Most recent unrolls from @ThreadReaderApp
📊Análisis de la Agenda ✍️José Alberto Niño
EAU en el centro del nuevo tablero geopolítico. #Geopolítica #OrienteMedio
Cómo Los EAU Se Convirtieron En El Socio Encubierto De Israel En El Golfo @kritik_bakis aracılığıylakritikbakis.com/es/como-los-ea…
EAU en el centro del nuevo tablero geopolítico. #Geopolítica #OrienteMedio
Cómo Los EAU Se Convirtieron En El Socio Encubierto De Israel En El Golfo @kritik_bakis aracılığıylakritikbakis.com/es/como-los-ea…
La presencia militar de EE. UU. en los Emiratos Árabes Unidos y la base de Al Dhafra revelan el papel estratégico de Abu Dabi en la arquitectura de seguridad del Golfo. Las tensiones con Irán y la cooperación con Israel redefinen el equilibrio regional. #Golfo #Seguridad
Los Acuerdos de Abraham marcaron un punto de inflexión en las relaciones EAU-Israel, consolidando una alianza que va más allá de lo diplomático: inteligencia, defensa y economía. #Irán #Israel
For four years, Ron Johnson has wondered how US health officials could ignore “overwhelming evidence of harm” from the COVID vaccine.
“Now I know,” he says.
The truth is, health officials didn’t “ignore” safety signals. They buried them instead.
And now we have the receipts:
The US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations investigated what federal health officials knew and when they knew it—and dug out a timeline that would make any American furious.
This is not a fringe “conspiracy theory.” It was revealed by the government’s own investigation—and it’s a story they don’t want you to read.
(Post 1 of 7)
“Now I know,” he says.
The truth is, health officials didn’t “ignore” safety signals. They buried them instead.
And now we have the receipts:
The US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations investigated what federal health officials knew and when they knew it—and dug out a timeline that would make any American furious.
This is not a fringe “conspiracy theory.” It was revealed by the government’s own investigation—and it’s a story they don’t want you to read.
(Post 1 of 7)
According to VAERS, the US’s vaccine adverse event reporting system, more adverse events and deaths have been reported following COVID vaccines than from all other vaccines combined over the system’s 30+ year history.
More dangerous than ivermectin. More dangerous than hydroxychloroquine (which turned out not to be so dangerous after all).
It was 55 times more deadly than the flu vaccine (0.46 deaths vs 25.5 deaths per million doses).
And even more dangerous than Remdesivir, which earned the nickname “Run Death Is Near” after it wreaked havoc on the kidneys and livers of tens of thousands of COVID patients in the hospital.
But still the question remains. How did US health officials miss a safety signal this big?
(Post 2 of 7)
More dangerous than ivermectin. More dangerous than hydroxychloroquine (which turned out not to be so dangerous after all).
It was 55 times more deadly than the flu vaccine (0.46 deaths vs 25.5 deaths per million doses).
And even more dangerous than Remdesivir, which earned the nickname “Run Death Is Near” after it wreaked havoc on the kidneys and livers of tens of thousands of COVID patients in the hospital.
But still the question remains. How did US health officials miss a safety signal this big?
(Post 2 of 7)
The U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations investigated what federal health officials knew and when they knew it.
It turns out they knew the safety signal was there. But they didn’t see it as a warning sign. They saw it as “pest.”
So much of a “pest” that they decided it was better to ignore the devastating safety signals and let people die than to deal with the data head-on because it could stoke “vaccine hesitancy.”
Keep reading to see the timeline that proves it.
(Post 3 of 7)
It turns out they knew the safety signal was there. But they didn’t see it as a warning sign. They saw it as “pest.”
So much of a “pest” that they decided it was better to ignore the devastating safety signals and let people die than to deal with the data head-on because it could stoke “vaccine hesitancy.”
Keep reading to see the timeline that proves it.
(Post 3 of 7)
Como o Irã venceu os EUA?
A estratégia de Defesa em Mosaico do Irã é um conceito de guerra assimétrica projetado para desencorajar e sobreviver a uma invasão por uma potência tecnologicamente superior, como os EUA.
A estratégia de Defesa em Mosaico do Irã é um conceito de guerra assimétrica projetado para desencorajar e sobreviver a uma invasão por uma potência tecnologicamente superior, como os EUA.
Em vez de tentar vencer uma batalha convencional “olho no olho” em campo aberto, o Irã divide sua defesa em células autônomas e descentralizadas.
Imagine um vaso que, ao ser quebrado, se transforma em milhares de cacos afiados, em vez de simplesmente deixar de existir.
Imagine um vaso que, ao ser quebrado, se transforma em milhares de cacos afiados, em vez de simplesmente deixar de existir.
Os pilares dessa estratégia:
1. Descentralização Extrema
O território iraniano é dividido em diversos setores independentes.
Cada província tem seu próprio comando da Guarda Revolucionária (IRGC) e unidades locais (Basij).
1. Descentralização Extrema
O território iraniano é dividido em diversos setores independentes.
Cada província tem seu próprio comando da Guarda Revolucionária (IRGC) e unidades locais (Basij).
We are soaking up the good news! Lake Pflugerville is holding steady at 633 feet in elevation, with yesterday’s reading at 633.55 feet!🚰
With lake levels trending upward, we are celebrating this progress by implementing modified Stage 1 water conservation measures beginning
With lake levels trending upward, we are celebrating this progress by implementing modified Stage 1 water conservation measures beginning
Friday, May 1 for all City of Pflugerville water customers. In addition, the City will open pools to the public for lap swim, open swim, swim lessons and swim practices on Friday, May 1. Pool tournaments are not allowed at this time.
Modified Stage 1 includes:
Modified Stage 1 includes:
🔹Handheld watering is allowed on designated watering days before 10 am or after 7 pm. Handheld watering includes using a hose with a shutoff nozzle, small bucket or watering can.
Finally a US hearing on MK Ultra. This hellish mess linked to Nazi doctors Heinz Lehmann who taught Eugenics at McGill and Ewan Cameron in Montreal whose mind altering drug tests were used on people in Canada without consent. Victims included my own family and babies at Hospital Misericordia. Their work used for CIA Torture techniques. Hold these men accountable. #uspoli #cdnpoli @MarkJCarney @USDOJ_Intl
Ewan Cameron & Heinz Lehmann worked at L’Hôpital de la Miséricorde where Indigenous residential school girls & Acadian girls who were raped by priests or simply unwed mothers gave birth. It was paid for as they worked at the hospital. False names given to hide their identity and the father’s. I have a cousins born here who I never knew. Downstairs people dressed in brown robes with ropes around the waist. There was a ward of the hospital entirely off limits for research.
Heinz Lehmann worked with McGill where the oligarchs of Canada lived in Montreal’s golden square mile. That was where where 70% of all of Canada’s wealth was held by a small group of approximately fifty men. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Sq…
Today in the villages of Sfai and Mughayir al-‘Abeed: a settler raid, an attempted sheep theft, and the arrest of residents.
First, settlers with a flock of sheep invaded the lands of Sfai village, where they tried to mix their flock with that of a Palestinian shepherd
First, settlers with a flock of sheep invaded the lands of Sfai village, where they tried to mix their flock with that of a Palestinian shepherd
in order to steal his sheep.
The Palestinian shepherd managed to escape with his flock back to the village, but the settlers did not give up and followed him into the village. Soldiers who arrived at the scene arrested two Safai residents.
The Palestinian shepherd managed to escape with his flock back to the village, but the settlers did not give up and followed him into the village. Soldiers who arrived at the scene arrested two Safai residents.
Afterward, the settlers moved on to Mughayir al-‘Abeed village, invaded the sheep pens, and harassed the residents. For many hours, the army and police allowed the settlers to remain in the village, and in the end they let them “mark” fifteen sheep from the flock
Byron the bulldozer as an allegory for how toxic masculine expectations can ruin lives
A brief analasys:
Byron is very insecure. He fears expressing who he is to avoid being seen as unserious/weird, so he holds himself to an unhealthy standard, while putting down others who he sees himself in (namely Jack and Alfie)
Byron is very insecure. He fears expressing who he is to avoid being seen as unserious/weird, so he holds himself to an unhealthy standard, while putting down others who he sees himself in (namely Jack and Alfie)
I see an origin story of being a joyful young dozer who always got put down for not being serious and not taking orders as gospel and it takes a good long while for the Pack (Sodor) to undo this mentality that was instilled in him. That's why Jack and Alfie are so important here.
Claude Code ships with a built-in skill for working with the Claude Platform.
Useful for model migrations, using API features (e.g., prompt caching), or onboarding to newer APIs like Claude Managed Agents.
Useful for model migrations, using API features (e.g., prompt caching), or onboarding to newer APIs like Claude Managed Agents.
Running "/claude-api migrate" in Claude Code reviews your codebase and walks you through updating model names, prompts, and effort settings for a new Claude model (like Opus 4.7).
Running "/claude-api managed-agents-onboard" in Claude Code helps you configure a Claude Managed Agent for your use case, and gives Claude Code the context it needs to monitor and debug it afterward.
¿Sabías que el productor más poderoso de Hollywood llamó "fea" a una joven actriz en su cara creyendo que no le entendía? Ella le contestó y se convirtió en la mayor leyenda del cine. Bienvenidos a la audición de Meryl Streep para King Kong. Tira del hilo 🧵👇🏽👇🏽👇🏽
Estamos en el año 1975. La ciudad de Nueva York estaba llena de actores buscando su gran oportunidad. Entre ellos destacaba una joven de 26 años, recién graduada en la Universidad de Yale, llamada Meryl Streep.
Meryl tenía un talento descomunal para el teatro, pero su rostro no encajaba en los cánones de belleza clásicos que la industria del cine exigía en aquella época. Tenía una nariz prominente y facciones marcadas. No era la típica chica de póster.
The Language of COVID — A Psychological Autopsy
„Safe and Effective“
These two words were not chosen accidentally.
They were chosen by people who understood exactly what they were doing.
“Safe” does not operate on the rational mind. It operates on the nervous system. When an authority figure, a doctor, a government official, a trusted institution, declares something safe, the amygdala receives a direct signal. Stand down. The threat assessment has been completed by someone qualified to do it. Your fear is no longer required.
This is why the phrase was so effective and why it was repeated so relentlessly.
Repetition is not emphasis in propaganda ,it is replacement. Say a thing enough times and it stops being a claim that requires evidence and becomes a background assumption that the mind no longer examines. Safe and effective became wallpaper. It was everywhere. On television. From podiums. In the voices of doctors who had themselves absorbed it from the institutional infrastructure they trusted.
“Effective” paired with it perfectly because together they formed a pre-emptive closure of the only two questions a rational person would ask about a medical intervention.
Is it safe? Yes. Is it effective? Yes. Move along.
What was never said , because the phrase was designed to prevent the asking , was any of the following. Safe for whom? At what age? With what pre-existing conditions? Over what timeframe? With what level of certainty given the truncated trial duration? Compared to what alternatives? With what known and unknown risk profile?
Effective at what specifically? At preventing infection? The trials did not demonstrate that with the confidence the phrase implied. At preventing transmission? This was never established by the trial data ,a fact that Pfizer’s own representative acknowledged under direct questioning before the European Parliament. At preventing severe disease in the elderly? There was signal there. In healthy young adults and children? The calculation was always far less clear.
“Safe and effective” was not a summary of evidence.
It was a replacement for it.
And the people who repeated it most loudly were, in many cases, people who had never read the primary data, who had absorbed the phrase from the institutional environment and passed it along with the confidence of someone who has mistaken familiarity for knowledge.
This is what made it so dangerous. The most effective propaganda does not require conscious deception at every level of the chain. It requires only that the phrase travel far enough that the people repeating it genuinely believe it and genuinely cannot understand why anyone would question something so obvious.
„Safe and Effective“
These two words were not chosen accidentally.
They were chosen by people who understood exactly what they were doing.
“Safe” does not operate on the rational mind. It operates on the nervous system. When an authority figure, a doctor, a government official, a trusted institution, declares something safe, the amygdala receives a direct signal. Stand down. The threat assessment has been completed by someone qualified to do it. Your fear is no longer required.
This is why the phrase was so effective and why it was repeated so relentlessly.
Repetition is not emphasis in propaganda ,it is replacement. Say a thing enough times and it stops being a claim that requires evidence and becomes a background assumption that the mind no longer examines. Safe and effective became wallpaper. It was everywhere. On television. From podiums. In the voices of doctors who had themselves absorbed it from the institutional infrastructure they trusted.
“Effective” paired with it perfectly because together they formed a pre-emptive closure of the only two questions a rational person would ask about a medical intervention.
Is it safe? Yes. Is it effective? Yes. Move along.
What was never said , because the phrase was designed to prevent the asking , was any of the following. Safe for whom? At what age? With what pre-existing conditions? Over what timeframe? With what level of certainty given the truncated trial duration? Compared to what alternatives? With what known and unknown risk profile?
Effective at what specifically? At preventing infection? The trials did not demonstrate that with the confidence the phrase implied. At preventing transmission? This was never established by the trial data ,a fact that Pfizer’s own representative acknowledged under direct questioning before the European Parliament. At preventing severe disease in the elderly? There was signal there. In healthy young adults and children? The calculation was always far less clear.
“Safe and effective” was not a summary of evidence.
It was a replacement for it.
And the people who repeated it most loudly were, in many cases, people who had never read the primary data, who had absorbed the phrase from the institutional environment and passed it along with the confidence of someone who has mistaken familiarity for knowledge.
This is what made it so dangerous. The most effective propaganda does not require conscious deception at every level of the chain. It requires only that the phrase travel far enough that the people repeating it genuinely believe it and genuinely cannot understand why anyone would question something so obvious.
II. „Trust the Science“
The Inversion of Everything Science Actually Is
Science is not a set of conclusions.
It is a process. a method of systematically testing claims against reality through observation, hypothesis, controlled experimentation, peer review, and the ongoing revision of understanding as new evidence emerges. What makes science trustworthy is precisely its built-in mechanism for self-correction. The willingness to be wrong. The institutional commitment, at its best , to following evidence wherever it leads regardless of who it inconveniences.
“Trust the science” collapses all of that into a single authority claim.
It does not say, here is the methodology, here are the data sets, here are the confidence intervals, here are the competing hypotheses, here are the limitations of what we currently know, here is the peer-reviewed debate happening in real time among serious researchers who disagree with each other as scientists always do.
It says: defer.
Stop asking. The process has been completed by credentialed people and your role is not inquiry but compliance.
This is not science. It is the performance of scientific authority in the service of administrative control. And it worked, devastatingly well, because it weaponised the genuine public respect for scientific achievement against the very epistemological humility that makes science worth respecting.
The history of medicine is a history of people who refused to simply trust the science as it stood. Semmelweis, who understood that doctors were killing patients through unwashed hands and was institutionalised for saying so. Barry Marshall, who drank a solution of Helicobacter pylori to demonstrate that stomach ulcers were caused by bacteria rather than stress, against the established consensus and won the Nobel Prize for it. Every paradigm shift, every genuine advance, required someone willing to stand in front of the settled consensus and say the evidence points somewhere else.
“Trust the science” would have silenced every one of them.
What the phrase exploited was a specific feature of how most people relate to expertise. Most people, reasonably and necessarily, delegate their trust in technical domains to those with specialist knowledge. They do not have the time or training to evaluate primary research in epidemiology or vaccinology. So they rely on institutions that are supposed to do that evaluation honestly on their behalf.
“Trust the science” hijacked that delegation.
It positioned the institutional position , which was shaped by funding relationships, by regulatory capture, by the career incentives of the people making decisions, by the political pressures of a crisis. as synonymous with the scientific process itself.
And anyone who questioned the institutional position was positioned as questioning science, conspiracy theorist and a right winger.
That move was not accidental. It was the most sophisticated element of the entire psychological operation. Because it meant that the more someone actually engaged with the primary literature , the more carefully they read the trial data, the biodistribution studies, the adverse event reports , the more they were characterised as anti-science by people who had not read any of it.
It inverted the epistemological hierarchy entirely.
Ignorance of the data, combined with institutional deference, became the definition of being pro-science.
Engagement with the data, combined with independent conclusions, became the definition of dangerous misinformation.
The Inversion of Everything Science Actually Is
Science is not a set of conclusions.
It is a process. a method of systematically testing claims against reality through observation, hypothesis, controlled experimentation, peer review, and the ongoing revision of understanding as new evidence emerges. What makes science trustworthy is precisely its built-in mechanism for self-correction. The willingness to be wrong. The institutional commitment, at its best , to following evidence wherever it leads regardless of who it inconveniences.
“Trust the science” collapses all of that into a single authority claim.
It does not say, here is the methodology, here are the data sets, here are the confidence intervals, here are the competing hypotheses, here are the limitations of what we currently know, here is the peer-reviewed debate happening in real time among serious researchers who disagree with each other as scientists always do.
It says: defer.
Stop asking. The process has been completed by credentialed people and your role is not inquiry but compliance.
This is not science. It is the performance of scientific authority in the service of administrative control. And it worked, devastatingly well, because it weaponised the genuine public respect for scientific achievement against the very epistemological humility that makes science worth respecting.
The history of medicine is a history of people who refused to simply trust the science as it stood. Semmelweis, who understood that doctors were killing patients through unwashed hands and was institutionalised for saying so. Barry Marshall, who drank a solution of Helicobacter pylori to demonstrate that stomach ulcers were caused by bacteria rather than stress, against the established consensus and won the Nobel Prize for it. Every paradigm shift, every genuine advance, required someone willing to stand in front of the settled consensus and say the evidence points somewhere else.
“Trust the science” would have silenced every one of them.
What the phrase exploited was a specific feature of how most people relate to expertise. Most people, reasonably and necessarily, delegate their trust in technical domains to those with specialist knowledge. They do not have the time or training to evaluate primary research in epidemiology or vaccinology. So they rely on institutions that are supposed to do that evaluation honestly on their behalf.
“Trust the science” hijacked that delegation.
It positioned the institutional position , which was shaped by funding relationships, by regulatory capture, by the career incentives of the people making decisions, by the political pressures of a crisis. as synonymous with the scientific process itself.
And anyone who questioned the institutional position was positioned as questioning science, conspiracy theorist and a right winger.
That move was not accidental. It was the most sophisticated element of the entire psychological operation. Because it meant that the more someone actually engaged with the primary literature , the more carefully they read the trial data, the biodistribution studies, the adverse event reports , the more they were characterised as anti-science by people who had not read any of it.
It inverted the epistemological hierarchy entirely.
Ignorance of the data, combined with institutional deference, became the definition of being pro-science.
Engagement with the data, combined with independent conclusions, became the definition of dangerous misinformation.
III. „Pandemic of the Unvaccinated“
The Scapegoat Mechanism at Scale
To understand this phrase you need to understand what it was responding to.
By mid to late 2021 it was becoming undeniable, through data from highly vaccinated countries including Israel and the United Kingdom , that vaccinated individuals were contracting and transmitting the virus in significant numbers. The promise of sterilising immunity, of ending transmission chains, of reaching herd immunity through vaccination, was not being realised in the way the public had been led to expect.
This created a psychological and political crisis for the institutions that had staked their credibility on the programme.
The response was “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”
René Girard spent his career documenting the scapegoat mechanism — one of the oldest and most reliable tools of social management in human history. When a community is under stress, when anxiety is high and the source of that anxiety is diffuse or systemic and therefore difficult to address directly, the community converges on a designated figure or group who absorbs the collective tension. The scapegoat is expelled or punished. The community experiences temporary relief. The actual source of the tension remains entirely unaddressed.
The mechanism does not require conscious coordination. It emerges naturally from the dynamics of frightened social groups, which is precisely what makes it so reliable and so dangerous.
“Pandemic of the unvaccinated” told a frightened, frustrated population that their ongoing fear had a human cause and a human face. The problem was not the virus, not the institutional failures, not the gap between what was promised and what was delivered. The problem was the people who had refused. Who had been selfish. Who had prolonged the pandemic through their stubbornness and their irresponsibility.
This reframing accomplished several things simultaneously.
It redirected blame. The anger that might have been directed at the institutions that had overpromised and underdelivered was channelled instead toward neighbours, family members, colleagues.
It reinforced the binary. There were two kinds of people, the responsible and the irresponsible, the compliant and the dangerous. This binary made ambivalence socially impossible. You were on one side or the other.
It gave the anxiety of the vaccinated a socially sanctioned outlet. The relief of having something to be angry at, something human and proximate and theoretically controllable, was immense. And the anger was performed publicly, which added social reward to the emotional relief.
And it was wrong.
The data that was already available and that the institutions promoting this phrase had access to showed that vaccinated individuals were transmitting the virus. The framing was not merely misleading. It was a deliberate choice to assign causation to a group when the causal picture was far more complicated.
But its psychological function did not require factual accuracy.
It required emotional plausibility in a population that was frightened, exhausted, and desperate for the story to have a villain that was not the story itself.
It found that plausibility.
And the people who bore the cost of it, the unvaccinated who were excluded, defamed, fired, and in some cases denied medical care, paid a real price for a lie that served the interests of institutions unwilling to account honestly for their own failures.
That is the scapegoat mechanism.
As old as human society.
Dressed in the language of public health.
The Scapegoat Mechanism at Scale
To understand this phrase you need to understand what it was responding to.
By mid to late 2021 it was becoming undeniable, through data from highly vaccinated countries including Israel and the United Kingdom , that vaccinated individuals were contracting and transmitting the virus in significant numbers. The promise of sterilising immunity, of ending transmission chains, of reaching herd immunity through vaccination, was not being realised in the way the public had been led to expect.
This created a psychological and political crisis for the institutions that had staked their credibility on the programme.
The response was “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”
René Girard spent his career documenting the scapegoat mechanism — one of the oldest and most reliable tools of social management in human history. When a community is under stress, when anxiety is high and the source of that anxiety is diffuse or systemic and therefore difficult to address directly, the community converges on a designated figure or group who absorbs the collective tension. The scapegoat is expelled or punished. The community experiences temporary relief. The actual source of the tension remains entirely unaddressed.
The mechanism does not require conscious coordination. It emerges naturally from the dynamics of frightened social groups, which is precisely what makes it so reliable and so dangerous.
“Pandemic of the unvaccinated” told a frightened, frustrated population that their ongoing fear had a human cause and a human face. The problem was not the virus, not the institutional failures, not the gap between what was promised and what was delivered. The problem was the people who had refused. Who had been selfish. Who had prolonged the pandemic through their stubbornness and their irresponsibility.
This reframing accomplished several things simultaneously.
It redirected blame. The anger that might have been directed at the institutions that had overpromised and underdelivered was channelled instead toward neighbours, family members, colleagues.
It reinforced the binary. There were two kinds of people, the responsible and the irresponsible, the compliant and the dangerous. This binary made ambivalence socially impossible. You were on one side or the other.
It gave the anxiety of the vaccinated a socially sanctioned outlet. The relief of having something to be angry at, something human and proximate and theoretically controllable, was immense. And the anger was performed publicly, which added social reward to the emotional relief.
And it was wrong.
The data that was already available and that the institutions promoting this phrase had access to showed that vaccinated individuals were transmitting the virus. The framing was not merely misleading. It was a deliberate choice to assign causation to a group when the causal picture was far more complicated.
But its psychological function did not require factual accuracy.
It required emotional plausibility in a population that was frightened, exhausted, and desperate for the story to have a villain that was not the story itself.
It found that plausibility.
And the people who bore the cost of it, the unvaccinated who were excluded, defamed, fired, and in some cases denied medical care, paid a real price for a lie that served the interests of institutions unwilling to account honestly for their own failures.
That is the scapegoat mechanism.
As old as human society.
Dressed in the language of public health.
Putin only cares about oil prices, getting sanctions lifted, and blocking aid and putting pressure on Ukraine. The worse Russia is doing in Ukraine, the more Ukraine strikes Russian energy, the more Putin will use Trump to seek relief.
Russia is murdering Ukrainians every day, bombing civilians in cities. Intentionally, a campaign of terror. And we're supposed to take these calls seriously when it's all garbage. Putin and Trump have always been on the same side and it's not America's or the free world's.
Summits, peace talks, negotiations, everything involving the US and Russia together has been a sham. A few business deals for their oligarchs and cronies, but otherwise just a show to avoid US aid, European action, and Ukrainian strikes. Congress & EU have abetted the charade.
Lorsqu’en 1982, Yeshayahou Leibowitz jette le mot "Judéo-nazis" au visage de la société israélienne, il ne cherche pas l’insulte, il pratique une amputation sans anesthésie."
Pour ce juif orthodoxe, le danger n’était pas seulement l’occupation des territoires, mais la gangrène spirituelle d'un peuple qui, à force de sacraliser sa terre et sa puissance militaire, risquait d'en oublier son humanité.
Leibowitz n'est pas un révolutionnaire. Celui qui lance cet anathème c'est un homme à l'austérité de vieux savant, dont le crâne est en permanence couvert d'une kippa noire qu'il portait non par mysticisme mais par pure discipline religieuse.
Some Inventions by Black Inventors.
A THREAD!
A THREAD!
12 year old enslaved boy, Edmond Albius, invented the technique that made the vanilla industry possible. He revolutionized the cultivation of vanilla.
He made it possible for us to enjoy treats like Vanilla Ice Cream!
He made it possible for us to enjoy treats like Vanilla Ice Cream!
George Crum invented the Potato chips. Thanks to him, our mindless television watching became a bit more delicious!
General Valerii Zaluzhnyi, former Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and current Ambassador to the UK:
Due to scientific and technological progress, it has become impossible, regardless of what others may claim, to carry out operational-level tasks. 1/12
Due to scientific and technological progress, it has become impossible, regardless of what others may claim, to carry out operational-level tasks. 1/12
An operational task is not a fight for two houses or even for a small town over the course of a year. Operational execution means achieving large-scale results within a short period of time, advancing 150, 200, even 250 kilometers. 2/12
Today, that is no longer possible. Because of technological developments, such outcomes are effectively unattainable. 3/12
@RepTimKennedy NON ! France did if (ALONE) FOR YOU !
And you still don't speak french : we are so nice, We do not force our allies, whom we have helped, to speak our french language* (shame, it make smart, this is why it's difficult), submit to our economy, or ...
1/n
And you still don't speak french : we are so nice, We do not force our allies, whom we have helped, to speak our french language* (shame, it make smart, this is why it's difficult), submit to our economy, or ...
1/n
@RepTimKennedy We do not force our allies […] nor prioritize our "genius" at the expense of theirs; unlike the British and... the Americans do, and dare to pretend to be "the best" after that.
2/n
2/n
@RepTimKennedy Unfortunately we didn't, and we still do not !
Because our allies use every opportunity to betray us (in Africa now, taking advantage of the chaos created by Russia with joy from our "friends and allies" British & USA against our interest) ...
3/n
Because our allies use every opportunity to betray us (in Africa now, taking advantage of the chaos created by Russia with joy from our "friends and allies" British & USA against our interest) ...
3/n
Claude Opus 4.7 isn’t a coding tool.
It’s a thinking partner most people are using completely wrong.
And that mistake is costing them hours every day.
Even Andrej Karpathy thinks differently about this.
Here’s how to actually use it (9 tweets):
It’s a thinking partner most people are using completely wrong.
And that mistake is costing them hours every day.
Even Andrej Karpathy thinks differently about this.
Here’s how to actually use it (9 tweets):
Most people still treat Claude Opus 4.7 like this:
“write this function”
“fix this bug”
“explain this code”
That’s not leverage.
That’s just faster Googling.
The real shift?
👉 You don’t use AI.
👉 You direct intelligence.
“write this function”
“fix this bug”
“explain this code”
That’s not leverage.
That’s just faster Googling.
The real shift?
👉 You don’t use AI.
👉 You direct intelligence.
Stop asking for outputs.
Start giving ownership + context.
Bad prompt:
“Build a login system”
Better:
“You are a senior backend engineer. Design a scalable auth system for a SaaS with 10k users/day. Prioritize security + simplicity.”
Now it thinks, not just responds.
Start giving ownership + context.
Bad prompt:
“Build a login system”
Better:
“You are a senior backend engineer. Design a scalable auth system for a SaaS with 10k users/day. Prioritize security + simplicity.”
Now it thinks, not just responds.
It's genuinely wild how much "detox" content ignores binding.
Sweating or lemon water doesn't remove toxins.
This 6-ingredient morning drink chemically binds heavy metals, glyphosate, and mycotoxins, then removes them.
Recipe + why: (1/17)
Sweating or lemon water doesn't remove toxins.
This 6-ingredient morning drink chemically binds heavy metals, glyphosate, and mycotoxins, then removes them.
Recipe + why: (1/17)
We are exposed to more toxins today than at any point in human history: heavy metals, mycotoxins, glyphosate, VOCs, plastics, biotoxins, etc.
Our bodies were designed to metabolize toxins, but chronic exposure at this scale overwhelms the system.
Our bodies were designed to metabolize toxins, but chronic exposure at this scale overwhelms the system.
When your detox pathways become overwhelmed, toxins can't leave anymore, so they recirculate and accumulate in fat, organs, and brain tissue.
This drives the brain fog, fatigue, and the hormonal chaos.
You need binders to step in and flush them out.
This drives the brain fog, fatigue, and the hormonal chaos.
You need binders to step in and flush them out.
Excellent summary, please read.
Couple of points that should concern all ABs...
While our Premier wants more private insurance:
"One estimate puts the profits of the top seven publicly traded insurance companies at $71 billion in 2024...
1/4policyalternatives.ca/news-research/…
This is one of the reasons that the United States far outspends other high-income countries on health care as a share of GDP."
2/4
2/4
"The average American pays more than $17,000 for health care annually, which does not include insurance premiums that they and their employers pay, as well as co-payments, deductibles, and the taxes that fund Medicare, Medicaid, and other public programs."
3/4
3/4
@Ceuta18 @thedailybeast Ok crétin ! Encore une petite bite, content de ce "French Bashing" sur Tiwtter/X, pendant que sa femme se fait baiser par un British.
1/3
1/3
@Ceuta18 @thedailybeast Sans la France, les USA n'existeraient pas et toi non plus.
Le South-Canada aurait un Gouverneur nommé par Charles III & serait peuplé de 25 millions d'habitants.
2/3
Le South-Canada aurait un Gouverneur nommé par Charles III & serait peuplé de 25 millions d'habitants.
2/3
@Ceuta18 @thedailybeast Admettant que tu sois tout de même "là" (1e-10000000000000000000% chance ça se produise), ta femme serait aussi en train de se faire démonter par un British.
Allez ducon, parle français comme ton peuple libérateur, ça te rendra intelligent.
3/3
Allez ducon, parle français comme ton peuple libérateur, ça te rendra intelligent.
3/3
Introducing Moonlake's 3D Agent.
Our agent acts like a technical artist that can build and reconstruct articulated assets and large-scale editable scenes with hundreds of objects from a single image and can improve its generations continuously.
Learn more in the thread below.
Our agent acts like a technical artist that can build and reconstruct articulated assets and large-scale editable scenes with hundreds of objects from a single image and can improve its generations continuously.
Learn more in the thread below.
Since last month when we released an early preview of our agent, we've been collecting datasets of reasoning trajectories on world-building workflows. Today, we're bringing Blender computer use capabilities to it to automate real work and unlock more time for creative work.
It can model assets from scratch, with separate parts and articulation without relying on any pre-defined rules.
Lieber @BWEeV, ich denke, ich bin unverdächtig, etwas gegen Windenergie zu haben. Diesen "Faktencheck" halte ich aber für irreführend. Wenn ein Engpass im Stromnetz besteht, muss eine Erzeugungsanlage auf der einen Seite runtergefahren, auf der anderen hochgefahren werden. 1/
Die abgeregelten EE erhalten eine Kompensation in Höhe der entgangenen Marktprämie/Förderung (die nur für tatsächlich eingespeisten Strom ausgezahlt wird) und zusätzlich evtl. eine Erstattung für Ersatzbeschaffung. Je nach Strompreis kann die entgangene Förderung sogar 0 sein. 3/