas earlier in the Trump administration, I think there was this feeling of exuberance on the right, the feeling that this party is never going to end. We’re going to be in power forever. We’re not really worried about these sorts of hypotheticals, where it comes back to bite us one day. Now I think there might be a little bit of recognition that this MAGA thing is not going to last forever, that the political tides might be turning, and people are a bit more concerned about how the abuses that they’re enabling, the powers that they’re granting the president, could one day be used against them. So I think it’s time to lean into that and send that message. JJ: Absolutely. Let me just ask you, in case you have any final thoughts about what journalists or reporters—you know, it’s mixed. Independent reporters are bringing us the story. Elite reporters are doing something slightly different. Any thoughts about journalism, and the role it plays right now? Handbasket (6/26/26) SS: Yeah. Well, it’s an old story where independent journalists—who are not necessarily abiding by this myth that good journalism has to be in this passive, neutral voice, that is so objective it doesn’t acknowledge reality—are calling it like it is. Whereas some corporate outlets, although they have covered the convictions, they’re covering these convictions the way that they covered, say, the Iraq War: One side says that these people were terrorists, and the defense attorney says that they weren’t. The prosecutor says they are. Here’s a quote from both sides. Done. It’s good they’re covering it, but in a way, they’re sanewashing it by reporting it that way, by not giving any sense of how unusual this is, how unprecedented and how absurd. And I’m not saying that they should editorialize, if that is not the style of journalism they do. There’s room for all different styles of journalism. But you don’t lose neutrality by providing some historical context. So if you’re not going to come out and say in your own voice that this is alarming and preposterous, you can provide historical context. You can talk about how dissent has been treated in the past, how unusual these charges are. Compare it to, as I saw one, as you said, independent outlet do, compare it to the Haymarket cases, compare it to past abuses, McCarthyism, so on. Give readers that context. Don’t just get a quote from both sides and call it a day. This is a bigger story than that. JJ: All right. Well, we have lots more to talk about, but we’ll end it now for now. We’ve been speaking with Seth Stern from the Freedom of the Press Foundation. Thank you so much, Seth Stern, for joining us this week on CounterSpin. SS: Anytime. From FAIR via This RSS Feed.
cross-posted from: https://scribe.disroot.org/post/9862281 Archived link Taiwan’s importance in the artificial intelligence (AI) era now extends beyond semiconductor fabrication. The island plays a central role in several parts of the physical infrastructure that AI depends on, including leading-edge semiconductor manufacturing, advanced chip packaging, AI server production, and the energy-efficient hardware systems needed to train and run advanced AI models. Taiwan now explicitly links semiconductors, AI, security technologies, and next-generation communications under its Five Trusted Industry Sectors plan, with the goal of making Taiwan an “indispensable and trusted technological partner” for democracies. The island is no longer presenting itself merely as a chip manufacturer; it is positioning itself as a trusted AI hardware ecosystem. For Canada, the opportunity is not to replicate Taiwan’s semiconductor model, but to build targeted partnerships around the adjacent capabilities that AI infrastructure increasingly needs, including AI-semiconductor research, photonics, compound semiconductors, critical minerals, and clean technology. This would move Canada–Taiwan co-operation beyond general supply-chain resilience toward a more focused agenda of technological complementarity. … For Canada, Taiwan’s AI-chip nexus creates an opportunity to move beyond a conventional supply-chain resilience agenda toward a more targeted strategy of technological complementarity. … The most concrete foundation for deeper co-operation is research collaboration at the AI-semiconductor interface. In 2026, NSERC and Taiwan’s NSTC launched a joint call on semiconductors and AI, with each side committing up to C$1 million and up to C$225,000 per three-year project. The call is notable for how it frames the relationship: Canada’s AI strengths and Taiwan’s semiconductor expertise are to be brought together to co-develop AI-driven semiconductor solutions. … Another promising area is photonics and compound semiconductors. Canada’s own critical-minerals and semiconductor strategy highlights domestic strengths in R&D, design, specialized manufacturing, and advanced packaging, and notes that the Canadian Photonics Fabrication Centre is North America’s only end-to-end pure-play compound semiconductor foundry. Canada also has capabilities in indium phosphide, gallium arsenide, and gallium nitride. … As an addition, the cultural ties between Canada and Taiwan are strong. Last weekend, Taiwan held its annual festival in the capital Taipei, marking Canada Day on July 1 which is traditionally held on the nearest Saturday. It is organized each year by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in Taiwan (CCCT) in partnership with the Canadian Trade Office in Taipei (CTOT), with support from volunteers and corporate sponsors. … “There are roughly 60,000 Canadians in Taiwan,” Sean Kelly told Kaohsiung Times. “We are passionate about sharing our food, drinks, and culture with people in our adopted home. Seeing so many people from all over the world talking, eating, smiling, and dancing, even when it rains, makes it worth the months of work it takes to put on an event like this.” … Marie-Louise Hannan, executive director of the Canadian Trade Office in Taipei (CTOT), noted that 2026 marks both Canada’s 159th birthday and the office’s 40th anniversary in Taiwan. She said the festival gives Taiwanese a chance to experience Canada’s diversity while celebrating four decades of ties between Canada and Taiwan. …
The reactions followed a 927-page disclosure released on Tuesday by the US Office of Government Ethics showing that Trump earned more than $2.2bn last year in total, from real estate, golf resorts, branded merchandise, licensing deals and court settlements. But the crypto figures stood out: World Liberty Financial, a joint venture between the Trump family and that of Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, brought in more than $500m from sales of “governance tokens”, while CIC Digital LLC took in more than $600m from Trump-branded meme coins, launched days before his second inauguration.
Most difference for all of them I’ve noticed after I’ve stopped taking them, suddenly realizing that though while taking them it felt like they only helped a tiny bit, it was actually noticeably harder to do things without them. I’m considering just going med-less for this reason. There were times in my life without medication when i was perfectly productive, e.g in teenagehood, and shortly before i started titration i feel like i got well into my productivity groove because i started implementing systems for keeping myself in check. Exactly like you say here, the meds feel like a small difference at the time and a big difference later - i don’t want to convince myself that i need them to function at work. Thank you for sharing these details
Lihat kiriman asli pada platform media sosial terkait.
I agreed with you up until more expensive games, shittier graphics and performance. For the price of the console when it released it was a solid choice and was hard to buy a PC at the same price point that offered better performance. 6 years later and this holds true even more now than it did before. Steam box is apparently around the same performance with some things better and some things worse but at over $500 more for the one. Ps5 really holds its value for the price for what you get. I do wonder if that will hold true for the ps6 though (not holding my breath).
Lihat kiriman asli pada platform media sosial terkait.
Xpeng is building in Austria in plants that used to make AUDI. Legacy automakers chose to kill electrics in the 90s, and then when they came back, they sold price gouging EVs with insane profit margins. There are no reasons why EVs should not be cheaper than ICE, other than higher priced cars make more money. They painted themselves into a corner, addicted to lockdown era price gouging, ignoring a huge market of low cost vehicles and designing ICE cars with pointless complexity and designed to fail. If China didn’t do it, someone else would have, the market was ripe for perturbation…exactly like the time a German company started selling a cheap, small car to most of the world in the 60s and sold 23 million of them, when the alternatives were expensive bloated unreliable cars.
Lihat kiriman asli pada platform media sosial terkait.
Op het platteland van de Amerikaanse staat Ohio zijn zestien kinderen aangetroffen die vier jaar lang in dezelfde kamer hebben doorgebracht. Het ging om jongens en meisjes tussen de 1,5 en 18 jaar oud. De buurt reageert perplex, want hoewel het huis vanaf de weg goed te zien was, zagen buurtbewoners er nooit kinderen.
I believe a similar rug pull will happen with this latest wave of social democrats, which will in turn radicalize more people into revolutionary politics. Those who burn their hands on a hot stove seldom make the same mistake.
Lihat kiriman asli pada platform media sosial terkait.
Starlink Group 17-46 launch out of SLC-4E at Vandenberg Space Force Base in California is currently scheduled for 2026-07-02 02:58:19 UTC, or 2026-07-02 19:58:19 local time (PDT). Booster 1100-7 to land on Of Course I Still Love You. SpaceX mission page NextSpaceflight page Webcasts: Space Affairs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1eT8GNVhU8 Spaceflight Now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5usMlga4NnM NASASpaceflight: none The Launch Pad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU6CeN6CiEI SpaceX: https://x.com/SpaceX/status/2072512757966966803 The Space Devs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbzgvvmQYEc
Ehh… Im not sure it was a gamble in this case. Valheim was pretty complete in its early access form when I bought it like nearly 5 years ago. It also has overwhelmingly positive reviews. I think it’s also delivered more than its original roadmap, which wasn’t much past mistlands. They stated it will still receive bug fixes, just perhaps no new content. I think I paid $20 for it and I feel I got my money for it, even though I haven’t even played it since before the mistlands update released. I plan on firing it up again after the deep north 1.0 releases and imagine having a lot of fun with it.
Lihat kiriman asli pada platform media sosial terkait.
Tbh, we’re already looking at mass depopulation by 2100. Not a lot of people are having kids nowadays
Lihat kiriman asli pada platform media sosial terkait.