ah, Deutsche-Welle, Germany’s NPR. they are really good, and they publish articles too.

https://www.dw.com/

This is great (Wiley). Thanks!

note that this is a video channel that doesn’t seem to produce articles. every single piece on the frontpage is clickbait. Let’s see if they’re also BS.

The End of Israel: The Ultimate Evidence
You won’t see this on the BBC or CNN

This is just what every Lemming knows about Israel already + “no apartheid could possibly endure”. The video ends on “When and how the system of ethnic supremacy in the eastern Mediterranean comes to an end is impossible to foresee, but end it will.”

I see no original research.

British Journalist UNCOVERS SHOCKING Iran War COVER-UP
You won’t see this on the BBC or CNN
Peter Oborne, US Politics, Global Politics

This is just “British journalism is bad”, illustrated with examples from Daily Mail, Telegraph, BBC. I mean, you’re not wrong, but…

No revelations here. The Guardian isn’t even mentioned and I think The Guardian is still pretty good.

Domestic UK affairs are undeserving of the label “Global Politics” and absolutely not “US politics”.

At this point I don’t want to analyze more videos. I’ll just post the headlines of the other four pieces on the frontpage.

HE’S ACTUALLY DOING IT: Trump, Israel, and the End of the Global Economy
The ULTIMATE Betrayal
Richard Sanders - US Politics, Global Politics

Lowkey EXPOSES Trump’s Iran War for Israel
Lowkey EXPOSES Trump’s Iran War for Israel
Lowkey - US Politics, Global Politics

Iran War EXPOSED: The Video Trump Doesn’t Want You To See
How Trump BETRAYED America for Israel
Matt Kennard - US Politics, Global Politics

Why Trump REALLY Attacked Iran
The Chilling Truth Behind Trump’s Dark Agenda
Lowkey - US Politics, Global Politics

note this neat, website-exclusive disclosure:

The views expressed in this video belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of DDN.

unwilling to take accountability, DDN’s editorial board does not seem strong.

This is targeted towards industrial needs so I doubt it’d be available for consumer purchase (, just industry purchase).

Can anyone verify the post’s “16 years (6,000 cycles)” claim? I have access to the paper’s content and I don’t see either figure. In fact, even its abstract says “more than 950 cycles”.

I’m guessing you have examples? I don’t see anything I wouldn’t expect in the closeup in https://www.nickiswift.com/1909492/plastic-surgeon-trump-ear-injury-one-year-after-butler-shooting/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/karoline-leavitt-shots-fired/

TL;DR: the press secretary used the slang meaning “trump’s fiery speech at the dinner will absolutely annihilate our enemy journalists (with jabs)”

sauce?

I don’t see anything to suggest it was deflected rather than a straight path

thanks. I’m still confused by how people call it a “stray bullet” though; it was the attempted assassin’s bullet aimed at Trump and hit Trump although not in the temple intended. To be a stray bullet the target would’ve been someone other than Trump.

Note that Crooks is the name of the attempted assassin, not the secret service. He fired at him so I would not call it a stray bullet.

where can I find this final conclusion?

I don’t remember Trump as being “just fine”. I remember a very visible bandage on his ear for weeks.

Edit: Am I wrong? His bandage at the Republican Convention was all over the news and a MAGA fashion trend. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4795636-trump-without-bandage-ear/ 26-13 days is two weeks.

And though the https://www.nickiswift.com/1909492/plastic-surgeon-trump-ear-injury-one-year-after-butler-shooting/ article is tabloid, it has a great closeup of the war. See it for yourself how obviously wrong the ear looks a year after it was shot. No evidence has been presented that he was “just fine”.

I don’t like the conspiracy theories going on here. If it were staged, why would the gunman be off-camera to fire the shots? Wouldn’t we get more dramatic imagery? Everything in the footage seems awkward, not like tense danger. Trump doesn’t even realize (not to mention react) when the shots are fired (which, btw, were in the hallway outside just in case this is how somebody learns that this happened) until 20 seconds after.

A society with an endless deluge of information increasingly known as “may contain distortions of reality” tends to make anyone lose their minds, one way or another.

sauce? there is zoomed-in footage of blood soon after the audible batch of shots.

The bullet that grazed Trump’s ear has been analyzed to death as too close to be fatal from the gunman’s distance to reliably stage. There are numerous more plausible explanations than the one the video puts forward.

1. It is obvious that there might be good-looking photos if you take enough of them at any historical event. We already know that GOP campaigners cunningly used the assassination to their advantage for propaganda; the staffer is simply realizing that photos off the vent should be taken.
2. At the end it looks more like he’s telling the photographers to keep their distance and pulling them away from Trump. There is absolutely no way he can see the camera viewfinder from such a distance, which is needed to decide on how to adjust the framing as the video purports he’s doing.
3. The flag is simply being seen from a different angle. Throughout the video, the cameraman is approaching the gates, and then he tilts the camera upwards and then downwards. The former brings the flag into view and the latter is why the flag also looks like it’s being raised right after 0:36. Cross-reference the footage with https://www.youtube.com/live/Rr63RgGN-Yo?t=24263 (in both footage you see an agent go to the outermost. in the long livestream this is immediately followed by an agent waving Trump’s red cap.), a wide view, and the flag seems static.

Note that though it has found lots of security-sensitive bugs, Anthropic Mythos has yet to find a zero-day.

yes, you’re creating a derivative work that is entirely GPL. note that this doesn’t stop anyone from consulting the original since FOSS licenses do not have revocation. if they use none of the GPL derivative work they can still only abide by MIT. however, your changes would only exist in the GPL work, and they must be used with GPL.

The Great Gatsby. Its last page makes a killing, pun intended.

The MIT is what’s called a permissive license.

Copyright <YEAR> <COPYRIGHT HOLDER>

Permission is hereby granted , free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the “Software”), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense , and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

That’s the entirety of the text. You can do pretty much anything as long as you make sure the first line is still visible somewhere (and if you’re not incorporating/relicensing it into GPL, you have to include the MIT license text as well; I’m less sure about how this parenthetical works but I do know an MIT project relicensed to GPL needs not include the MIT text), which in GPL it is.

https://choosealicense.com/licenses/mit/

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#%3A~%3Atext=Expat)-,This%20is%20a%20lax%2C%20permissive%20non%2Dcopyleft%20free%20software%20license%2C%20compatible%20with%20the%20GNU%20GPL.,-Some