Reminds me of this.

Grocery stores aren’t designated single-sex spaces. So why would there be any conflict? Do you people never think before you tweet?

Brilliantly explained! On a different note: I'm not particularly religious but the fact Nature placed hydrocarbons in the environment with which her most advanced species propelled itself forward seems deeply providential to me. The anti-humanity crowd probably agree, perversely.

We now see the full extent of preplanning and empire-building that went into the United Nations' global warming campaign. It was all behind the scenes. Today, the UN has a workforce of roughly 190,000 and an annual budget of $3.45 billion. It has become a vast self-managing, self perpetuating bureaucracy - arguably the largest non-governmental network in the world. The UN had been laying the groundwork for an environmental crisis for decades before it was finally announced in 1988. The UN took control of the World Meteorological Organization in 1951, transforming it into a specialised UN agency. The WMO operates with an annual budget of approximately $138.7 million and has a staff of 350 to 400. The WMO bridges the gap between raw meteorological data, international political agendas and global news media - linking thousands of land stations, ocean buoys, aircraft and satellites. While its stated role is to share critical weather and water data, this massive infrastructure has been effectively co-opted into a public relations framework. Consequently, the world has been bombarded with weather hysteria for almost 40 years. Mainstream news outlets routinely prioritise speculative, worst-case climate models over empirical observations - like 'rain bombs' - maintaining a permanent state of crisis designed to shape public compliance. The information gathering agency, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, runs the scientific arm. It operates with a core secretariat of just 15 staff members and an annual budget of roughly $12.5 million. The IPCC was established 38 years ago, ostensibly as a neutral body to gather objective scientific information on climate. In reality, the IPCC became the driving force behind the greatest environmental and social upheaval in modern history. Highly politicised from its inception, it was founded entirely by UN agencies - the WMO and the UN Environment Programme. This gave the UN absolute control over the global climate agenda and funded what has become the largest propaganda campaign in history. The UN has also run annual fund raising COP summits around the world for 30 years. They have become junkets for the rich and privileged. The IPCC did not recruit independent scientific staff; instead, its administrative apparatus actively sponsors and selects studies that supported the carbon dioxide hypothesis. Research raising questions or doubts are minimised or discarded. Critics find their studies starved of funding and publishers, while some even faced threats to their academic tenures. Local weather outlets and national agencies now operate inside an ecosystem heavily influenced by these overarching, high-alarm targets, broadcasting continuous warnings of 'global boiling', catastrophic sea-level rise, and 'Code Red for Humanity' - with UN leadership acting as the chief amplifier. This environment birthed foundational, highly charged studies designed to lock in future warming projections. For decades, the UN promoted only extreme scenarios. A prime example is the IPCC's reliance on high-end warming trajectories - such as projections warning of up to a 5.5-degree temperature rise - predictions so extreme that even mainstream scientists have increasingly conceded they are implausible. Armed with a crisis of its own making, the UN called for the rapid dismantling of hydrocarbon fuels - coal, oil, and natural gas - the very energy sources that lifted humanity out of stagnation and powered the Industrial Revolution. Almost every aspect of modern civilisation, from transport networks to industrial manufacturing, relies entirely on these dense, inexpensive and reliable energy sources. Climate management bears no relation to the UN’s foundational charter of resolving international conflict; it's a textbook case of bureaucratic mission creep. The sheer complexity of this UN machinery, combined with an aura of technical authority, is precisely what insulates it from public scrutiny.

Aside from the great "The Lives Of Others," can you think of a single *western* feature film since the fall of Communism that explores its horrors? "The Death of Stalin" (also great) is a black comedy. I mean a serious drama. What am I missing?

The brown bear is one of the largest living terrestrial members of the order Carnivora. It can weigh up to 600 kg and reach a height of 2.8 meters. This one has been filmed in Alaska’s Katmai National Park. [📹 alaskabearadventures]

Something people don't mention enough is that JK Rowling is a domestic violence survivor. She didn't have a victim mentality. She survived by writing the best-selling children's books of a generation. With that said, she's still a DV survivor, and she inherently understands coercive control and abuse dynamics, and she identifies them in the trans activist movement. It amazes me that she has exercised so much restraint in discussing the depths of the effects of her own witch-hunt in an age where few resist doing so, but she doesn't because she doesn't have a victim complex, and that is why they hate her so much.

Let me introduce you to a fellow named Max Naumann. In 1934, Naumann, a German Jew, urged fellow Jews to support Adolf Hitler. He defended the Nazi regime even as it persecuted Jews, and actually petitioned Hitler for the right of Jews to fly the German flag. In 1935, the Gestapo dissolved his organization and threw him in prison, where he attempted suicide. He died of cancer in 1939, before the Holocaust, but not before discovering how little his loyalty to the Nazis was worth. I'm not comparing Abdul El-Sayed to Hitler. I'm questioning the idea that a Jewish endorsement is, by itself, evidence of what's best for Jewish safety. From the Hellenizing Jewish elites of ancient Jerusalem to Jewish supporters of Iran's Islamic Revolution, we have examples throughout our history of Jews aligning themselves with political movements that ultimately turned against them. Their motivations differed, as did the consequences. But there's a lesson in Max Naumann's story that's worth remembering. Being Jewish has never made anyone immune to being catastrophically wrong about what's good for Jews. @PatinkinMandy @GadSaad

When I was Muslim, man, this verse used to mess me up. Jesus on the cross saying, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” As a Muslim, I used to think: how does God feel forsaken by God? That sounds like weakness. That sounds like a prophet in pain. But then I dug deeper. And I realized Jesus was not speaking randomly. He was quoting Psalm 22. That entire Psalm, written by King David centuries before Christ, is a prophecy about the crucifixion: “They pierce my hands and feet.” “They divide my garments among them.” “All who see me mock me.” In Jewish culture, quoting the first line of a Psalm pointed people to the entire passage. So Jesus was not crying out in confusion. He was declaring fulfillment. He was saying: “This is that.” And at the same time, He was carrying the full weight of sin, shame, abandonment, and suffering for humanity. Every moment humanity has cried out, “God, where are you?” Christ stepped into that pain Himself. That is not weakness. That is intentional. That is prophecy unfolding in real time. That is the King bleeding on purpose so humanity could be brought near to God. That is the Gospel.

🚨Mathys Tel on scoring for Tottenham against Chelsea at Stamford Bridge: 🗣️ Mathys Tel: “A few weeks ago, after a match in which I failed to score, the coach called me over. He looked at me and said, ‘Tel, do you know why I called you?’ “I said, ‘Because I didn’t score, Mister?’ “He said, ‘No. Because you failed to follow my instructions.’ “I remember that conversation very well because it stayed in my head. As a forward, you always want to score. When you don’t, you start thinking about what you could have done differently. But he made me understand that scoring is not the only thing he expects from me. He wants me to make the right decisions, trust the system, and play the football he knows I am capable of playing. “Today, after I scored and came off, Mister called me over again. He was smiling, and I asked him, ‘Tel, do you know why I’m smiling?’ “I said, ‘Because I scored?’ “He said, ‘No. I’m smiling because you followed my instructions and played like the player I know you are.’ “Then he reminded me of something from training a few days ago. He said, ‘I saw you finish that ball from that distance in training. When you got into that position today, I expected you to shoot, and you did. You trusted yourself, you took the responsibility, and you scored. That is the player I want to see.’ “Then he looked at me and said, ‘Now, that is a player I’m willing to put my money on.’ “Honestly, I just smiled and walked away. I didn’t even know what else to say. [Laughs] Sometimes, a few words from your manager can mean more than people realize, especially when you’ve been working hard and waiting for your moment. “And to score my first goal against Chelsea, at Stamford Bridge, in a match like this? I couldn’t have written it any better. You know what this fixture means, and you know how much the supporters wanted us to deliver. To score that goal and help send their fans home before full time made it even sweeter. “But the most important thing for me wasn’t just the goal. It was knowing that the manager saw what he had been asking me to do and believed I could deliver it when the opportunity came. “Sometimes, when you’re young, you feel you have to do something spectacular every time you get the ball. You want to prove yourself, impress the supporters, and show everyone why you deserve to play. But I’ve learned that football is also about patience, discipline, and knowing when your moment has arrived. “Today, my moment came, and I took it. “I told Mister afterwards, ‘If you keep believing in me, I’ll keep giving you reasons to smile.’ He laughed and said, ‘Good. But tomorrow, you train like you haven’t scored anything.’ That’s football. You can score against Chelsea at Stamford Bridge, become the happiest man in the stadium, and the next morning your manager is already asking you to do it again. But honestly, I wouldn’t have wanted my first goal to come any other way.”

🚨🎙️ Mauricio Pochettino makes a brutal prediction ahead of Chelsea vs Tottenham: Reporter: Mauricio, Chelsea face Tottenham, and many people believe Chelsea have the stronger squad. Do you agree? Pochettino: 🗣️ “Stronger squad? Based on what? The amount of money they spend? Because if we’re judging football clubs by how much money they throw around, then we might as well stop talking about football and start talking about bank accounts. “Chelsea have spent ridiculous amounts of money, signed player after player, changed managers and continued spending as if money can solve every problem. But when you spend that much and still have people questioning your identity, your consistency and your direction, you have to ask serious questions. “For me, Chelsea have become a club that wants the respect of an elite institution without always behaving like one. They want everybody to talk about their squad, their spending and their ambitions, but the real question is simple: what exactly makes them so special right now? “And don’t get me started on Manchester City. People get angry when you compare these clubs, but both have become symbols of the modern football spending race. They spend enormous amounts of money and then expect the rest of football to stand aside. Chelsea fans may hate the comparison, but spending power alone doesn’t make you a bigger club than everyone else. Reporter: So you believe Tottenham can beat Chelsea despite all the talk about Chelsea’s squad? Pochettino: 🗣️ “Absolutely. In fact, I think Roberto De Zerbi has the tactical intelligence to make this a very uncomfortable afternoon for Chelsea. He knows how to build attacks, manipulate space and punish teams that leave openings. If Tottenham execute his plan properly, Chelsea could spend the entire match chasing shadows. “People keep looking at the names on Chelsea’s team sheet as if the match has already been won. That’s not how football works. You can have expensive players everywhere and still get outplayed by a team that understands exactly what it wants to do. “My prediction is Tottenham 4–2 Chelsea. Yes, four goals. I believe Spurs can hurt them repeatedly, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Chelsea’s defensive problems become the biggest talking point after the final whistle. “And if Tottenham score four at Stamford Bridge, I don’t want to hear about transfer fees, squad value or how much Chelsea have spent. None of that will change the scoreline. “Chelsea fans can call Tottenham a smaller club all they want, but football has a funny way of bringing people back down to earth. If De Zerbi outsmarts them and Spurs win convincingly, the same fans who were laughing before kick-off will suddenly have a thousand excuses. “That’s why I’m backing Tottenham. Not because of the badge, not because of the money, but because I believe they can be better organised, more dangerous and more ruthless on the day.”

The only way out is through. They're calling it the Bugpocalypse. LLMs are being used to find long-hidden cracks in the software infrastructure, and it's happening at a furious rate. 3% of all compromises in computing history happened in the last week, claims one source? I believe it. There are people saying public access to the frontier models ought to be locked out, or heavily guardrailed, over this. The problem with that idea can be summed up in one sentence: when lockpicks are outlawed, only outlaws will have lockpicks. The lockpicks will be Chinese open-weight models, if nothing else. There's no way to stop those from becoming ubiquitous. There are two futures in front of us. One in which only the bad guys have lockpicks, and security holes go undiscovered until they're exploited. Another in which everybody has lockpicks and is aggressively red-teaming their own software so it gets fixed before the holes are exploited. The corpus of human code is huge but finite. The number of defects in it has to be finite too. We can fix those defects now; we have a million friendly robots to do it with. The only way out is through.

We had a Linux server that showed two successful SSH logins from an external IP overnight. The strange part was that there were no failed password attempts before them. The attacker got in cleanly. So I checked the SSH logs properly. Both sessions said: Accepted publickey That meant we were not dealing with a guessed password. I pulled the fingerprint from the logs and compared it with the keys in: /home/deploy/.ssh/authorized_keys There was only one key there. And it matched. The comment on the key was: deploy@old-build That name sounded familiar, so we checked our records. The build server it belonged to had been retired months ago. But nobody had removed its SSH key from this production server. I checked the timestamp on authorized_keys. The key had been sitting there since November 2025. So this was not some new persistence the attacker had just created. It was an old trust relationship we had forgotten about. That was actually worse in a different way. I checked the login history and confirmed both sessions came from the same external IP. Then I looked for files touched during those sessions. A backup copy of the application’s .env file had been created under /opt/api/. That immediately raised another concern because environment files often contain things like database credentials, API keys and application secrets. At that point we disabled the deployment account, removed the stale key, rotated the application secrets and started checking every other server that might still trust the same old build key. The lesson from this one was simple. Not every compromise starts with malware. Sometimes the attacker just finds a credential or key that your own environment forgot existed. Passwords expire. Employees leave. Servers get retired. But SSH keys can quietly sit in authorized_keys for years if nobody is actually reviewing them. That is why key rotation and access reviews matter. The attacker did not need to break SSH. We had already left the door open.