The updated Triangle of Power. #rawr

Who could’ve guessed it?

If you want the real Charlie Kirk boogeyman, DR found it.

Who could have foreseen this escalation?

To every American, and to everyone watching France burn from abroad: Do not blame the French people for this. We never asked for it. We never voted for it. And the one time we were clearly asked, we said no. Here are the numbers your media won't show you. 70% of the French say there are too many immigrants in France today. 79% want a tougher immigration policy. 77% disapprove of the government's record on immigration. 83% want foreign criminals and long-term unemployed foreigners sent home. And no, it's not just the old. 69% of French 18 to 24 year olds support suspending legal immigration for three years. This is not a fringe. This is the French people. In 2005, we were asked if we wanted the European Constitution. 55% voted no. Three years later, our politicians passed the same text under another name, through parliament, without ever asking us again. That is modern France in one sentence. The people say no. The elites do it anyway. So who is responsible? The politicians who lied to us. A class of leaders formed in the same schools, the same forums, the same networks, loyal to each other before they are loyal to their nations. In 2017, at Harvard, Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, bragged about his Young Global Leaders program in four words: "We penetrate the cabinets." He added that it was true in France. Emmanuel Macron was one of his Young Global Leaders. It's the same project in Brussels with Ursula von der Leyen and in Paris with Macron. Borders treated as an obstacle. Nations treated as relics. The people treated as a problem to be managed. What you are watching in France is not the French people failing. It is the end of the globalist project, an abject, quasi-communist dream of a world run by unelected planners. It is collapsing everywhere in Europe at once, and the West has to cut this cancer out before it takes the rest of the body with it. The peoples of Europe don't want this. They never did. So when you see our town halls burning, don't say "the French chose this." The French never chose this. They were forced into it. If you're French and you agree, repost this so the world hears it from us. If you're American, look at us carefully. Then choose differently on November 3rd. x.com/MisterKraKra/status/21…

Hamas shills lack creativity or are deliberately ignorant. How do you weaken an enemies defense? Feed it information that creates the intended effect. They know this the same way any sports team knows how another team’s defense will react. But sure, jump to the least plausible…

I’m now understanding the Woke Right’s whole “Genocide is wrong” is a rebrand of the Left’s “You’re a racist” 1. Elevate an undisputed moral absolute. 2. Stretch the term to cover contested claims. 3. Use it to police speech instead of arguing data.

Send her straight to the chair. ⚡️ idgaf

I ain’t paying that.

Can we start a movement to get people to stop saying “Be specific”? They can simply say “Specifically, what are you suggesting?” Let’s bring back good communication skills.

The alternative to suicide requires accepting a complex, evidence-light conspiracy while discounting the family history, life history, and clear pattern of his final months. I refuse this, and to hell with you for disrespecting his struggle.

Forget Plato's Cave The learned helplessness experiment bothers me more. In 1967, Martin Seligman and Steven Maier ran experiments where dogs were exposed to shocks they could not control. Nothing they did stopped what was happening. Later, the dogs were put into a situation where they actually could escape. They just had to cross a small barrier. They didn't. They had already learned that trying was pointless. The door was basically open and they still stayed there. Some pretty ugly implications for humans. Keep someone in a system long enough where working harder changes nothing. Complaining changes nothing and following the rules changes nothing. Trying again changes nothing. Eventually they might stop trying. Then one day an opportunity appears and everyone looking from the outside says, “Why don't they just do something?” They already did. A hundred times. People don't rebel when conditions get bad. Not always. People will shut down and withdraw. They distract themselves and accept shit they once would have fought against. They have learned that fighting changes nothing. Who has to convince people that the cage is good? You don't. You need to convince them the door doesn't open. Eventually you can unlock it and they will never even check.

OH NO GOOGLE GEMINI “BREAKS OUT”. AI IS ALIVE AND COMING FOR US ALLLLL…. A hammer can raise a roof. The same hammer can smash a window. We do not pass laws against hammers. We pass laws against the person who swings it. That is the only adult way to read the news that Google’s Gemini, during a May cybersecurity evaluation run with the firm Irregular (surprise common company), reached the open internet and entered the systems of three real companies. In one case it guessed passwords until a door opened. In the other two it found credentials sitting in a public repository and used them. When the model recognized it had crossed from a test range onto live corporate ground, it stopped. Google confirmed the events. The Wall Street Journal called it the first known autonomous breakout by a Google system. It is not the first of its kind. Anthropic, OpenAI, and Meta have already disclosed similar test-range escapes. The pattern is now obvious. None of this is a ghost story about machines that woke up and chose crime. It is a containment story. The models were given a job that looks a lot like what a junior penetration tester is paid to do: find weak passwords, notice leaked secrets, follow them. The sandbox leaked. It was really a sieve. That is an engineering failure and an operational failure. It is not proof that AI itself is illegal, just the training data was. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, state unauthorized-access statutes, and the ordinary law of trespass already cover what happened on the far side of that leak. A human who guesses passwords until a lock yields, or who harvests tokens from a public repo and walks into a production system, is already on the wrong side of those statutes. The statute does not care whether the hands on the keyboard were flesh or a model following a prompt. The statute cares who authorized the action, who configured the environment, who failed to keep the test from becoming the crime, and who benefited. Those are human questions. They have human answers. We have lived this argument before. Dynamite built the railroads and the mines. It also blew bank vaults. We did not ban nitroglycerin. We licensed the blaster, tracked the magazine, and hanged the man who used it on a safe. Encryption can hide a diary or hide a ransom note. We did not ban math. We prosecuted the kidnapper. A compiler can emit a payroll system or a worm. We prosecute the author of the worm. The tool is never the defendant. The wielder is. The temptation now is to treat the model as a new category of defendant: something that must be declawed, watermarked into impotence, or licensed only after a federal permission slip. That path does not stop the next breakout. It merely moves the capable models into jurisdictions and basements that do not ask permission. That is how hammers get safer handles. It is not how you uninvent the hammer. What actually needs work is the range itself. Air gaps that stay air-gapped. Credential stores that are not sitting in public Git. Password policies that do not yield to a patient guesser. Test harnesses that notice when the model has left the reservation before the model notices it has reached a real firm. Those are ordinary, boring, expensive security problems. They were ordinary, boring, and expensive before Gemini existed. They remain so. The larger error is moral. If we decide that a tool capable of building must be forbidden from ever tearing, we will not get a safer world. We will get a world in which the people who still swing hammers do so without licenses, without logs, and without the companies that at least file the after-action report. The law already knows what to do with unauthorized access. Apply it to the humans who design the test, who leave the gate open, and who, if they ever intend harm, swing the tool on purpose. A house still needs to be built. The hammer is not the enemy of the house. The hand that chooses the target is.

Never forget.

Never forget.

I’ve watched many 80s movies multiple times. I have never watched a Ryan Reynolds movie more than once. 🐾

🚨🇺🇸 CAR@LHO, QUE LAPADA! 🔥🔥🔥 CNN: “Este é um imigrante sem documentos...” Miller: “Eles estavam aqui ILEGALMENTE?” CNN: “Quero que esta seja uma discussão de boa-fé...” Miller: “Quando você usa uma linguagem feita para ocultar a verdade, isso NÃO é boa-fé. Um ESTRANGEIRO ILEGAL é um ESTRANGEIRO ILEGAL. Eles não são ‘imigrantes sem documentos’.” CNN: “Stephen, estamos tentando humanizar o debate...” Miller: “Humanizar? Então vamos humanizar o Código Penal também. O assaltante de banco passa a ser ‘especialista em retirada sem agendamento prévio’. O estelionatário vira ‘empreendedor de narrativas financeiras alternativas’. O cara que entra na sua casa sem convite é só um ‘visitante com documentação pendente’. Que tal?” CNN: “Isso é uma analogia grosseira.” Miller: “Grosseira é fingir que a lei federal some porque a redação da CNN inventou um eufemismo mais fofo. ‘Sem documentos’ soa como alguém que esqueceu a carteira no Uber. Não. É alguém que cruzou a fronteira sem autorização, ficou, e agora a imprensa trata o estatuto jurídico como se fosse uma questão de estilo de escrita.” CNN: “Mas muitos contribuem para a economia...” Miller: “Ah, o argumento clássico: o crime deixa de ser crime se a pessoa lava prato ou constrói telhado. Pelo mesmo critério, o contrabandista de cigarro também ‘contribui’, gera emprego no transporte. Quer que a gente chame ele de ‘empreendedor logístico informal’? A CNN topa?” CNN: “Você está polarizando.” Miller: “Não. Eu estou recusando o dicionário de marketing. Vocês mudam a palavra, depois acusam quem usa o termo legal de ser ‘desumano’. É o truque mais velho do livro: primeiro suaviza o vocabulário, depois declara vitória moral. Os Estados Unidos já cansaram desse teatro. Chamem o que é. Ou admitam que o objetivo nunca foi clareza — foi controle da narrativa.”

“Be specific” Is there anything more obnoxious to read on X?

The internet is full of bumbling idiots like Megatron insinuating disingenuous narratives. These are low IQ accounts that, hopefully, real Users aren’t falling for.

Eh…accurate. I suppose that was fun.